Live data from Hacker News

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

alac.macosforge.org

111–120 of 182 posts

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

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Becau…

I paraphrased. It was done for brevity. Did i misrepresent the intent of your post?

I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?

Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music (IE. compressing the waveform 'up' does not make for a louder output, as what happens with the digital loudness wars-- thus is 'pointless'), because there is no 'reference point' (that is, you can't have a waveform offset, because the needle is already moving wherever to meet the waveform), you can only increase/decrease the dynamic range. Because of a greater difference in amplitude, it is easier to cut a record with a larger dynamic range.

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

#112
post #101
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…

No, look at the quarter results of Apple. Their revenue is selling hardware stuff. Digital content is relatively a small amount. I also find "artificially scarce" a very biased description. The App Store has an unbelievable positive impact on the developer ecosystem. And if books/gamecartridges/printed newspaper are replaced by digital stuff we shouldn't deride payment for that. Look at ebooks or Amazon kindle. These are good things. The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.

About Googles "superior business model": Ultimately it is just advertising. The product which is sold is you. I don't want to sound polemic, I have tons of respect for Google. But this is a strong realization most never make. Because of that I avoid to being to dependent on their services (maybe I will move my email from gmail to icloud).

EDIT:

Oh, never mind. I just read your other reply to kawahe. You clearly are enlightened and are not bound by the chains of tyranny. I am out of this discussion.

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

#113
post #8
post #2

What's the point of this over flac?

consumer products that actually support it?

FLAC has been supported by Rockbox http://www.rockbox.org/ since 2005.. I remember using it in my iriver H300, iPods were supported as well

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

#114
post #101
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'm tired of the term "artificial scarcity". First, do you understand what scarcity means? The supply of content is unlimited. Putting a price on content is not creating "scarcity". Consumers make content purchasing decisions based on the scarcity of their own resources. Second, what is non-artificial scarcity? All scarcity is artificial.

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

#115
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…

> it's unknown if ALAC has error handling

Shouldn't take us long to find out now.

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

#116
post #110
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer

But for using any of their services they are infamous for tracking you everywhere they can, scanning your emails and for analyzing ALL data they can get on you and they are one of the companies that are very high up on the radar of privacy advocates all over the world. It is absolutely ridiculous that you are making Google up to be some sort of shining example of doing good and doing the right thing(tm) given all their history so far. Given all Apple and Google is doing, they are just the same. They are companies trying to make money.

If you don't like proprietary software and/or are not allowed to use it at work then just don't use Apple or Microsoft or others that fit that description. Case closed. But that doesn't counter the fact that Apple has both open and proprietary components and products. Just like Google has lots of proprietary stuff. Just like the overwhelming majority of software and software+hardware companies providing all that wonderfully defective still highly overpriced serious business software we laugh about every day.

And when you are using any of Google's services that you like so much, you ARE using proprietary software that is not even running on your own system and you have absolutely NO idea and NO control over where your data will end up at and just because the servers are running on Linux does not help that fact in the slightest. Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same? In both cases these are proprietary components and services running on free or open source platforms.

> which is precisely why most foreign governments use it

Yea, I am from Europe, we had a whole bunch of "Open Source now!" movements and those stories sure were popular in newspapers and I have been to the very gov authorities and magistrates doing those projects. Yes it was a good move but let me tell you, you are faaaaar from having replaced the usual evil in the majority of their systems. Plus a hell of a lot of their gov IT is still either proprietary and/or in-house developments and totally closed source. Just because they are using Linux on a few servers as OS or have a few Linux desktops doesn't change anything there.

And if this is your whole point, then WHY are you using google services? If security and control over what happens was really so paramount to you, you should not even remotely use any google products or any "cloud" or other online services.

Therefore I don't see your point.

> 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.

No. Google's core products and services are just as proprietary and closed source and you have absolutely no control over what happens with all your data that you feed google directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly; see their end user agreements. This is a non-argument you keep coming back to. I have said it at least three times now: just because their proprietary systems are running on a GNU/Linux system doesn't give you the same benefits you see in using Linux.

And you still haven't clarified what is "superior" for you. From a customer's point? From YOUR own personal point? Or from commercial success which is the actual ONLY goal of a business model?

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

This is again completely irrelevant as the music is DRM free now. And still I have all those countless other options of buying music available to me... so it is even more irrelevant that they don't let someone else develop (reverse engineer and violate license agreements) an interface that exploited(!!) their iTunes store and provided you with something you should not have been allowed to have back in 2005. I see this as much less Apple's fault and much more the fault of the RIAA and MPAA who did not want to let go of all their control and were very suspicious of this new way of distributing their music.

But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now. What is your point? Whether you like it or not, Apple were the first ones to actually provide a viable and legal solution for customers to comfortably buy music online. Most end users very obviously don't care that they have to use iTunes for that. And the ones who do have a multitude of alternatives available.

You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.

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

#117
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I can't; and I wasn't claiming that I can. However, as I stated, if I use an MP3 or AAC in a remix, then compress my remix using a lossy codec like AAC or MP3, the result will sound like crap. It's similar to working with JPEGs in Photoshop (rather than RAW), then trying to re-compress to JPEG: you usually get artifacts. I've been playing classic violin since the age of 3, and I'm very sensitive to details. Just…

> if I use an MP3 or AAC in a remix, then compress my remix using a lossy codec like AAC or MP3, the result will sound like crap Or far more likely, it won't sound like crap. > trying to re-compress to JPEG: you usually get artifacts. This argument is akin to suggesting that a very very very minimally JPEG compressed screenshot of a website is inferior to plonking a film camera in front of your LCD and exposing a fra…

Again, you forget he's also remixing. That changes the whole game. You may be right if re-encoding was all he does, but it isn't.

You take the 256kbps high quality AAC, and you time stretch and repitch it by a few percent (to match it up with the track you're mixing it into) and probably fiddle the equalizer a bit, to "drop the bass" :)

If you do that a few times, you're losing information, even on a lossless digital medium.

If you use even high quality audiocodecs in between, it will sound like crap. And not the kind of super subtle near-impossible to hear difference between lossless and 256kbps AAC crap, but actual crap. I know this from experience myself as well. The sound becomes really flat, hard to describe, but you notice it when you're playing one right next to another track that hasn't been through such a process. It's like you want to turn it up louder but it's already loud enough. Hard to describe, but it's a real problem if you're playing these mixes on high quality speakers in a club--suddenly the sound is not as crisp anymore, and the crowd notices it too.

If you want to make the analogy with JPEG, imagine re-encoding at 95% quality, but with a few percent scaling and a few degrees rotation in between, before saving again as 95% quality JPEG.

You do that twice, with a quality high res digital photograph, and you're going to wind up with a photo that looks pretty much like the original ... until you make a high res print of it (or zoom in on the screen). Edges that were crisp at first have gone fuzzy, and at places you can spot the typical blocking and ringing JPEG artefacts.

You'd probably get away with it, most of the time, too. But not always, and if you're a digital graphics professional, this is your craft, and the mark of a good craftsman is that they put in the work for the little details that you don't really notice, until they're not there, and how you tell you're holding a piece of quality work.

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

#118
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with the current state of FLAC but as of a few years ago ALAC offered better meta-data in the MP4 container. Part of the reason I abandoned FLAC years ago was constant problems with meta-data. I would often end up corrupt files post-tagging or the player would simply not show meta-data I had meticulously added to my bootleg collection. I got the sense at the time that there was a lack of agreement on…

Note to uriel: your last few posts are all [dead] for some reason. uriel 2 hours ago | link [dead] Afaik FLAC this days uses an ogg container, which is where the metadata goes, so support should be as good as for Ogg Vorbis. In practical terms, I have a huge collection of FLAC, and never had trouble with metadata, sounds like a bug in whatever player you were using.

The Ogg container is optional, and I can't say I've seen it used much, if ever - I gather its main use was for streaming. FLAC has its own metadata as part of the spec: http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html#metadata_block

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

#119
post #73
post #9

This is fantastic. Apple uses AAC partly because of the patent royalty ( http://mp3licensing.com/ ) which they have to pay on every iPad/pod/etc sold, as well as because it is just a better format. MP3 is a total racket held by Thompson Technicolor, on top of being a pretty crap format. Hopefully this is a portends Apple offering lossless through ITMS on top of the 1080p rights they are hunting down right now.

This is incorrect. In the past, Apple has tended to prefer patented formats, because they are the holders of many of these patents and so increasing their use benefits them. If Apple had preferred patent-free formats at the time of the iPod, they would have chosen Vorbis, which has an open royalty-free encoder that is superior to QuickTime's rather poor AAC encoder. Since the Apache license grants a patent license, t…

> If Apple had preferred patent-free formats at the time of the iPod, they would have chosen Vorbis, which has an open royalty-free encoder

That would have been a good trick, given that the very first release of Vorbis was only a year before the iPod hit the market.

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

#120
post #49

What I don't get is why don't places like iTunes and Amazon offer Lossless options for downloading? I mean, here they are bragging about 720p, 1080p, high definition video which is gigantic in size, approaching or exceeding gigabytes for a typical 2 hour movie. Yet, we can't spare the extra space or bandwidth for a higher quality audio file which is still a fraction of the size? I don't get it.

There have been rumors for the past few months that Apple will do just that. This release might be consistent with that; it will undoubtedly expand the audience, less because of the source availability, and more because of the Apache license patent grant.
Post reply on HN