Where's Apple Lossless, in the Scheme of Things?

[Tom Bomb]

Looking for some guidance here — anecdotes, expertise, experience, insight.

I understand this is a complex matter: I don't care for the many and varied, non-musical elements of this subject, here and now. But, how does Apple Lossless (ALAC) hold up, in comparison to other digital file-formats like mp3 or wav, which I'm assuming is still nearer the pinnacle, in this department, and still a good choice when recording.

Is it wise, or not, to continue using ALAC, and under which circumstances? Where do we go from there, regarding future-proofing, etc.? Would other options be better or worse, musically, practically? How so?

Just trying to get things in order, after scoring a very trippy pair of vintage bookshelf monitors ​

 

[Oddly]

I have no answer to your question, but you can't just come on here and say you've got some 'trippy' vintage monitors without posting a picture, dammit.
You know the rules.

 

[bholder]

My opinion on future proofing is that the Future works hand in hand with Murphy. Just sayin'.

 

[bradd]

ALAC is the same as a WAV file, but proprietary to Apple. I'd recommend using FLAC, which is open source.

 

[Tom Bomb]

I have no response to your request, but you can't just come on here and say you've got no idea, without making a at least a slapdash effort.

I have no answer to your question, but you can't just come on here and say you've got some 'trippy' vintage monitors without posting a picture, dammit.
You know the rules.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Murphy was an optimist.

My opinion on future proofing is that the Future works hand in hand with Murphy. Just sayin'.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Excellent! Having a stickybeak, here, I see there's some wriggle room but they're (apple) not providing support 'natively.' That's cool. FLAC's a bona fide contender. Thank you, @bradd.

I got involved ages ago, when Lossless first emerged. Because I'm keen on sound quality, in the early days, I took their red pill, after they committed to converting all their wares sold previously. I've rarely felt easy about any of it but have enjoyed ALAC, as a listener. It's just that I now have these trippy bookshelf babies so I'm wishing to do 'em justice. Everything else, beyond the listening experience, is still entirely up-in-the-air

ALAC is the same as a WAV file, but proprietary to Apple. I'd recommend using FLAC, which is open source.

 

[silky smoove]

One consideration is that not all lossless or lossy files are created equally. For instance, MP3 files can vary wildly in quality. Some being unlistenable while others are virtually indistinguishable from the source audio from which they were derived. It comes down to the encoding and the settings used in doing so. I've not dug into Apple Lossless as all of my studio clients are happy with the full resolution WAV files I deliver for mastering, but suffice it to say; Any quality encoder in any lossless format is going to produce results that will be more than adequate for the vast majority of listeners. Apple Lossless is certainly great. FLAC is great. Even good MP3s are great and shouldn't be burdened with the stigmas of that file format from years and decades past. M4A is great. They're all great, or more correctly, can all be great.

 

[mdlewis]

Looking for some guidance here — anecdotes, expertise, experience, insight.

I understand this is a complex matter: I don't care for the many and varied, non-musical elements of this subject, here and now. But, how does Apple Lossless (ALAC) hold up, in comparison to other digital file-formats like mp3 or wav, which I'm assuming is still nearer the pinnacle, in this department, and still a good choice when recording.

Is it wise, or not, to continue using ALAC, and under which circumstances? Where do we go from there, regarding future-proofing, etc.? Would other options be better or worse, musically, practically? How so?

Just trying to get things in order, after scoring a very trippy pair of vintage bookshelf monitors ​

I drank the ALAC Koolaid some time ago. I have a conventional (vintage) Hi-Fi system more or less and use that format for playback of digital recordings although I also play a lot of vinyl records of all sizes. I also use mp3, but all new recordings I acquire are generally in ALAC. My main playback source for digital recordings is a Mac Mini, so ALAC works great. The internal ADAC on the Mini is pretty good but I go digital to an external ADAC which provides source for the Hi-Fi.

As I do a fair amount of home recording, I've obtained many inexpensive software packages that will convert sound files to other formats, so I have few concerns. Also, I use a lot of open source software packages for other stuff. Just because something is Open Source does not mean it's a panacea. I figure Apple's invested enough in ALAC to keep this working for a while longer.

 

[DirtDog]

I'd ask yourself: why lossless instead of uncompressed WAV?

 

[Dominic D]

Lossless is always going to be the better choice for "future-proofing". You can't ever get back what is missing. What format you use is completely up to personal choice. I use iTunes so ALAC is the obvious choice for me. For recording, I use WAV to save my CPU from having to decode the compressed files.

 

[higain617]

Every CD I've ripped to Apple lossless sounds like I put a blanket over the speaker. I'd second using FLAC. Leave it to Apple to create lossless that sounds like it came from Limewire.

 

[CryingBass]

I'd ask yourself: why lossless instead of uncompressed WAV?

I believe size is a variable. But aside from sound, metadata compatibility, hardware/software compatibility, etc also factors into these decisions. A deep topic if want to go down that rabbit hole... YMMV

 

[SunByrne]

ALAC is the same as a WAV file, but proprietary to Apple.

Not anymore. Apple released the codec open-source and royalty-free in 2011.

I'd ask yourself: why lossless instead of uncompressed WAV?

Identical content but smaller files. Certainly given the prices of hard disks over the years, this is not as big a concern as it once was, but with everything moving to flash/ssd, it still matters.

 

[Tom Bomb]

Cool. Cheers, @mdlewis. I'm more or less in the same camp. The purloining of a half-decent ADAC looks like an avenue I could be heading down, along with a burst down the converter bunny bunker. I like that ALAC is keeping pace Many thanks

… As I do a fair amount of home recording, I've obtained many inexpensive software packages that will convert sound files to other formats, so I have few concerns. …

 

[Tom Bomb]

Will do. Cheers.

I'd ask yourself: why lossless instead of uncompressed WAV?

 

[SunByrne]

Every CD I've ripped to Apple lossless sounds like I put a blanket over the speaker. I'd second using FLAC. Leave it to Apple to create lossless that sounds like it came from Limewire.

The only way this can be true is if something is very, very wrong with your computer. When you play back an ALAC and a FLAC the bits that go into your DAC are literally identical.

Exercise: take an uncompressed AIFF (or WAV) from a CD or wherever. Compress to ALAC. Also compress to FLAC. Now convert both back to AIFF/WAV. You now have three identical files; the original and the two converted from lossless are bit-for-bit identical. (Hence the term "lossless.")

 

[Tom Bomb]

Hopefully getting easier, in time ​

I believe size is a variable. But aside from sound, metadata compatibility, hardware/software compatibility, etc also factors into these decisions. A deep topic if want to go down that rabbit hole... YMMV

 

[ardgedee]

ALAC is the same as a WAV file, but proprietary to Apple. I'd recommend using FLAC, which is open source.

ALAC was open-sourced over a decade ago with an Apache 2.0 license. Anyone can implement it for encoding or decoding without licensing.

Lossless is lossless. If you can tell the difference between lossless formats (using identical software and hardware) one of them is not a lossless format because it has transformed the audio signal. Otherwise perceived differences are mostly the product of audiophile anxiety.

FLAC and ALAC are equally fine. For a while FLAC was advantageous for being supported by more platforms in a greater range of sampling rates and bit depths. FLAC can still be better when you have to absolutely optimize for disk space at any cost. But ALAC has broader support outside the Apple ecosystem than it once did and iTunes has been supporting high resolution files for quite a long while now. (Incidentally, the Apple Finder can play FLAC files now although iTunes/Music still can't.)

WAV is not lossless. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, and it has broader support than both ALAC and FLAC, but files will be two to six (edit: No idea what I was thinking when I wrote that) times larger than ALAC and FLAC files that sound identical. If you have a small music collection or infinite storage space, go nuts.

Use whichever is more convenient to you and stop worrying about it. In the worst case scenario (having a lot of files and a player that doesn't support them), transcoding is easy.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Well, movies that I've purchased on AppleTV that were originally HD when I purchased them are automatically upgraded to 4K when 4K titles become available. Can't tell you how many Blu-Rays I purchased of DVDs that I already owned, so getting a free format upgrade is very nice. I'm not too worried about using Apple's file formats, but I've been all-in on Apple for 10-15 years now.