Supposedly this description of new features in iTunes 4.5 was leaked onto the iTunes Music Store for a bit:
- Playlist publishing; this is called "iMix"
- Free Single of the week
- iTMS will sell Music Videos
- Movie Trailers are now downloadable from iTMS as well
- Something called "Radio Charts" which lets you see the most popular songs played on real radio stations in the U.S.
- Printing of CD inserts from inside iTunes
- Importing of WMA files (non-protected only)
- Lossless AAC encoding (!)
- Links to go directly from your Music Library, to the iTMS to (apparently) get artist info, other songs, etc.
The part I'm interested is Lossless AAC encoding. I hadn't even heard of this until now. Does anyone have any info on it and how it compares to other lossless encoders?
The part I'm interested is Lossless AAC encoding. I hadn't even heard of this until now. Does anyone have any info on it and how it compares to other lossless encoders?
There is no such thing, unfortunately.
What exists is MPEG4 ALS (Audio Lossless Coding), which was mostly developed by the same author of LPAC
http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/proj...s/mpeg4als.html (http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mpeg4als.html)
But, as far as I know, standardization is still going on for this project. I don't think Apple would use it before being ready.
The other alternatives would be a proprietary codec developed by Apple that they call "Lossless AAC", or they are going to sell high bitrate standard AAC files and claim they are lossless (highly unlikely too).
I can't imagine what else could be going on.
Of course, another alternative would be that this "leakage" is partially fake or erroneous.
Edit: Didn't you see, by any chance, any hint about when iTunes 4.5 will be released?
Page says "Apple Lossless". Apple != AAC
Page says "Apple Lossless". Apple != AAC
Page says "Apple Lossless". Apple != AAC
Damn! I wish Apple would have just waited for MPEG4 lossless to be completed. Here's hoping Apple continues their adoption of open source and this is really just FLAC. One can dream, anyway.
I'm not sure when it's going to be released, but you can see some of the new stuff by following this link:
iTunes leak (https://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZFinance.woa/wa/freeSongWizard). That should open up iTunes, then just hit the cancel button, and you'll be sent back to the main page.
Here are some images that someone pulled:
What's New (http://rura.victoly.com/whatsnew.jpg)
iMix (http://rura.victoly.com/imix.jpg)
Using the Apple Lossless Encoder you can import CDs into iTunes with sound indistinguishable from the original recording but at about half the size
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](my emphasis)[/span]
I
really hope this doesn't mean high-bitrate lossy encoding, even if it sounds like that.
Quite a lot of people would be fooled then, and not even knowing that they have been fooled.
Let's start hoping
Using the Apple Lossless Encoder you can import CDs into iTunes with sound indistinguishable from the original recording but at about half the size
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'](my emphasis)[/span]
I really hope this doesn't mean high-bitrate lossy encoding, even if it sounds like that.
Quite a lot of people would be fooled then, and not even knowing that they have been fooled.
Let's start hoping
The other part of that quote is that it's about half the size. Uncompressed is about 1400 kbps. Half that is 700kbps, and I don't know of any lossy encoders that encode at that high of a bitrate. And "about half" is in line with other lossless encoders. Not to mention how boneheaded it would be to use a lossy encoder and claim it's lossless.
I really hope this doesn't mean high-bitrate lossy encoding, even if it sounds like that.
Why do you think it sounds like that?
To me, it just sounds as... lossless.
Maybe here at HA people use indistinguishable often to refer to transparency in lossy codecs. But I don't think that's the case outside.
"with sound undistinguishable" means for me: I'm not able to find any difference in the sound, when listening.
That is, Lame --abr 128 gives "sound undistinguishable form the original" for me
But your opinion (negritot, rjamorim) truly makes more sense
It's official, since you can read it on Apple's site iPod + iTunes (http://www.apple.com/itunes/) section.
I read on other sites that the lossless would be FLAC, but no confirmation from Apple yet. Maybe around 6pm today in france since Jobs will be having a " phone " chat about iTMS and it's 1st year.
Beware the download may still be v4.2.
Adding WMA transcoding is a good way to avoid putting it in the iPod. Will simply make bad, worse. (except for WMA 9 Pro let's be honest )
Time will tell.
Addendum, the firmwares (http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/) for iPod are also available. But 1st and 2nd generation will not be able to decode lossless apparently.
Thank you Apple
I can't imagine what else could be going on.
Of course, another alternative would be that this "leakage" is partially fake or erroneous.
The leak isn't fake at all given its accessable directly from the iTunes store. Though I guess there could be erros in the PR. Rather doubtful though.
No mention of a date though, perhaps when Steve gives this big speech on the anniversariy in a few days.
If the whole collection was offered in Lossless (proprietary or not), this would be a big step forward, and then I would be interested (or even on-the-fly encoding as allofmp3.com has).
Edit: Of course they should still offer AAC to those on slow Internet connections, or who don't have the hard drive space.
Quote from here (http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html)
Handy Concept for Concept Rock
Many music CDs contain songs that blend into each other, and importing them to iTunes may create a small gap between songs that interrupts the flow. If you use the iTunes Join Tracks feature, the program melds two or more songs into one, continuous gap-free track. So now you can enjoy listening to classical music, concept rock albums and extended dance mixes without the silent treatment.
That's odd, why didn't they just offer gapless AAC like Nero AAC does (even if it's not part of the standard).
Just tested, it seems to be lossless (encode to Apple Lossless decode to wave, do bit comparison) and for the samples I've tested does actually reduce the size to 1/2...
Strange that the extension is still .m4a though...
Wonder what format they are using for their lossless (proprietary or based on new MPEG 4 ALS)?
I'll bet those "new" lossless .m4a files will really "choke" WinAmp 5.03 and many other players. Has anyone tried this yet to see?
Anyone try out WMA support yet? Can one only import or encode also with iTunes?
Anyone try out WMA support yet? Can one only import or encode also with iTunes?
Yes. Didn't sound too horrible. Though it was a WMAPro file (Max Quality VBR) that was converted to a 192k AAC file.
foobar won't play it. Any idea what it is?
Edit: AND YES IT DOESN'T CRASH CONSTANTLY PLAYING AAC FILES!
ive only encoded two albums @lossless, but both have encoded at >900 kbps
I just encoded a couple of albums to the new lossless format and compared to flac it seems to be about the same, though it encodes quite a bit faster than flac at -8 quality.
Both albums in the apple lossless format were in total 1mb larger than the flac ones and when playing back the files the task manager shows itunes using between 0 and 2% which is what foobar shows when playing back flac files.
The lossless files are in the m4a format, but they're obviously not mpeg4 files seeing as nothing but itunes will play them.
Actually that's not totally true, WMP will play them through the 3vix filter, but it just plays static.
I just encoded a couple of albums to the new lossless format and compared to flac it seems to be about the same, though it encodes quite a bit faster than flac at -8 quality.
There was some mutterings on the FLAC list about potential speed gains from making use of the G4/G5's Altivec unit.
I have my fingers crossed that this is just a turbo-charged FLAC.
I just encoded a couple of albums to the new lossless format and compared to flac it seems to be about the same, though it encodes quite a bit faster than flac at -8 quality.
Both albums in the apple lossless format were in total 1mb larger than the flac ones and when playing back the files the task manager shows itunes using between 0 and 2% which is what foobar shows when playing back flac files.
The lossless files are in the m4a format, but they're obviously not mpeg4 files seeing as nothing but itunes will play them.
Actually that's not totally true, WMP will play them through the 3vix filter, but it just plays static.
Don't forget, it could be FLAC -5... which would explain the slightly larger file size and faster encode times (when compared to FLAC -8).
Strange that the extension is still .m4a though...
can you upload a small sample .m4a with apple lossless plz
Hope a two second 440Hz tone is good enough.
Half that is 700kbps, and I don't know of any lossy encoders that encode at that high of a bitrate.
*cough* DTS *cough!*
hmm... apple lossless. a step away from mpeg-4 is a bad step in my opinion. standards wars are so stupid and petty, and in the end the consumer suffers (VHS vs Beta). MPEG i believe was an attempt to stop this kind of thing - getting all the companies to agree on 1 format...
we're seeing this with SACD and DVD-A (god, i hope SACD doesn't win. it's too stupid for my liking... no ABX was harmed in this post )
i hope we don't start seeing HD-DVD and Blu-Ray being sold alongside each other for home entertainment. that'd be no fun.
Hope a two second 440Hz tone is good enough.
thanks a lot!
the file contains "alac", i assume this means apple lossless audio codec...
I am a bit confused.
I tried the "Apple Lossless" codec with a CD from my collection: "Arabian Waltz", from Rabih Abou-Khalil. The album was compressed to less than half the size of the original.
Are lossless codecs particularly fond of jazzy strings? I would expect a little more than half the size of the original...
I've added Apple Lossless to my performance comparison of lossless audio compressors (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm). I didn't find a way yet to decode the compressed files to WAVE files, so decoding speed is "?" for now.
Should be able to do it with QuickTime Pro. Otherwise I think it's impossible for the moment.
Apparently it doesn't perform well, but at least it's fast...
"alac" ? It looks a lot like "flac"
Should be able to do it with QuickTime Pro.
Yep.
Dammit! Why can't they just support FLAC?!? Now a lot of people will have to reencode their audio collections, wasting lots of time and energy in something that's totally unnecessary.
Dammit! Why can't they just support FLAC?!? Now a lot of people will have to reencode their audio collections, wasting lots of time and energy in something that's totally unnecessary.
And now a lot of people will find their non-iTunes player suddenly cannot play certain m4a files too
Unless this lossless codec is indeed an implementation of the upcoming ALS (which I find very difficult to believe considering that it's not finished IIRC), the music should not be stored in a MPEG-4 container at all.
The About box in iTunes doesn't reveal the source of the lossless codec. So it is unlikely to be FLAC.
Thanks kl33per. QuickTime Pro does the decoding job. But it seems to me there's a bug. Decoded files are some frames shorter than the original WAVE file. I've tested this with EAC's 'WAV compare' tool. Can someone confirm this?
Is there a way to extract the "alac" part from the m4a container?
And does it make any sense?
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Sorry for spreading FUD before in the thread [/span]
the file contains "alac", i assume this means apple lossless audio codec...
The sample description box is indeed called "ALAC", for any MPEG-4 audio codec it would definately have to be "MP4A". So if it is the new MPEG-4 ALS codec they did not add it to the file in a very compatible way. It also seems that the file doesn't have an ESDS (ESDescriptor), so finding out more is not really possible
BTW: Any MP4 reader should be able to read this file and just ignore the ALAC track as an unknown track. Crashing of a player would mean that it is buggy
Menno
Unless this lossless codec is indeed an implementation of the upcoming ALS (which I find very difficult to believe considering that it's not finished IIRC), the music should not be stored in a MPEG-4 container at all.
yeah its problematic, still it doesnt break the files
i guess apple is simply too fast, or mpeg is too slow
Thanks kl33per. QuickTime Pro does the decoding job.
hm not here (at least the sample uploaded by kl33per)! i have qt 6.5 installed (but not itunes, which is i assume necessary)
The sample description box is indeed called "ALAC", for any MPEG-4 audio codec it would definately have to be "MP4A". So if it is the new MPEG-4 ALS codec they did not add it to the file in a very compatible way. It also seems that the file doesn't have an ESDS (ESDescriptor), so finding out more is not really possible
still they place it under "smhd" and didnt use the "nmhd" unkown atom, so the players could detect it as audio stream i think
i doubt that it is mpeg-4 als
To decode in iTunes set the import option to WAV in preferences, select the Lossless track and then select Convert to WAV in the Advanced menu.
Not tried it but it should work.
The About box in iTunes doesn't reveal the source of the lossless codec. So it is unlikely to be FLAC.
The FLAC encoder/decoder is LGPL isn't it? That means they can modify it as much as they like and link it to anything, under any licence as long as they return any changes made to the FLAC code itself. I don't think there's an advertising clause, or is there?
edit: just checked the Safari about box which says nothing about KHTML, licenced under similar terms. edit3 : However, there is a
Licence entry under the
Help menu which talks about the LGPL, but that point is moot given the following info:
edit 2: just checked flac.sf.net and apparently they use Xiph's BSD licence nowadays.
The sample description box is indeed called "ALAC", for any MPEG-4 audio codec it would definately have to be "MP4A". So if it is the new MPEG-4 ALS codec they did not add it to the file in a very compatible way. It also seems that the file doesn't have an ESDS (ESDescriptor), so finding out more is not really possible
still they place it under "smhd" and didnt use an unkown atom, so the players could detect it as audio stream i think
Treating every track with a SMHD as AAC audio is wrong (ok, I guess some players might actually do that ). So the parser will know that it is sound, but it will also know that it doesn't know what codec the track uses
Menno
Edit: wait I meant to say YES
hm they also name it "soun" in the handler reference atom (like its also the case with aac and mp3 in mp4)
what would be the more correct way to place an unspecified audio track in mp4? using "mp4a" in the sample descritption atom, but some own description (eg "alac" instead of "soun") under hdlr
or as apple does it: "soun" in hdlr and some private stuff ("alac") under "stsd"?
hm they also name it "soun" in the handler reference atom (like its also the case with aac and mp3 in mp4)
what would be the more correct way to place an unspecified audio track in mp4? using "mp4a" in the sample descritption atom, but some own description (eg "alac" instead of "soun") under hdlr
or as apple does it: "soun" in hdlr and some private stuff ("alac") under "stsd"?
All codec related stuff is in the ESDescriptor and there are fields in there where you can define your own codec. File should be exactly the same as a normal MP4 file with sound track, only ESDescriptor should have some different values to other codecs, as each codec will have different values to others codecs
Menno
To decode in iTunes set the import option to WAV in preferences, select the Lossless track and then select Convert to WAV in the Advanced menu.
This does work, but it's not a very accurate way of measuring the decoding speed because the system actually has to create the wave files which slows it down quite a bit.
But you can still use it for a comparison.
I conducted a
highly scientific test using itunes, foobar and a stop watch:
itunes worked at approximately 43x to decode to wave
foobar worked at approximately 45x to decode the flac files to wave.
Running the flac files through the foobar speedmeter it decoded them at 65.60x
So I could maybe say itunes can decode at 63x on my athlon 2400+...but not really because the testing was so inaccurate.
hm they also name it "soun" in the handler reference atom (like its also the case with aac and mp3 in mp4)
what would be the more correct way to place an unspecified audio track in mp4? using "mp4a" in the sample descritption atom, but some own description (eg "alac" instead of "soun") under hdlr
or as apple does it: "soun" in hdlr and some private stuff ("alac") under "stsd"?
All codec related stuff is in the ESDescriptor and there are fields in there where you can define your own codec. File should be exactly the same as a normal MP4 file with sound track, only ESDescriptor should have some different values to other codecs, as each codec will have different values to others codecs
Menno
hm but you said that the alac files have no esdescriptor!?
btw how can i read out the esdescriptor?
hm but you said that the alac files have no esdescriptor!?
Yes, but since Apple uses ALAC instead of MP4A, it describes only one codec, but it's not a very nice way of doing things.
btw how can i read out the esdescriptor?
I just debug stepped through my mp4 parser
Menno
Just tried ALAC on my PowerBook...it is indeed a lot faster than FLAC (probably Altivec optimized), hitting encoding speeds of 23-24x on my G4 867 for rock music. Rush, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd have compressed down to between 800-1000kbps, which falls short of what I would get with FLAC, but is much faster. Though I'm happy to now be able to easily convert my CD's to lossless for use on my Mac and iPod, I really wish Apple would have waited for MPEG-4 lossless or just implemented FLAC rather than going down the proprietary route.
Unless this lossless codec is indeed an implementation of the upcoming ALS (which I find very difficult to believe considering that it's not finished IIRC), the music should not be stored in a MPEG-4 container at all.
yeah its problematic, still it doesnt break the files
It shouldn't break the file, but seeing as it's not part of the MPEG-4 Standard, they shouldn't have used the MPEG-4 container.
Thanks kl33per. QuickTime Pro does the decoding job.
hm not here (at least the sample uploaded by kl33per)! i have qt 6.5 installed (but not itunes, which is i assume necessary)
You need QuickTime 6.5.1. iTunes is not nesscessary, just a registered QuickTime.
Paging Josh Coalson....
- M.
It shouldn't break the file, but seeing as it's not part of the MPEG-4 Standard, they shouldn't have used the MPEG-4 container.
hm its a private extension, which the mp4 container allows (its the same way as ahead places subtitles in mp4)
basically i think that such an extension is not good but valid if mpeg is too slow to standardize a solution on its own (eg a lossless or a subtitle format)
still mpeg is working on such solutions on its own already but it seems to be too slow to satisfy some of the markets needs already wanting the stuff now: mpeg-4 als and for subs the mpeg-4 text stream format has been finalized recently (i hope to see some mpeg-4 subtitle implementations soon)
You need QuickTime 6.5.1. iTunes is not nesscessary, just a registered QuickTime.
thx
Handy Concept for Concept Rock
Many music CDs contain songs that blend into each other, and importing them to iTunes may create a small gap between songs that interrupts the flow. If you use the iTunes Join Tracks feature, the program melds two or more songs into one, continuous gap-free track. So now you can enjoy listening to classical music, concept rock albums and extended dance mixes without the silent treatment.
That's odd, why didn't they just offer gapless AAC like Nero AAC does (even if it's not part of the standard).
IIRC, the problem isn't with the files but with how iTunes and the iPod plays them. The iPod, especially, seems to introduce rather large gaps even with WAV files.
http://www.pretentiousname.com/mp3players/ (http://www.pretentiousname.com/mp3players/)
The part I'm interested is Lossless AAC encoding. I hadn't even heard of this until now. Does anyone have any info on it and how it compares to other lossless encoders?
There is no such thing, unfortunately.
What exists is MPEG4 ALS (Audio Lossless Coding), which was mostly developed by the same author of LPAC
http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/proj...s/mpeg4als.html (http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mpeg4als.html)
But, as far as I know, standardization is still going on for this project. I don't think Apple would use it before being ready.
The other alternatives would be a proprietary codec developed by Apple that they call "Lossless AAC", or they are going to sell high bitrate standard AAC files and claim they are lossless (highly unlikely too).
I can't imagine what else could be going on.
Of course, another alternative would be that this "leakage" is partially fake or erroneous.
Edit: Didn't you see, by any chance, any hint about when iTunes 4.5 will be released?
I contacted the author and he says, MPEG-4 ALS file format will be freezed
either at the 116th or the 117th AES Conference.
116th: May 8-11, 2004
117th: October 1-3, 2004
Hope this information helps.
can someone post/host a clip? (preferably unadulterated, I can't read .rar)
nothing about FLAC prevents apple from using it exactly as is (or wrapping it in fairplay), or tweaking it slightly to make it incompatible. doing that without attribution would be pretty slimy though. I haven't heard anything from apple about it.
if it's (mostly) FLAC I should be able to tell from an un-DRMed clip. also tell me the stream parameters (bps, channels, sample rate, exact number of samples or approximate length in sec) and any encoding parameters.
Josh
Edit: PS please also post the original clip (wav or aiff)
Update: Answered my own question. It appears Apple has a new firmware update out for iPods to play the new Lossless format.
http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/ (http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/)
Has anyone tried this firmware update yet to see if it plays Lossless files OK on iPods and Ipod minis?
can someone post/host a clip? (preferably unadulterated, I can't read .rar)
Reading RAR is pretty easy in nearly every popular platform.
http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm (http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm)
Anyway...
Here is an Apple Lossless sample. It's inside .MOV because I saved it from QuickTime. Demuxing it is trivial.
http://www.rarewares.org/rja/OrdinaryWorld.mov (http://www.rarewares.org/rja/OrdinaryWorld.mov)
The same sample, in FLAC:
http://www.rarewares.org/rja/OrdinaryWorld.flac (http://www.rarewares.org/rja/OrdinaryWorld.flac)
thanks. how do you demux the .mov in linux (or freebsd)?
also the original wav/aiff would help a lot.
Josh
can someone post/host a clip? (preferably unadulterated, I can't read .rar)
nothing about FLAC prevents apple from using it exactly as is (or wrapping it in fairplay), or tweaking it slightly to make it incompatible. doing that without attribution would be pretty slimy though. I haven't heard anything from apple about it.
if it's (mostly) FLAC I should be able to tell from an un-DRMed clip. also tell me the stream parameters (bps, channels, sample rate, exact number of samples or approximate length in sec) and any encoding parameters.
Josh
Edit: PS please also post the original clip (wav or aiff)
Liebestod.m4a (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/Liebestod.m4a)
Liebestod.wav (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/Liebestod.wav)
I think you can find most info you requested by looking at the original wav file. There are no encoding parameters. The only choice for encoding is "automatic". It's 921 kbps according to iTunes.
perfect, thanks, I will take a look.
Josh
According to Slashdot at:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/04/28/1...tid=185&tid=188 (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/04/28/149254.shtml?tid=164&tid=176&tid=185&tid=188)
The new iTunes appears to "break" the old DRM sharing software. Does this mean they are using a different DRM model in the new iTunes and will old software no longer work? Anyone know anything about the new DRM model?
RealPlayer 10 has had lossless encoding for awhile. I'm guessing it's similar to what Quicktime has.
I'm guessing it's similar to what Quicktime has.
Probably not.
OrdinaryWorld.wav: 4879Kb
OrdinaryWorld.mov: 3326Kb
OrdinaryWorld.ra: 3278Kb
OrdinaryWorld.flac: 3.301Kb
OK, after doing some analysis, I realized it would help more to create some specific files and ask you guys to encode them and upload the results here (or host somewhere else).
there are a few wavs (packaged two ways) here:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/landfill/testwavs.tar.gz (http://flac.sourceforge.net/landfill/testwavs.tar.gz)
http://flac.sourceforge.net/landfill/testwavs.zip (http://flac.sourceforge.net/landfill/testwavs.zip)
(if anyone knows a free tool to make stuffit files on linux let me know, or if there's any other package format that's better.)
now if someone could encode each wav to "apple lossless" (no .mov, just .m4a) and put them somewhere that would help a lot. also, if there are any encoding parameters, use the same parameters for all encodes and describe what they are.
thanks.
Josh
but is it gapless?
You can find those test files encoded with Apple Lossless here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ST&f=35&t=21170 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=35&t=21170)
They were encoded with iTunes 4.5 on Mac OS X 10.3.3
The only possible setting for Apple Lossless in iTunes is "automatic".
but is it gapless?
No, it's still not gapless.
And the 3G iPod firmware was updated to allow playback of these new lossless files. Of course that will kill your battery life and greatly reduce the number of songs you can put on the iPod, so I don't know who will use it.
The holy grail, IMO, is to encode lossless on the computer and re-encode on the fly to something like 128kbps AAC-LC when transferring the files to the iPod. As it is, my enthusiasm for this new format is pretty low.
But I'm still curious as to the origins of this codec. It seems irresponsible and unwise of Apple to neither wait for the official MPEG4 lossless codec to be defined nor take advantage of FLAC.
The other alternatives would be a proprietary codec developed by Apple that they call "Lossless AAC", or they are going to sell high bitrate standard AAC files and claim they are lossless (highly unlikely too).
now THAT is what i'd be interested in. 99 cents is in one sense a pretty good deal (i paid $2.50 once to Liquid Audio for the one track i bought from them), but i'd pay maybe as high as $1.50 for a lossless track
but is it gapless?
No, it's still not gapless.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...
I though this would make the iPod a better choice than the Karma becuse of it's construction and HD size. Oh well... Guess I'll keep waiting for the next generation Karma.
but is it gapless?
iTunes also still has a small gap between Apple Lossless files (or any other format for that matter). I am still very sad about that. Time to write another email to Apple.
Did you try the "Handy Concept for Concept Rock" described here :
http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html (http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html)
I don't really know if it helps, or how it works (I can't test for the moment). Does it work on import only? Does it also work with lossy encodings (with gaps/silent frames)?
My findings:
Apple lossless is not FLAC.
Maybe they are using some techniques from FLAC, and nothing about FLAC prevents them from doing that, but I can't tell from analyzing bitstreams.
I can see that there are some techniques they are not using that will hurt the compression 5-10% for some kinds samples.
Even though Speek's comparison shows that it compresses a little less than FLAC in general, I doubt this will be much of a hinderance. Popularity is going to come mainly from usability and Apple has that: the #1 online distribution service and #1 portable player.
It's disappointing that they went with a proprietary codec that performs worse than FLAC (ratio, decode speed/complexity). I don't see much of an advantage; I don't think there's any technical reason they couldn't have wrapped FLAC in FairPlay, but they never asked. Oh well.
Josh
... I don't think there's any technical reason they couldn't have wrapped FLAC in FairPlay, but they never asked.
Out of curiosity, what would be the advantage of wrapping
any lossless codec in FairPlay? Once decoded to WAV, or burned to a CD (both of which should be quite simple) the WAV could be re-compressed to any other lossless format, sans DRM.
- M.
Edit: Fixed a silly spelling error.
Did you try the "Handy Concept for Concept Rock" described here :
http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html (http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html)
I don't really know if it helps, or how it works (I can't test for the moment). Does it work on import only? Does it also work with lossy encodings (with gaps/silent frames)?
Yes, it only works on import, and it's quite stupid. Basically it merges several tracks into a single file, and you can see the limitations that would imply.
The holy grail, IMO, is to encode lossless on the computer and re-encode on the fly to something like 128kbps AAC-LC when transferring the files to the iPod
Absolutely. This is the ONE feature that Windows Media Player has that rocks. 200 GB HDs are common now for PCs. This allows one to store their collection on their PC in lossless and encode to 128 AAC on the fly for transfer to a portable that has 4GB or 20GB. I really hope Apple implements this. Losselss is great for making mixed CDs to play on state of the art sound systems, but its really not practical (or needed) for a portable with a pair of ear buds. It kills the battery and take sup too much HD space.
Apple Lossless is
not gapless????? Why would they not implement this????
I's be shocked if we see lossless in the iTunes music store.
Apple Lossless is not gapless????? Why would they not implement this????
There may be no way to play the Apple Lossless file without a gap (iTunes and iPod), but it is gapless if converted back to WAV and it matches an md5 of the original WAV. Someone mentioned earlier that WAVs play with gaps on the iPod, so this is where the problem lies, not the file itself.
Apple lossless is not FLAC.
It's disappointing that they went with a proprietary codec that performs worse than FLAC (ratio, decode speed/complexity). I don't see much of an advantage; I don't think there's any technical reason they couldn't have wrapped FLAC in FairPlay, but they never asked. Oh well.
QuickTime Pro does the decoding job. But it seems to me there's a bug. Decoded files are some frames shorter than the original WAVE file. I've tested this with EAC's 'WAV compare' tool.
In which case, we can't really call it
lossless anymore, can we?
There may be no way to play the Apple Lossless file without a gap (iTunes and iPod), but it is gapless if converted back to WAV and it matches an md5 of the original WAV.
Indeed, the latter pretty much sums up what
lossless audio is all about, but Speek's already found out that WAV->Apple Lossless->WAV conversion is
not lossless (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=21139&view=findpost&p=206874).
Out of curiosity, what would be the advantage of wrapping any lossless codec in FairPlay? Once decoded to WAV, or burned to a CD (both of which should be quite simple) the WAV could be re-compressed to any other lossless format, sans DRM.
You're absolutely right - Nothing, in that sense.
Now lets all hope that the entertainment industry does not allow that to hinder the availability of lossless files online, I think most people would be willing to pay for the extra bandwidth used (or whatever, just a slightly higher fee)
No point rolling iTunes out around the world until that happens though, cuz i won't use iTunes as it is.
Isn't it about time this topic were moved to the Lossless Codecs forum? Administrators, I'm looking in your direction
Thanks kl33per. QuickTime Pro does the decoding job. But it seems to me there's a bug. Decoded files are some frames shorter than the original WAVE file. I've tested this with EAC's 'WAV compare' tool. Can someone confirm this?
There seems to be a bug in iTunes for Windows. Even if I compare a file "converted" from WAV to WAV using iTunes, EAC reports a difference with the original. I think the Apple Lossless step is redundant, that happens with any codec.
Did you try the "Handy Concept for Concept Rock" described here :
http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html (http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html)
I don't really know if it helps, or how it works (I can't test for the moment). Does it work on import only? Does it also work with lossy encodings (with gaps/silent frames)?
Yes, it only works on import, and it's quite stupid. Basically it merges several tracks into a single file, and you can see the limitations that would imply.
Thank you for this precision. Highly innovative system from Apple
Well, if you combine that with Chapters, that's indeed very good and less complicated that gapless handling in a codec/player.
True. But the players must then support the chapter system. Otherwise, fastseeking on 1h30 just to hear the final Arien of a Wagner Opera need stoic virtues.
WAV->Apple Lossless->WAV conversion IS lossless, open a WAV in iTunes, select the ALAC importer, import into ALAC. Then select the WAV importer, import the ALAC file into WAV. Do a comparison on the files (unix 'cmp' or whatever) and they will be identical. Maybe this is an issue with decoding through QuickTime Player?
[Edit]
Ran through a lot more test samples... apparently even decoding by iTunes sometimes generates some differences. However this is not the case in ALL files... probably a bug then...
[/Edit]
WAV->Apple Lossless->WAV conversion IS lossless, open a WAV in iTunes, select the ALAC importer, import into ALAC. Then select the WAV importer, import the ALAC file into WAV. Do a comparison on the files (unix 'cmp' or whatever) and they will be identical.
Sounds nice, glad to see a supporter of this new lossless format for a change. But I notice your writing
they will be identical. Does that mean you haven't tested it yourself?
Maybe this is an issue with decoding through QuickTime Player?
Dunno. Haven't been able to try it out myself. I'm just basing my judgment on others' findings. I'm eagerly awaiting more test results.
Ran through a lot more test samples... apparently even decoding by iTunes sometimes generates some differences. However this is not the case in ALL files... probably a bug then...
OK then. Lossless it is... for now
I've just tried a WAV -> ALE -> WAV encoding process. According to foobar2000 bit-to-bit comparison tool, there are no difference between the original file and the final one.
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : no differences in decoded data found
INFO (foo_bitcompare) : finished successfully
But it doesn't mean than iTunes is able to produce gapless
playback with lossless files (I didn't tried).
I've just tried a WAV -> ALE -> WAV encoding process. According to foobar2000 bit-to-bit comparison tool, there are no difference between the original file and the final one.
Right. Although Speek did end up with some different results (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=21139&view=findpost&p=206874). Probably due to a bug in iTunes, as jido and c15zyx already pointed out.
Right. Although Speek did end up with some different results (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=21139&view=findpost&p=206874). Probably due to a bug in iTunes, as jido and c15zyx already pointed out.
A similar question came up on the FLAC forum a while ago and Josh pointed out that FLAC losslessly encodes the *audio*, not entire WAV files. If the audio is the same then there is no issue or bug. What exactly are these tools (cmp etc.) comparing?
A similar question came up on the FLAC forum a while ago and Josh pointed out that FLAC losslessly encodes the *audio*, not entire WAV files. If the audio is the same then there is no issue or bug. What exactly are these tools (cmp etc.) comparing?
cmp compares two files for any difference. You are correct in saying that preservation of audio is what is important and not differences in headers or whatnot. For example decoding to AIFF and WAV will make this comparison invalid.
However if you use a encode a WAV and decode back to WAV you should get identical files. I already checked this is iTunes by importing the WAV to another WAV before encoding and comparing the decode to both, in case QuickTime or iTunes was doing something strange with the files. I'll have to do a comparison of the raw data sometime later. FB2k probably does this, but I'm not on windows.
I am a bit confused.
I tried the "Apple Lossless" codec with a CD from my collection: "Arabian Waltz", from Rabih Abou-Khalil. The album was compressed to less than half the size of the original.
Are lossless codecs particularly fond of jazzy strings? I would expect a little more than half the size of the original...
I don't know about Jazz, but lossless tends to be quite good at most classical music, too. It sometimes compresses up to 30% of the uncompressed size and quite often at 50% or less.
EDIT: Argh, crap! Didn't realize the post I was replying to was in the first page of four. I guess this doesn't make much sense now. Added the quote in order not to appear so stupid. Heh.
making sure an implementation of a lossless codec is really lossless is harder than it sounds. unless you formally prove the correctness of an algorithm (which is practically impossible) you have to rely on tests. that's how the FLAC test suite early on grew to be so large. it is full of many kinds of samples designed to find bugs in a codec.
is there a command-line ALAC program? it would be interesting to run it through the FLAC test suite. when I have tried it on other coders it sometimes produces interesting results. managed to crash a version of MAC.exe with one (I think mac 3.96, haven't tried it on later versions).
Josh
I encoded a wave file with itunes to apple lossless, and decoded it again to wav. The original and the decoded were identical (or diff said they were anyhow). Here's some times I posted in the arstechnica forums (the song was the Overture of Carmen, all the flacs had verification enabled):
ALAC 18350KB 12secs
FLAC level 8 18396KB 36secs
FLAC level 4 18492KB 10secs
FLAC level 0 19534KB 4.5secs
EDIT: Corrected the ALAC size
ALAC 18350KB 12secs
FLAC level 8 18396KB 36secs
FLAC level 4 18492KB 10secs
FLAC level 0 19534KB 4.5secs
Was that on a PC or a Mac?
ALAC 18350KB 12secs
FLAC level 8 18396KB 36secs
FLAC level 4 18492KB 10secs
FLAC level 0 19534KB 4.5secs
Was that on a PC or a Mac?
Oops, forgot to metnion that. PC. I have an Athlon XP 1600+ paly.
Did some more testing...
Sometimes 2 wav files will differ within the first few bytes (header?).
In this case if I import the wav to another wav using iTunes and use this new file to compare to the decoded ALAC, the wav files differ as pcm does below.
Exporting the decoded and original files to pcm (using sndfile-convert to export to .raw) I have found that in all the samples I've tested, the difference occurs at the very end... the differing byte as reported by cmp is at the end of the file.
Hope that was informative in some way.
Did some more testing...
Sometimes 2 wav files will differ within the first few bytes (header?).
In this case if I import the wav to another wav using iTunes and use this new file to compare to the decoded ALAC, the wav files differ as pcm does below.
Exporting the decoded and original files to pcm (using sndfile-convert to export to .raw) I have found that in all the samples I've tested, the difference occurs at the very end... the differing byte as reported by cmp is at the end of the file.
Hope that was informative in some way.
made about 10 tests on a mac from different shn or flac files to wav to apple lossless m4a back to wav. both wav files were exactly the same in size and comparing them with shninfo and shncmp, number of frames also identical...
encoding speed from HD is about 32x, decoding speed slightly faster at 34x (867MHz G4)
The part I'm interested is Lossless AAC encoding. I hadn't even heard of this until now. Does anyone have any info on it and how it compares to other lossless encoders?
There is no such thing, unfortunately.
What exists is MPEG4 ALS (Audio Lossless Coding), which was mostly developed by the same author of LPAC
http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/proj...s/mpeg4als.html (http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/forschung/projekte/lossless/mpeg4als.html)
But, as far as I know, standardization is still going on for this project. I don't think Apple would use it before being ready.
The other alternatives would be a proprietary codec developed by Apple that they call "Lossless AAC", or they are going to sell high bitrate standard AAC files and claim they are lossless (highly unlikely too).
I can't imagine what else could be going on.
Of course, another alternative would be that this "leakage" is partially fake or erroneous.
Edit: Didn't you see, by any chance, any hint about when iTunes 4.5 will be released?
There is another standardization activity in MPEG which is called MPEG-4 scalable lossless (SLS). It offers more functionalities than a usual lossless coder like FLAC. For example, a AAC bit-stream can be extracted from a Lossless SLS bit-stream (not transcode, but simply drop some portion of the bit-stream so it is prety fast). And it also allow you to extract a bit-steam at any bit-rate between AAC and lossless from the SLS bit-stream. In this sense you may call it lossless AAC
Unfortunately it is not the one used in iTune though.
There is another standardization activity in MPEG which is called MPEG-4 scalable lossless (SLS). It offers more functionalities than a usual lossless coder like FLAC. For example, a AAC bit-stream can be extracted from a Lossless SLS bit-stream (not transcode, but simply drop some portion of the bit-stream so it is prety fast). And it also allow you to extract a bit-steam at any bit-rate between AAC and lossless from the SLS bit-stream. In this sense you may call it lossless AAC
Unfortunately it is not the one used in iTune though.
is there already someone working on this?
the last thing i read was "while further investigating hierarchical methods"
is this method somehow comparable to bitrate peeling?
is there already someone working on this?
Yes. Although it will take longer to standardize this profile, compared to "normal" lossless.
is this method somehow comparable to bitrate peeling?
No, because bitrate peeling isn't layered.This method is similar to AAC SSR profile: a stream starting at CELP and with successive AAC layers, each one increasing quality a little, all the way up to hundreds of kbps. Then, when a client at, say, 56kbps requests a stream, the server dinamically shaves all the layers up to 48kbps to deliver that stream.
Did some more testing...
Sometimes 2 wav files will differ within the first few bytes (header?).
In this case if I import the wav to another wav using iTunes and use this new file to compare to the decoded ALAC, the wav files differ as pcm does below.
Exporting the decoded and original files to pcm (using sndfile-convert to export to .raw) I have found that in all the samples I've tested, the difference occurs at the very end... the differing byte as reported by cmp is at the end of the file.
Hope that was informative in some way.
If they differ for exactly one byte at the end of the file it might be that one of them is padded incorrectly (or at least differently), either the WAV file itself or the sections within (can't remember which) has/have to be padded to an even length (insane restriction). So it could be that if you have a mono 8bit source (or a 24bit source) that the padding differs or even simply isn't present.
Hell, the one thing this does do is give people a reason to buy 40GB iPods and give apple more money. I've thrown a couple of lossless songs on my 10GB but I really don't see any reason to go through and reencode your entire music library to a format that many people can't even figure out the standard behind.
If they differ for exactly one byte at the end of the file it might be that one of them is padded incorrectly (or at least differently), either the WAV file itself or the sections within (can't remember which) has/have to be padded to an even length (insane restriction). So it could be that if you have a mono 8bit source (or a 24bit source) that the padding differs or even simply isn't present.
Hmm... I've only tested on 16/44 sources, and I can't say that only 1 byte differs, but that the first differing byte is at the end (not even sure if its the absolute last byte). I compared PCM too and they differ at the same place, does that restriction also apply?
First time posting; thanks for the great board.
I know this new format may not be perfect, but it sounds like what I've been waiting for.
I've been looking for a lossless compression to convert all my CDs to my HD and I want to be able to use itunes and not have to mess with other converters and non-apple stuff. Are there any drawbacks to this new codec, or will I get true CD quality in a format that itunes can do all its tricks with?
Thanks!
First time posting; thanks for the great board.
I know this new format may not be perfect, but it sounds like what I've been waiting for.
I've been looking for a lossless compression to convert all my CDs to my HD and I want to be able to use itunes and not have to mess with other converters and non-apple stuff. Are there any drawbacks to this new codec, or will I get true CD quality in a format that itunes can do all its tricks with?
Thanks!
From my limited testing, it is truly lossless (so it is 100% cd quality).
The only drawbacks I have stumbled upon so far is the fact that the compression isn't as good compared to other lossless codecs and the fact this is the first release. There have been some reports of little bugs here and there. Hopefully they iron out everything before the next release.
I am thinking of switching to it for the reasons you state (that you can use iTunes is a huge plus), but I might wait for another release to iron out everything.
Now... why couldn't apple just use FLAC?
Or... maybe release an apple lossless, but also support FLAC?
Now... why couldn't apple just use FLAC?
Or... maybe release an apple lossless, but also support FLAC?
Maybe they don't trust the code?
Maybe they never heard about it?
Maybe they don't care that much about open standards after all, and prefer to now go the closed way - same thing Microsoft and Real did?
Probably gets them more $$$$.
Probably gets them more $$$$.
Nah. It makes no difference to them really, since they don't need to pay anyone to use FLAC.
They probably are not able to DRM FLAC. I hope its an indication that the iTunes music store will offer lossless.
On another topic. Any news of a winamp plug-in for apple lossless? Thanks,
They probably are not able to DRM FLAC. I hope its an indication that the iTunes music store will offer lossless.
Nah, most DRM can be applied to pretty much any stream.
On another topic. Any news of a winamp plug-in for apple lossless?
I guess that will only happen if they release sources/specifications, or at least an easy-to-use QuickTime SDK.
i'm not sure if this means anything ... but it looks like itunes supports importing to a lossless format. i'm looking at their site right now.
this means squat to me. it'd be excellent if itunes sold flacs (or another lossless format). i use eac to rip, and flac to encode, and foobar to manage ... so this thing that itunes just did doesn't mean that i'll switch to it. in all honesty, to many people using itunes, lossless just means twice the hard drive space being devoured. it's only when you listen to digital audio on high end (and i mean the ones that are $500/speaker) systems, that you really notice the difference between lossless and lossy.
when you use traditional computer speakers or earbud style headphones you can't detect half of the audio your missing ... and most people are happy with that. and that is who apple is appealing to.
why do you think napster (and now kazaa) were the big thing awhile ago. it's cause people wanted the music but didn't care about the quality, or didn't realize any difference. that's why i cant stand to use file sharing; being an audiophile (with expensive speakers mentioned above), i couldn't stand what i was hearing or what i wasn't.
thanks for the report though, it's always good to know.
i use eac to rip, and flac to encode, and foobar to manage
Why wouldn't you use iTunes to do all this in one fell swoop. iTunes has error correction like eac, is lossless like FLAC and as music manager Foobar falls terribly short compared to iTunes, IMHO.
iTunes has error correction like eac
not really.
as music manager Foobar falls terribly short compared to iTunes, IMHO.
You'll get very flamed by the foobar zealots at this forum
i use eac to rip, and flac to encode, and foobar to manage
Why wouldn't you use iTunes to do all this in one fell swoop. iTunes has error correction like eac, is lossless like FLAC and as music manager Foobar falls terribly short compared to iTunes, IMHO.
As much as I would like to agree with you, the truth is that iTunes is NOT the equal of EAC when it comes to ripping. Search on this forum and you will find many people are suspicious of iTunes' error correction. While I am not too afraid to use iTunes to rip when the CD is shiny and new, if the CD is scratched I only trust EAC. My latest procedure on a PC is to use EAC to rip to cue/wav, then mount the cue/wav with DaemonTools as a virtual CD, then use iTunes to rip and tag to Apple Lossless (which can be easily converted to AAC for portable use).
On the Mac the situation is very bad - there is no EAC and the only thing that comes close is cdparanoia (like what CDex uses). Unfortunately I have not been able to been able to get any Mac front-ends for cdparanoia (like Firestarter FX) to work with my CD drive. If anybody has any suggestions for ripping on the Mac I would be grateful!
If anybody has any suggestions for ripping on the Mac I would be grateful!
Try Missing Media Burner 0.6.2 -
http://homepage.mac.com/rnc/ (http://homepage.mac.com/rnc/)
Limited GUI but a great app. It includes cdaa2wav and Paranoia. Works well for me.
If anybody has any suggestions for ripping on the Mac I would be grateful!
Try Missing Media Burner 0.6.2 -
http://homepage.mac.com/rnc/ (http://homepage.mac.com/rnc/)
Limited GUI but a great app. It includes cdaa2wav and Paranoia. Works well for me.
Thanks, I'll give it a shot!
Are the Apple Lossless files ripped with iTunes gapless?
Are the Apple Lossless files ripped with iTunes gapless?
The files themselves are gapless (I.E, if you decode the files, you won't see samples added at the beginning ot the end)
iPod doesn't play them back gaplessly. I don't know about iTunes.
It just occured to me; what if Apple offers an iPod dock with spdif and something similar to ASIO or kernel streaming?
That would make the iPod a very high quality audio device...
You'll get very flamed by the foobar zealots at this forum
I know. There are still a couple of things you can do with foobar that you can't do with iTunes. However, IMHO, 99% of everything is more comfortably done within iTunes.
Cheers,
iPod doesn't play them back gaplessly. I don't know about iTunes.
I don't think iTunes will play gapless. It does have a cross-fade feature that is customizable (you can select how many seconds of overlap). Not the same thing as playing back the album exactly like you would hear it on the CD, I know. Just thought I would mention it.
On another topic. Any news of a winamp plug-in for apple lossless?
I guess that will only happen if they release sources/specifications, or at least an easy-to-use QuickTime SDK.
By the way, this plug-in works within winamp to play Apple Lossless.
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157572 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157572)
Cheers,
If they differ for exactly one byte at the end of the file it might be that one of them is padded incorrectly (or at least differently), either the WAV file itself or the sections within (can't remember which) has/have to be padded to an even length (insane restriction). So it could be that if you have a mono 8bit source (or a 24bit source) that the padding differs or even simply isn't present.
Hmm... I've only tested on 16/44 sources, and I can't say that only 1 byte differs, but that the first differing byte is at the end (not even sure if its the absolute last byte). I compared PCM too and they differ at the same place, does that restriction also apply?
No, it doesn't, so it's probably something else.
With the chance of being flamed a little, I would like to ask some questions as a non-audiophile.
Lossless seems to be really neat if have plenty of space and a kickass sound system hooked up with SPDIF. But I would like to know if it really is something for the regular user to use when ripping their CDs to an iPod?
Other than the fact that lossless AAC is good for burning your favorite mix to a CD without losing quality, should one start ripping their CDs to this format for their iPod or is it a total overkill?
With the chance of being flamed a little, I would like to ask some questions as a non-audiophile.
Lossless seems to be really neat if have plenty of space and a kickass sound system hooked up with SPDIF. But I would like to know if it really is something for the regular user to use when ripping their CDs to an iPod?
Other than the fact that lossless AAC is good for burning your favorite mix to a CD without losing quality, should one start ripping their CDs to this format for their iPod or is it a total overkill?
The major advantage of lossless IMHO is that you can use the current best codec for your portable (AAC for your iPod) but when the next big thing comes out you can easily go to the new format without re-ripping.
I use lossless in my desktop and AAC on the iPod. To keep them separate I created smart playlists for each kind of encoding.
I use lossless in my desktop and AAC on the iPod. To keep them separate I created smart playlists for each kind of encoding.
I'm seriously considering doing that as well. I want to buy a huge (250GB) external hard drive to hold all of my music. By storing in lossless, I will be able to create a lossless playlist and convert songs as needed to lossy codecs like MP3 or AAC.
Only hitch: I love iTunes, except for the fact that Sound Check sucks compared to ReplayGain and that it won't encode/play formats such as FLAC or MonkeyAudio. If I had a choice, I would encode everything to one of those lossless formats (FLAC or MonkeyAudio), play those in iTunes, and then convert them when needed down to MP3 or AAC.
Might be forced to stick with Foobar because of this. Come on Apple, who needs another lossless format, especially one that does not even compress better then the other lossless formats in most cases?
All I want is the simple and just-plain-works interface of iTunes combined with support for numerous audio formats (encode/play/burning) and the use of ReplayGain (so much better accuracy compared to Sound Check). That is all I want.
True. But the players must then support the chapter system. Otherwise, fastseeking on 1h30 just to hear the final Arien of a Wagner Opera need stoic virtues.
I just confirmed on the Apple iPod forum that the iPod does not support the "chapter" system.
That's strike 3 for Apple Lossless for me.