A new format from Apple?

  • 19 September 2014
  • 9 replies
  • 1458 views

Another attempt to make you buy your music collection all over again?

U2 Is Working With Apple On A New Digital Music Format
Exclusive: U2 and Apple Have Another Surprise for You

Personally I'd think twice before drinking the Kool-Aid....

9 replies

Userlevel 6
Badge +16
Yet another one... sigh.
Big Apple fan, but do not subscribe to the iTunes format. MP3 and FLAC only for me. Enough is enough... ya know?
Userlevel 4
Badge +8
Another attempt to make you buy your U2 music collection all over again?
I hope this is just itunes starting to carry ALAC (lossless apple 16/44.1 files). It would be nice to have another source for lossless downloads.

(and once downloaded, I'd convert to FLAC)
Bono vs Pono...
Userlevel 2
:)
----
Userlevel 5
Badge +1
What's the big deal between ALAC and Flac? Why convert when it is the same quality either way?

Am I missing something when one says they would only use Flac vs. Apple lossless when they are both lossless?
Likely, there is an advantage for Apple and the copyright holders in this new format.

There are a few things that need to be fixed, such as backing off on the excessive compression, more uniform average levels, and improving metadata, but this does not require creating another proprietary format and forcing users to purchase their music again. If anything, I think that the music industry owes us some restitution after compressing the life out of everything in the interest of better sales.

The compression function belongs in the players, not the source. Players can then adapt to their immediate surroundings. In high traffic, noisy areas, high compression is very useful. In very quiet surroundings, little or no compression is appropriate. The players can also accommodate the physiology of the listener as some listeners cannot deal with the full dynamic range. I can also imagine that a case can be made that player compression could preserve the hearing of some of the younger listeners that I encounter out and about who are pushing the level of their portables much louder than is safe. With sufficient compression, these users could back off on the level and still appreciate the music.

[Another thread, but I wonder if a pocket or belt bass "thumper" would be popular. This would allow portable listeners to "feel" the bass.]
What's the big deal between ALAC and Flac? Why convert when it is the same quality either way?

Am I missing something when one says they would only use Flac vs. Apple lossless when they are both lossless?


I agree. They are equal in quality (lossless) and can be converted from one to the other with no loss. In my own case, I have about 10,000 CDs, most already converted to FLAC. In my main home system (squeezeboxes), all the players handle FLAC natively. ALAC files are dealt with a little differently with squeezeboxes (i.e., must be "converted" to PCM or equivalent as I recall, though not certain here). So the FLAC files are dealt with a bit more efficiently in *that* system. Note that it is certainly unlikely that this "efficiency" using FLAC vs ALAC has any impact whatsoever on ultimate audio output....certainly none in my own case.

Also, I'm a bit OCD with my music collection and I really prefer some standardization, which for me is currently FLAC. If I had an Apple music ecosystem, I'd certainly be using ALAC instead.

Reply