Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

alac.macosforge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 182 posts

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#101

Post by jhuni »

kahawe wrote: post #97
tiles wrote: post #7

For those unfamiliar with the site, MacOSForge is an official Apple site which hosts repositories for code included in OS X (see http://www.opensource.apple.com/ and the sidebar) The announcement with timestamp for today is on the homepage: http://www.macosforge.org/

I don't know why Apple has gotten THAT much flak for allegedly being totally closed and locking you down worse than Microsoft did back in the dark ages etc. Yes, they have certain core products which are their own and they don't open them up and the locking down of their iPhones, well, it could be a blessing and a curse. I will only say that from the perspective of a regular customer, the quality control done on apps…

The problem is that Apple's business model is based upon selling artificially scarce content (music, applications, etc) over closed and restrictive platforms. A couple of open products isn't going to change their fundamental business model.

The argument that "Apple is just a business" doesn't hold weight for me either because there are clearly superior business models out their like Google's which is based upon free software (linux) and intelligent cloud services (search).

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#102

Post by cabirum »

angus77 wrote: post #39

Is there an advantage to this for someone who owns no Apple products and has no iTunes account? EDIT: Looking at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_compa... it looks like the only clear advantage ALAC has is iTunes/iDevice support. FLAC has faster encoding/decoding speeds, and it's unknown if ALAC has error handling (which FLAC has). FLAC also supports RIFF chunks, has pipe support and is ReplayGa…

The FLAC repository havent been updated for two years.. Shouldn't it be called dead?

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#103

Post by BitMastro »

angus77 wrote: post #39

Is there an advantage to this for someone who owns no Apple products and has no iTunes account? EDIT: Looking at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_compa... it looks like the only clear advantage ALAC has is iTunes/iDevice support. FLAC has faster encoding/decoding speeds, and it's unknown if ALAC has error handling (which FLAC has). FLAC also supports RIFF chunks, has pipe support and is ReplayGa…

Unfortunately I'm getting more and more biased against Apple these days, but then why they didn't use FLAC from the beginning? The FLAC format was stable from 2001 and Apple introduced ALAC in 2004, was it just as a way to be able to use DRM?

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#104

Post by polshaw »

sjwright wrote: post #79
splicer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only buy lossless music. I usually end up buying WAV/AIFF/FLAC direct from the artist, from their record label, or from Beatport. Once in a while, if I can't find something, I'll buy it on CD. Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwsUfEvmKwI Lossy formats are useless to me since I can't remix them without it…

> Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception. The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasin…

> Digital music is technically superior to bumps on a plastic disc

What you completely failed to realise, is that technical superiority is not the only factor as to how music sounds.

CD mastering these days is almost invariably awful. The real advantage to vinyl (which comes partly because it is a niche format, and partly because of how it is made) is that it has better mastering. This is not subtle on anything better than PC speakers.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#105

Post by kahawe »

jhuni wrote: post #101
kahawe wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why Apple has gotten THAT much flak for allegedly being totally closed and locking you down worse than Microsoft did back in the dark ages etc. Yes, they have certain core products which are their own and they don't open them up and the locking down of their iPhones, well, it could be a blessing and a curse. I will only say that from the perspective of a regular customer, the quality control done on apps…

The problem is that Apple's business model is based upon selling artificially scarce content (music, applications, etc) over closed and restrictive platforms. A couple of open products isn't going to change their fundamental business model. The argument that "Apple is just a business" doesn't hold weight for me either because there are clearly superior business models out their like Google's which is based upon free…

I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies. I do not see anything "scarce" here at all. And I can play music in pretty much all popular formats I got from elsewhere on iTunes and iPod just fine. And now the music from the iTunes store is not DRM locked-down anymore either.

And you are comparing apples and oranges with Google here. Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model. And what benefit do I as a customer directly gain from google using Linux as a foundation? As long as their servers work, I am pretty much unaffected by the platform. Apple is using BSD as a foundation in OS X, so? And there are open source components available. Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?

What makes google a "clearly superior business model"? Just because Linux is "cool"? Last time I checked, Apple is doing pretty well and has been consistently so over the last years so I doubt their business model needs to be replaced.

I am glad Apple is getting more popular because finally there is some real actual competition in the consumer sector. And for each of their products, there are just as excellent alternatives available so I am not being forced or locked down on anything. I can take my contacts, pictures, videos and music with me, it is pretty much all available or exportable in(to) standardized formats.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#106

Post by sjwright »

polshaw wrote: post #104
sjwright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception. The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasin…

> Digital music is technically superior to bumps on a plastic disc What you completely failed to realise, is that technical superiority is not the only factor as to how music sounds. CD mastering these days is almost invariably awful. The real advantage to vinyl (which comes partly because it is a niche format, and partly because of how it is made) is that it has better mastering. This is not subtle on anything bette…

> What you completely failed to realise

...is that you're going to invent quotes? Nice.

> [Vinyl] has better mastering

A common myth -- google it. For music produced in the past decade, it's exceptionally rare for a vinyl mastering to be superior to the 16/44.1 digital release. Of course there's always exceptions to prove the rule, but the rule is definitely not as you assert.

> partly because of how it is made

Because of how it is made, a vinyl release is often the same master as the CD but with an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This unquestionably degrades the quality of the vinyl master, and is done to stop the cutting head coils from literally burning up.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#107

Post by darklajid »

cabirum wrote: post #102
angus77 wrote: post #39

Is there an advantage to this for someone who owns no Apple products and has no iTunes account? EDIT: Looking at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_compa... it looks like the only clear advantage ALAC has is iTunes/iDevice support. FLAC has faster encoding/decoding speeds, and it's unknown if ALAC has error handling (which FLAC has). FLAC also supports RIFF chunks, has pipe support and is ReplayGa…

The FLAC repository havent been updated for two years.. Shouldn't it be called dead?

What is the newest mp3 "format feature" you're using?

From which git repository do you clone your encoding software?

Have you used WAV files recently? I haven't read about major progress on that front either.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#108

Post by sjwright »

cies wrote: post #99
sjwright wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception. The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasin…

one thing lossy formats do really bad at: speeding it up and down. (because they remove 'unhearable' sound artifacts -- that become hearable at different speeds) big slowdowns also sound 'ugly' with lossless formats (a 44kHz sampled track at half the speed is only 22kHz). but who plays a track at halfspeed..? :) i dont want to make a case for vinyl -- sjwright has given a nice overview of arguments against it, that i…

There's nothing the vinyl pressing process can do to a digital sound source that can't be modelled in a purely digital environment.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#109

Post by sjwright »

buro9 wrote: post #95
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think you could hear the difference between 256kbps AAC and Lossless? Even if your hearing is way above average, most audio players and earphones aren't that good. (Also, given the less-than-subtle music you linked to, I doubt that it really matters.)

I can. It depends on how well you know the album, what the music is. Try Paper Tiger by Beck off of Sea Change... strings and bass at the same time is challenging to lossy compression. Try Page One by Charlatans off of Between 10th and 11th... same problem. I don't use an iPod for that reason. I have an external sound card and use Fidelia on my Mac for that reason. I own good headphones for that reason. When you list…

Try doing a double-blind ABX test and then you can discuss your ability to do what has flummoxed all but the most insanely acute 'golden ears'.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#110

Post by jhuni »

kahawe wrote: post #105
jhuni wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Apple's business model is based upon selling artificially scarce content (music, applications, etc) over closed and restrictive platforms. A couple of open products isn't going to change their fundamental business model. The argument that "Apple is just a business" doesn't hold weight for me either because there are clearly superior business models out their like Google's which is based upon free…

I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies. I do not see anything "scarce" here at all. And I can play music in pretty much all popular formats I got from elsewhere on iTunes and iPod just fine. And now the music from the iTunes store is not DRM locked-down anymore either. And you are comparing apples and oranges with Google he…

Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?

No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer. I don't install proprietary software on any of my computers, because of security. If the software I install isn't open then it could do anything without out my knowledge, including restrict me through DRM.

Just because Linux is "cool"?

Linux is not "cool." To anyone who has used the Lisp machines, all modern operating systems look the basically the same. They are all crappy UNIX derivatives.

The difference is Linux is open, which is necessary prerequisite for security, which is precisely why most foreign governments use it, they don't want to open up their vital computer systems to sabotage.

Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model.

If Apple just sold physical hardware that would be fine. But that just isn't the case. The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.

The proprietary software that Apple sells not only is a security threat, the malicious features they have are well known:

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple

I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies.

The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/22/content_2728356...

Post reply on HN