[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] flac vs. apple lossless
FLAC is nice, open and friendly - but iTunes/Quicktime lacks the codec,
so it can't play them (unless you get the hack, which is not exactly
user friendly). iTunes being the dominant audio player in the market, it
would be unwise to find a solution that is not compatible. For now, FLAC
tends to be a PC-centric thing.
Also - don't forget about Ogg Vorbis, which I believe is also open and
fun to say.
Once upon a time there was AIFF, which was also Apple, lossless and
proprietary. For many projects, AIFF (what Bob Olhsson was calling, "the
first generation of Apple Lossless") became/is a de-facto lossless
standard. To the degree that it is proprietary, think of it more like
MP3 - MP3 is proprietary, but no self-respecting audio software maker
would do without it - so it's not like you are actually getting too
locked in/out of anything, in essence, both these formats are
ubiquitous, as such, I have no personal fears about their forward
compatibility. The Problem with AIFF: the file sizes are huge - and the
bit depth limit Bob mentioned. Nevertheless, Apple Lossless is now in a
similar "business" position as AIFF (who knew?).
Apple Lossless is actually MPEG4 in disguise (just switch around that
.m4a tag to .mp4, and the file will still play) - to which end we might
debate how proprietary it really is. MPEG 4, as you might remember is a
friend to DVD audio people, and as such - it ain't goin' nowhere anytime
soon.
If it were up to me:
As much as I like the concept of FLAC (or Ogg Vorbis for that matter) -
I don't see any particular aggressive moves from Apple to scare me away
from what is arguably the better algorithm found in Apple Lossless
(meaning: if space is a real issue, you're better off with M4A, FLAC,
while better than AIFF, is somewhere in-between). I like that iTunes is
free and made for PCs and Macs and shows no signs of weakening as a
standard audio player, this bodes well for the longevity for M4A to be
sure. On the other hand, I don't see the community which surrounds FLAC
and Ogg as being nearly as driven or committed as the Apple people have
been, as such, I think there is *some* concern about FLACs long-term
viability.Open source projects usually work better when there is a
perceived "evil" that only developers can correct - not when people
aren't exactly complaining about their choices in audio codecs.
One final note: Remember, we're still dealing with arrangements of zeros
and ones - the purpose of all lossless encoders is essentially the same.
While in the past audio format conversation was more of a problem, it
has become less so in more recent times. If you feel you'd made a
mistake and picked the wrong one - for whatever reason - it's doubtful
it would be a disastrous decision, and it is more than likely true that
you will be able to comfortably have multiple formats existing
side-by-side without much problem at all.
In short: I wouldn't sweat this one.
Tracy Harter wrote:
Hello list:
I am hoping someone could tell me the pros/cons of flac vs. apple lossless
for archival backups of oral history recordings. I know that flac is
opensource and perhaps more flexible and that apple lossless is obviously
proprietary. But that's about all I know. Any input will be appreciated.
Tracy Harter, Special Collections Librarian
James Madison University
--
Michael Crispin
Sound Recordings Librarian
The University of Washington
(206)/543-1159