First Look: Apple Lossless Audio, Apple Options

[_news_]

Comments about:

First Look: Apple Lossless Audio

[proudestmonkey]

Where there is a lot of layering in a song, I think its worth it. Or where the production quality of the original is so pristine, AAC just doesn't cut it. Two good examples are Radiohead's Amnesiac and Beck's Mellow Gold. Amnesiac has never sounded tolerable in either mp3 or AAC format, at any bit rate. But in lossless, it is, well, lossless. Good as the original. I imagine this is due to the number of discrete tracks involved in many of the songs, but I can't say for sure. With Mellow Gold, the high quality of the production of the original just makes compression more noticeable. Compare this with some old Rolling Stones songs. I couldn't really tell much of a difference between lossless and AAC. By the way, these songs are being played on a G5, out through an M-Audio Delta 44 card, to a Mackie Analog Mixer, to an Alesis 100 Amp, to a pair of Audix Studio monitors. Not the best professional home studio gear, but not too bad either.

[_h. hey_]

heynessone@yahoo.com

The real question for anyone making decisions about audio codec is 'where are you listening to this music?'
If you are walking around town with your ipod, driving in your car, sitting on an airplane, or otherwise generally in transit I don't believe that you will be able to discern the difference between AAC and AIFF. Most folks are listening on headphones that wouldn't allow you to hear the details that exist in a well recorded and mixed full-code audio stream. Certainly the included ipod headphones don't. It is true that Itunes (and downloadable audio formats for that matter) is starting to take it's place as a primary listening format in some circles. IF you are one of the smaller percentage that is listening on high quality equipment in your home then you could potentially hear the difference with the lossless format -- although if you are listening to current 'pop radio' hits only, they have taken any dynamic guesswork out if it for you and it will most likely sound exactly the same on just about any system.

If you are grabbing the pod and running off to the gym. . forget it. Just enjoy the portability.

hh - nyc

[peterkirn]

Yes, I think that's a good point. But that's all the more reason to appreciate Apple giving us increasing options. For pro audio performance situations and listening to the occasional track in lossless (I carry around Sennheiser noise-reducing headphones that give a little more detail than the iPod buds), Lossless is terrific.

[_Dan_]

For the vast majority of recording/passable lossy format combinations, nobody is able (even with the best equipment) in double-blind testing to reliably tell which is the high-bitrate lossy encoded version and which is the lossless version. That isn't to say that there isn't a difference or that absolutely none of the extra information preserved is audible to any listeners, but still, for one-time listening purposes, if the compression rate matters at all, you're generally better off to use a lossy format.

The primary advantage of a lossless codec - just like a lossless graphics format- is that it can be edited or reencoded without creating noticeable artifacts. If you are saving a photographic image for people to view on a bandwidth-sensitive web page, you will probably want to save it as a lossy jpeg- but you had better keep the much larger png, raw, or tiff lossless version of it around in case you ever want to edit it, resize it, save it as a different lossy format (jpeg2000?) which can achieve better compression, etc. Otherwise you will find that both the compressibility and image quality decline sharply. One oversimplifing and probably slightly misleading explanation: Any tiny difference for or in the lossy compressor will change which data it attempts to preserve and which it discards, and in a lossy file there's no way to tell what information is from the original image or recording and what is an artifact of the compression scheme. Likewise, for putting on your portable player, good lossy codecs such as AAC or Vorbis are your best bets- but you want to keep a lossless copy around in case you ever want to edit it, re-encode it, or whatever else.

[LikeANice1903]

I read the claim that few could hear the difference with the ACC and source, but within 40 seconds comparing them on my Digidesign MBox > Tannoy PBM5 monitors the difference was obvious. I should note I'm 45 and I'm betting that for folks half my age it's night and day for anyone with a serious interest in music and decent speakers.

I sit ripping to lossless now, listening on B&W 800s. These are great speakers and they're going in a big new room addition. It's looking like Lossless costs 33c per CD (x2 for backup) at current firewire drive prices...

Anyone suggest a DAC? Yes there are high end folks who worry about artifacts like transport jitter who would pupu the idea of iTunes into even a high end DAC, say via SPDIF. I'd be curious as to what folks are using. The MBox on its own sounds pretty bad in a/b tests to my old Sony 707ESD CD player.

[_thornrag_]

I read the claim that few could hear the difference with the ACC and source, but within 40 seconds comparing them on my Digidesign MBox > Tannoy PBM5 monitors the difference was obvious.

That would make you one of the few then, wouldn't it. Hooray!

I think the point is, if you're concerned about audio quality enough to be proud of the equipment you're using to play it back, then lossless is a no-brainer. Why would you even discuss AAC?

But for the *vast majority* ... AAC sounds great. At the office, in the car, on the train, or just in the background at home while you're shaving in the morning, AAC sounds just fine, and the capacity of an iPod is maximized. For a little garnish, maybe AAC at a higher bitrate is worth it. For those Sennheiser earbuds.

But for the hardcore audiophiles whose reputations are at stake, AAC is of course a terrible idea, and iTunes hasn't even been an option until the availability of lossless compression. In fact, for the hardcore audiophiles with a reputation and an unlimited budget, all of this is moot; the multi-terabyte RAID array is happily serving up uncompressed audio on a proprietary jukebox solution that makes no compromises in error correction or signal integrity.

But for the *vast majority* ... AAC is great.

[stink]

"Duran Duran's "Planet Earth" (4:03) is 40.9 MB - 1411 kbps in AIFF, and 29.2 MB - 1005 kbps imported in Apple Lossless audio."

"Apple Lossless provides full uncompressed CD quality audio in about half the space of the original file"

ok, about half of 40.9mb (AIFF, WAV, SDII) is not 29.2mb (Apple Lossless), it seems to be more like 3/4 the size, not half ...are you really saving much disk space? Does Toast, Jam or any other CD burning s/w recognize AppLos files?

I use an ProTools HD system with Genelecs and Adams spkrs and MOST material sonds pretty good at AAC (and it's 1/10 the file size). Of coarse none of these sounds as good as the original 24bit 88.2k files.

~Stink~

[_Ingimar_]

Ok, I work as an sound technician in Iceland, and at home I have Genelec monitors and play music through Digidesign Mbox interface. Until Apple Lossless came to be, I encoded all my music as AIFF, and I have a lot of original material in 24-bit format, so I was using a lot of space for my 2500 song collection. Now I encode everything using Apple Lossless, and I can say that the extra disk space I gain is definatly worth using the Apple Lossless codec I can hear the difference even using my iPod, but I use Sennheiser headphones, so I don´t know about how the difference is with the iPods headphones.. I would say for DJ´s who use mac´s to play the music this is a godsend, because mp3 and AAC files played through an expensive sound system at loud levels just doesn´t sound too good
Bottom line: A truly lossless encoder, and even the ten megabytes you save on each song count when you have many songs:) Great invention, and one of the best things about iTunes

[_Guest_]

Ok, I work as an sound technician in Iceland, and at home I have Genelec monitors and play music through Digidesign Mbox interface. Until Apple Lossless came to be, I encoded all my music as AIFF, and I have a lot of original material in 24-bit format, so I was using a lot of space for my 2500 song collection. Now I encode everything using Apple Lossless, and I can say that the extra disk space I gain is definatly worth using the Apple Lossless codec I can hear the difference even using my iPod, but I use Sennheiser headphones, so I don´t know about how the difference is with the iPods headphones.. I would say for DJ´s who use mac´s to play the music this is a godsend, because mp3 and AAC files played through an expensive sound system at loud levels just doesn´t sound too good
Bottom line: A truly lossless encoder, and even the ten megabytes you save on each song count when you have many songs:) Great invention, and one of the best things about iTunes

So, What are you saying is the Apple lossless is a good codec. Well I have a question. I have an iPod and all my music are in Apple Lossless. Now I use the iPod more in my car using interface cables connect to my Pioneer Radio, so I can hear the music on the car's speakers. The problem is the iPod skip songs once in a while because the Apple Lossless is a big format. What I would like to know is the AAC on the higher quality will sound good or at least closed to a CD quality?

[stink]

none of my audio apps support lossless files (or do they?). I dont want to go fro SDII to ALA (to save space) and then back to SDII just to save space. I back up all my sessions to DVD-R and put them back on the drive when i need to work with them again.

will prtools dp logic audio or live play lossless files???

[_Particle?_]

I may be out of place here, because you guys are some true audio nuts. I recently ran a comparison of my own. I ripped The Flaming Lips' "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" in Apple lossless, and the good ol' standby, 192kb MP3. I chose this album for it's clarity, frequency range, stereo effects (there are many), and it's awesomeness. Not very scientific, this measure of awesomeness, and maybe not even a word, but whatever

The lossless version weighed in at 325mb, while the MP3 version came in at 65.2mb. I loaded both versions on a 4G 40gb iPod and did a track by track comparison. I even shuffled them a bit to throw me off. I did this using a set of Sony EX71SL buds, and then tried again with a pair of Sony MDR-CD160 headphones. Neither of these are audiophile quality headphones, but I think you will all agree they are worlds better than the earphones the iPod comes with.

There was a definately a differance. Though I doubt I would be able to tell the differance in 90% of the situations where I am using my iPod.

I can't really see myself using this too much. The file sizes are black death on the iPod's battery life. As for archival on some sort of hard disk library, i'd rather store them at true lossless, uncompressed. Hard Disk space is cheap these days, and it's only going to get cheaper. I don't know if it's worth all the fuss to save 1/4 of the space (uncompressed, Yoshimi weighs in at 479.5mb).

I didn't set out to test the quality originally. There have been reports of audio problems with quite a few of the 4G 40gb iPods recently and I was looking to see if I had in fact purchased one of these problems. Thankfully, I got a good one.


That's my 2-cents I guess

[stink]

again, I encode in AAC for my iPod and iTunes. Any music I use for production is either 44.1/16 bit SDII/AIFF/WAVE or 88.2/24 bit. I can see using something like Apple Lossless if audio editing apps supported ALA. To my knowledge (and I haven't done any research), ProStools, Logic Audio, Digital Performer, Live and Final Scratch don't support Apple Lossless ...or do they/will they? If all DAWs supported ALA, I could see using it but there doesn't seem to be a market for it at this point.

Anyone care to fill me in ..and stop trying to say ALA, sounds better than mp3's and m4a's. Duh, of coarse they do, that was never my original argument.

Thomas java script:add_smilie(":rolleyes:")[B]

[_Syzygies_]

Anyone old enough to remember dot matrix printers? Before them, printing looked great. After them, printing looks great. They were a brief dark ages. How pathetic would it be to learn that your dad had a valuable library of books, paid someone to type each one into a computer, printed them out dot matrix, and threw out the books and the computer files?

In a few short years there will be no incentive to worry about the difference in file lengths, and advances in playback equipment will make it easy to hear the differences. Already, 200 GB hard disks can be had for $80 if you know where to shop. Anyone digitizing their CD collection would be making a giant mistake not to go lossless, then convert to a "working" lossy format for today's compromise players.

Old enough to have seen a few generations of these issues. I can hear it. Denial ain't a river in Africa.

[_Future Ipod Mini Owner_]

Which sounds better: Apple Lossless or 320 KBPS highest quality mp3? I initially encoded in the mp3 format, but am considering converting? Is it worth it? I am about to receive an Ipod mini and have the newest Bose Triport headphones (which are awesome). I have a good musical ear and can tell the difference between a good format and bad one, but want to have your opinions.

[Presto]

This is a bit late to answer FIMO. Anyway, if you convert from one compressed form to any other better form, the quality you get cannot be any better than the original file.

This post has been edited by Presto: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 21:33

[Presto]

Now I use the iPod more in my car using interface cables connect to my Pioneer Radio, so I can hear the music on the car's speakers. The problem is the iPod skip songs once in a while because the Apple Lossless is a big format. What I would like to know is the AAC on the higher quality will sound good or at least closed to a CD quality?

Do you listen with the car stopped, and engine not running? I don't know how good your equipment is but the best way to get an answer is: convert your best sounding CD to MP3 and stick it on a CD-R then see if you can tell the difference while you're driving. If not don't even try AAC, let alone lossless.

[_Brian Boru_]

Hi,
I am a self confessed hifi nut having spent a small fortune on my hifi. I also have a CD collection of some 250 CDS and recently I just purchased a 20gig iPod. At the moment, I am ripping my entire collection.....to AAC 192kbps. This is because a) if you're serious about the music, you'd buy the CD and hear it in best possible quality on your hifi, and b) there simply isn't enough space on a 20gig iPod for 250 CD's at Loseless. If you listen to your iPod when you are out and about, you will not notice the difference - the only place for serious music listening is at home in front of your stereo with a CD or some vinyl.

Thats my view on it anyway - it has taken me a while to embrace MP3 since by its very nature it is never going to sound as good as CD, but the ability to carry around my entire record collection wherever I go was just too appealing. That and the iPod is just so darn cool.

Ciao!

[johnnernie]

I have just conducted a listening test on a selection of CD's on my "low" end audio system (CD player: NAD 542; amp: NAD 320; speakers: KEF Q7) and AAF/Apple Lossless on a Mac G5 (iTunes). I am quite familiar with MP3 format and know its limitations.

I too have about 250 Cds and an iPod that I use in my car. I am in my late 40's with above average hearing, though with a mild mid-range drop off (get tested once per year for a Commercial Pilot's Licence). I have had musical training, though not now a musician. I listen to a range of music, baroque to rock

For this test I listened to Fazil Say: "Paganini Variations" (Black Earth album), Yo-Yo Ma & Bobby McFerrin: Vivaldi's "Andante" (Hush), Leonard Cohen "A Thousand Kisses Deep" (Ten New Songs). I was thinking of trying some heavy duty organ music - "Midnight at Notre Dame", but that album blows my speakers off the floor and wrecks the wine collection, and would not be a fair test.

My opinion - Apple Lossless is a very nice algorithm and if I was building a high end jukebox I would use it. AAF at 192 kps is quite close enough for music while I am working, or having guests. If I want to hear sound in the nth degree I slap a CD in the player and sit in front of the speakers and try to see if I can rattle the neighbours' windows (in the next zip code, mind

AAF is a nice compromise between size, performance and portability - and beats MP3...

/viz

[johnnernie]

Big blush... (much embarrassed) when reading AAF read AAC. Must have been thinking of a company here with that name!

/viz

[editbrain]

aaf is "advanced authoring format" used for transfer media file from one platform to another i.e. windows to mac.

aac on the other hand is the mpeg 4 layer for audio.

[pain]

Am I wrong or is ALE (Apple Lossless Encoding) the only "lossless" codec to support Embeded Metadata (AKA Tagging).?

[nutmilk]

At my company we HATE how Sound Ideas' General 6000 is still only available on clunky audio CDs. We are ripping the entire library to a hard disk and using iTunes as the librarian program. We decided to go with Apple's Lossless encoder not primarily to save disk space, but also because it stores the lengthy track descriptions, a must for sharing the files over a LAN and ensuring speedy transfer of the needed sound effects, and using iTunes' powerful search features.

Any objections?

[sethjacquay]

Does anyone know how Apple Lossless compares with FLAC?

[DougG]

The question no one has directly answered is.... Approx. how many songs can you put on a G4 20 GB ipod in either AIFF or Lossless?


To be honest I would rather go quality and remove 10 "cds" everyonce in a while. I am not as much into quantity as quality.

I have approx. 200 cds, but I proabably only want 75-100 to "travel" with me.

So there has to be someone who went 100% AIFF or Apple Lossless....

[Mark Tucker]

I am not sure about the apple lossless audio, but making some basic calculations on aiff, I reckon you would get about 40 albums on your 20GB iPod.

Hope that helps.....

[reddish]

ummmmmmmm 303 .aiff songs on my 30 gig iPod but the tracks were encoded at 48.000 khz, 16bit, stereo so they are a little big yours could differ depending on your level of encoding