Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RayChuang88

1. ALAC is Apple’s version of FLAC
2. No sonic difference between ALAC and FLAC
3. 24-bit/96khz is better than 16-bit/44khz CD
4. 24-bit/192khz is FAAAAR better than the 96khz version - higher resolution and increased dynamics
5. DSD is single-bit vs PCM that is a much closer replica of the original musical signal
6. Storage is so cheap that file size is irrelevant


25 posted on 11/28/2014 5:09:47 AM PST by newfreep ("Evil succeeds when good men do nothting" - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: newfreep
Don't forget that Apple made the Apple Lossless format an open format under the Apache license three years ago--as such, there are no more license restrictions on using the format. While we all agree that 24-bit 192 kHz sampling rate audio sounds REALLY good (that's the best we have now for digital master tapes), the file size for FLAC at the equivalent of 24-bit 192 kHz sampling rate is ridiculous--probably well over 100 MB just for a four-minute song.

Apple may make some compromises somewhere to accommodate the relatively limited storage space on iOS devices--and that's why I think the new Apple Lossless format for music digital downloads will be 24-bit 96 kHz sampling rate.

27 posted on 11/28/2014 5:18:56 AM PST by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: newfreep

Actually,audio resolution is totally a function of bit width, not sample rate. At 16 bit, the resolution is 2^16 or 65,536 possible levels to reproduce the music. 24 bit is 2^24 which is over 16 million different possible levels. 32 bit gives over 4 Billion. Of course, 24 bit files are 50% bigger than 16 bit ones. Another point - dynamic range is totally a function of bit width.

Sample rates over 44.1khz, at their most basic level, make no difference. I know this is heresy. The design of anti-aliasing filters can have an effect, but generally, sample rates above 44.1 are a waste of space - unless you are mastering for bats. Do a search for double blind tests 44.1khz vs 96khz. Even audio experts don’t guess better than chance would dictate.


35 posted on 11/28/2014 6:09:57 AM PST by trenton1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: newfreep
6. Storage is so cheap that file size is irrelevant

Depends upon your library.

If growth of filesize exceeds your storage growth, you're gonna be screwed eventually.

I have about 17,000 tunes on my computer. They are all pretty much the highest quality mp3s that I could create from CDs. The difference in quality will largely be lost on fogies like myself who's hearing has been impacted by stupid volume levels when I was younger, and firearms as I aged. Given the situations in which I mostly listen to music. i.e., sitting at my desk while working, and in the car/on my bike, sound quality isn't nearly as important as breadth of the library. I love the fact that I can be listening, and hear a track by Maroon 5, followed by a Bach Sonata.  Keeps my day interesting.

I keep the CDs around so I have a master that I can use to replicate my data any time I want.  I still have the very first CD I ever bought. (DSOTM) I really love the fact that it still works after all these years. I'll never have to re-buy my library as was inevitable with vinyl, even with the most careful practices. It is this that I love best about the new digital world. If I someday decide to buy some disks of this new encoding type you are describing, changes are it will be new stuff, and not things that I already own.

51 posted on 11/28/2014 7:19:14 AM PST by zeugma (The act of observing disturbs the observed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson