Skip to main content

Topic: Apple Lossless Encoder (Read 18370 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Apple Lossless Encoder
After many months of wrangling with issues with the ALAC format (iTunes would read the files fine, but not iPods), Illustrate can proudly announce a worlds first, the first non-Apple dependant Apple Lossless Encoder.

This codec does not require iTunes, or Quicktime and has the advantage of being faster than Apples encoder! (x50 encoding speed on my AMD 64).

Download: ALAC Beta

  • kurtnoise
  • [*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #1
Thanks spoon for your work...  This is really a good news.

I suppose that the sources of this encoder are widely closed ?
  • Last Edit: 19 March, 2006, 05:48:26 PM by kurtnoise

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #2
The sources are held closed until a certain date, I am currently enquiring when that date is.

Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #3
Do you think the final version of this encoder will compress files even smaller? Or I should just use this?

  • xmixahlx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #4
/me awaits the source or linux binary


later

  • NumLOCK
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #5
Quote
/me awaits the source or linux binary


later
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=372838"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If/when the source is released, I'd be glad to contribute a gentoo package for it 
Try Leeloo Chat at http://leeloo.webhop.net

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #6
I tested the performance with my 25 test tracks (the same set I have used previously for bitrate evaluations). It seems that this new encoder works like the other lossless codecs when a faster mode is selected. It is clearly faster, but the compression ratio is not as good.

The source files were in Monkey's Audio (Normal) format. I used the dBpowerAMP iTunes module and the new ALAC encoder. The test PC was a 2.8 GHz P4 on XP.

dBpowerAMP iTunes
Encoding time: 8 min 44 s
Total size: 597.19 MB
A table of the individual file sizes: ALAC_iTunes.htm

dBpowerAMP ALAC
Encoding time: 5 min 39 s
Total size: 611.12 MB
A table of the individual file sizes: ALAC_dBpA.htm

For comparison, the source Monkey's Audio files:
Total size: 570.31 MB
A table of the individual file sizes: MonkAud_norm.htm

I think I have found a problem track too. This small ogg vorbis file produces about 24% bigger file size when converted with the new encoder:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42702.
It produces these sizes:
dBpowerAMP iTunes: 3.39 MB
dBpowerAMP ALAC: 4.19 MB
Monkey's Audio Normal: 3.11 MB

EDIT

I also tested the ALAC files with foo_bitcompare. All files were fine.
  • Last Edit: 21 March, 2006, 06:41:18 AM by Alex B

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #7
My initial tests show that the dBpowerAMP ALAC sometimes beats iTunes ALAC compression, sometimes it does not. Looking at the code there seems to be a fall back encoding method (with less compression), this is used when the audio goes out of range of the predictor, that is my understanding, which could be wrong

Of-couse the much improved encoding speed is a bonus...

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #8
The speed increase is remarkable when the dBpowerAMP GUI is used.

My test file set is not comprehensive enough for being reliable, though I selected the tracks carefully (various music types from various decades and no tracks that typically produce extremely low or high bitrates). A lot more tracks should be included and the set has no classical tracks (guruboolez did that part of testing back then).

The Vorbis file I uploaded contains mostly human voice and of course it is already encoded with a lossy encoder. Can these factors be difficult for the new encoder?

I tested the raw encoding speed too. I converted the test set first to wave format and compared the new dBpowerAMP ALAC conversion with a wave to ALAC conversion made directly inside iTunes. Naturally the speed difference is much smaller without the intermediate decoding and temp file steps:

dBpowerAMP new ALAC: 2 min 18 s
Standalone iTunes: 2 min 44 s

  • MystikTK
  • [*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #9
As specified in this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....88&#entry374588

Two questions:

1) If I use this encoder to change the said files in the above thread into this encoder, will they in both my iPod and Winamp?

and

2) Will I lose any quality since I would be converting from Vorbis > ALAC > this new version of ALAC?


Cheers.

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #10
If your files are already in Apple Lossless converting again into Apple Lossless is useless, also converting from a lossy (Vorbis) format to a lossless one is questionable...

  • pepoluan
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #11
Quote
If your files are already in Apple Lossless converting again into Apple Lossless is useless, also converting from a lossy (Vorbis) format to a lossless one is questionable...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374634"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In MystikTK's case, I think converting from Vorbis to ALAC is not questionable... if iPod's the target device. Without the RockBox firmware, iPods can't run Vorbis. To reencode into AAC will degrade quality. Thus if the source is Vorbis and no lossless source, transcoding to ALAC will be preferable.

So that boils down to one question: If he/she transcode into this ALAC version, will it compress better or not?
  • Last Edit: 24 March, 2006, 03:15:30 PM by pepoluan
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #12
I happened to have the same 25 tracks encoded with the new Vorbis aoTuV B5 test version at q -1. (~48 kbps)

I converted the Ogg Vorbis files with both ALAC versions. The resulting compression rates were significantly different.

iTUnes: 521.41 MB, 795 kbps

dBpowerAMP: 591.30 MB, 902 kbps

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #13
Also, I noticed that the file tagging is somehow different with new encoder than with the iTunes module.

Mr QuestionMan 0.701 and Mp3tag 2.35k were unable to read the file information of iTunes encoded ALAC tracks. That didn't happen with the new ALAC encoder.

I resolved the problem by opening the iTunes encoded files with foobar 0.9 and  making foobar to write a tag change to the files. After that the mentioned programs could read the file information.

  • MystikTK
  • [*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #14
Quote
Quote
If your files are already in Apple Lossless converting again into Apple Lossless is useless, also converting from a lossy (Vorbis) format to a lossless one is questionable...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374634"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In MystikTK's case, I think converting from Vorbis to ALAC is not questionable... if iPod's the target device. Without the RockBox firmware, iPods can't run Vorbis. To reencode into AAC will degrade quality. Thus if the source is Vorbis and no lossless source, transcoding to ALAC will be preferable.

So that boils down to one question: If he/she transcode into this ALAC version, will it compress better or not?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374878"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My apologies, I keep being misunderstood in regards to my situation. To clarify, what I was planning on doing is this:

I had already converted the Vorbis files into Apple's version of ALAC and put these files on the iPod. However, I would like to take these files that are encoded in Apple's ALAC and encode them with this new version of ALAC so that I can play the files in Winamp etc.

My question is: Will I lose any quality by converting these Apple ALAC files into this new dbPowerAmp ALAC format? Keep in mind that these files were ORIGINALLY Vorbis.

As for compression, how much smaller will my file sizes be (rough estimate)?
  • Last Edit: 26 March, 2006, 10:43:06 PM by MystikTK

  • Alex B
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #15
Quote
... My question is: Will I lose any quality by converting these Apple ALAC files into this new dbPowerAmp ALAC format? Keep in mind that these files were ORIGINALLY Vorbis.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=375644"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The decoded output will be bit to bit identical since both formats are lossless. No additional quality loss can occur when a lossless file is re-encoded with a lossless codec unless the codec is buggy.

Quote
As for compression, how much smaller will my file sizes be (rough estimate)?

If you mean from Apple ALAC to dBpowerAMP ALAC, the files will probably be bigger (based on the results I have posted in this thread).

It would be useful if you could test that with your files. Could you convert a bunch of Apple ALAC files to dBpowerAMP ALAC and report?

[span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%']Edit: rephrased[/span]
  • Last Edit: 27 March, 2006, 03:27:50 PM by Alex B

  • MystikTK
  • [*]
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #16
Quote
The decoded output will be bit to bit identical since both formats are lossless. No additional quality loss can occur when a lossless file is re-encoded with a lossless codec unless the codec is buggy.


Thanks.

Quote
As for compression, how much smaller will my file sizes be (rough estimate)?
If you mean from Apple ALAC to dBpowerAMP ALAC, the files will probably be bigger (based on the results I have posted in this thread).

It would be useful if you could test that with your files. Could you convert a bunch of Apple ALAC files to dBpowerAMP ALAC and report?




Original Apple ALAC/dbPowerAmp ALAC[/u]

File 1 - 69.5 mb/70.5 mb
File 2 - 70.8 mb/71.9 mb
File 3 - 44.4 mb/44.9 mb

These converted files still do not play in Winamp. Any ideas as to what I could be doing wrong?

EDIT: Nevermind, I assume that it is impossible to get these to play in Winamp at the moment.
  • Last Edit: 29 March, 2006, 01:20:03 AM by MystikTK

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #17
I compared both encoders with my reference set of classical complete tracks (150).

Code: [Select]
dBamp    iTunes

595,1    597,3    -2,3 kbps
887,2    865,3    21,9 kbps
923,0    918,7    4,3 kbps
907,5    908,6    -1,1 kbps
798,3    776,4    21,8 kbps
364,4    371,4    -7,0 kbps
656,5    651,3    5,2 kbps
619,9    624,4    -4,5 kbps
545,8    547,8    -2,0 kbps
581,7    580,8    1,0 kbps
624,3    626,9    -2,7 kbps
499,8    502,5    -2,7 kbps
794,5    733,3    61,2 kbps
638,5    633,2    5,4 kbps
618,7    600,3    18,4 kbps
687,5    684,7    2,8 kbps
536,6    523,5    13,1 kbps
682,3    682,8    -0,5 kbps
621,6    625,0    -3,4 kbps
599,4    603,9    -4,5 kbps
715,3    720,5    -5,2 kbps
669,2    669,7    -0,5 kbps
540,1    544,1    -4,1 kbps
523,7    525,1    -1,4 kbps
395,2    396,8    -1,6 kbps
519,5    523,4    -3,9 kbps
706,9    707,0    -0,1 kbps
542,8    543,6    -0,8 kbps
500,1    499,9    0,2 kbps
799,0    800,6    -1,6 kbps
618,6    612,7    5,9 kbps
583,1    577,8    5,3 kbps
661,7    661,4    0,3 kbps
668,6    660,9    7,7 kbps
679,7    676,6    3,1 kbps
896,6    897,8    -1,2 kbps
803,2    805,3    -2,1 kbps
803,7    779,6    24,2 kbps
486,3    490,4    -4,1 kbps
723,4    725,4    -2,0 kbps
896,2    901,0    -4,7 kbps
608,4    610,6    -2,1 kbps
587,2    590,2    -3,1 kbps
568,3    571,1    -2,8 kbps
575,3    562,5    12,8 kbps
766,9    768,2    -1,2 kbps
749,5    752,2    -2,6 kbps
735,2    732,4    2,8 kbps
487,7    487,9    -0,2 kbps
878,9    880,1    -1,2 kbps
646,8    648,6    -1,8 kbps
697,9    697,4    0,5 kbps
713,4    716,6    -3,3 kbps
661,6    662,5    -0,9 kbps
923,9    933,3    -9,4 kbps
724,5    726,5    -2,0 kbps
809,8    812,6    -2,8 kbps
777,6    775,0    2,6 kbps
787,1    781,0    6,1 kbps
707,0    709,5    -2,5 kbps
795,4    783,0    12,3 kbps
815,7    811,8    3,9 kbps
881,7    878,4    3,3 kbps
792,0    794,6    -2,7 kbps
821,5    823,8    -2,3 kbps
622,6    585,3    37,3 kbps
542,5    540,6    1,9 kbps
538,2    537,2    1,0 kbps
652,7    649,6    3,1 kbps
627,2    628,0    -0,7 kbps
566,0    563,8    2,2 kbps
782,0    782,4    -0,4 kbps
625,2    616,6    8,6 kbps
599,9    596,1    3,9 kbps
704,2    692,7    11,4 kbps
796,4    799,5    -3,2 kbps
894,3    895,1    -0,8 kbps
998,0    992,5    5,6 kbps
978,0    979,4    -1,3 kbps
785,5    780,4    5,1 kbps
861,4    862,8    -1,4 kbps
700,9    698,2    2,7 kbps
544,4    544,0    0,5 kbps
546,4    548,2    -1,9 kbps
680,1    680,4    -0,3 kbps
560,2    556,7    3,5 kbps
693,6    693,4    0,2 kbps
589,5    592,0    -2,5 kbps
592,7    590,0    2,7 kbps
540,9    533,6    7,3 kbps
417,4    421,2    -3,7 kbps
454,7    452,4    2,3 kbps
497,6    501,0    -3,4 kbps
459,7    462,7    -3,1 kbps
436,7    432,1    4,7 kbps
436,7    432,1    4,7 kbps
692,5    689,4    3,1 kbps
597,3    589,5    7,7 kbps
736,4    738,2    -1,8 kbps
842,5    824,3    18,2 kbps
514,0    517,6    -3,7 kbps
698,1    686,8    11,3 kbps
620,2    619,2    1,0 kbps
495,0    483,8    11,2 kbps
686,0    693,7    -7,7 kbps
585,6    582,6    3,0 kbps
556,5    549,0    7,5 kbps
600,0    598,5    1,5 kbps
779,6    777,4    2,2 kbps
426,9    425,0    1,9 kbps
506,5    503,1    3,4 kbps
568,7    566,9    1,7 kbps
589,4    590,6    -1,2 kbps
541,1    527,7    13,4 kbps
795,4    794,8    0,6 kbps
650,7    641,6    9,1 kbps
721,2    724,0    -2,9 kbps
532,1    521,5    10,6 kbps
405,4    399,6    5,8 kbps
516,9    514,4    2,5 kbps
672,7    676,0    -3,2 kbps
669,8    670,5    -0,7 kbps
285,1    279,7    5,4 kbps
859,7    859,3    0,3 kbps
634,0    636,1    -2,1 kbps
777,1    779,4    -2,3 kbps
678,3    677,1    1,2 kbps
469,4    470,8    -1,4 kbps
735,2    728,0    7,2 kbps
752,2    746,1    6,1 kbps
596,1    582,9    13,2 kbps
680,4    681,2    -0,8 kbps
765,5    743,7    21,8 kbps
688,6    690,0    -1,3 kbps
653,3    654,3    -0,9 kbps
626,0    623,3    2,7 kbps
493,5    499,3    -5,8 kbps
670,0    675,5    -5,4 kbps
608,9    605,9    3,0 kbps
678,2    680,6    -2,4 kbps
814,7    801,1    13,6 kbps
617,8    613,6    4,2 kbps
618,7    611,3    7,4 kbps
884,6    883,2    1,3 kbps
620,3    618,0    2,3 kbps
618,6    616,1    2,5 kbps
750,4    747,0    3,4 kbps
567,4    568,8    -1,4 kbps
757,7    751,9    5,8 kbps
657,0    659,5    -2,5 kbps
--------------------------------
658,09    655,45    2,6 kbps
dBamp    iTunes

On average, both encoders are very close but iTunes has a slight avantage (-2.6 kbps). It may be interesting to note that dBPowerAmp improves the compression up to 9.4 kbps compared to iTunes encoder with some tracks but also lower the efficiency up to... 61 kbps (the next one is +37 kbps)!

EDIT: for reference, additional encoders' results are available here.
  • Last Edit: 01 April, 2006, 03:51:21 AM by guruboolez

  • spoon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Apple Lossless Encoder
Reply #18
Updated today, includes a tagging fix (iTunes would not read the tags previously).