I'm fairly late on this but just to add an anecdote to the Lossless conversation.
For anyone who keeps their music on their built-in hard drive and have a laptop, lossless is not a very good option of course. However, if you can spare the space, have a desktop, or an external drive for your music library, this is my opinion for Lossless:
The advantage of Apple Lossless is simply that it plays so easily with iTunes/AppleTV/iPods/iPhones. It's easy, quick, and pretty seamless to rip this format in iTunes.
The disadavantage of course is that if you want to use those lossless files on anything non-apple you're going to need to re-encode them. However, the chances of your device supporting FLAC is probably more slim than it supporting ALAC. If this is your (rare) case, than it is fairly quick and easy to just re-encode all your ALAC files to FLAC using Max in OSX.
Bottom line: if you use Apple devices ALAC is probably going to give you the least amount of fuss. Lossless is lossless.
Despite the name lossless codecs do loose a small amount of data, FLAC looses less than ALAC, and being open source will be around long, long after it's completely obsolete. If your purpose is to archive your music then these are key differences and give FLAC the edge.
If you care enough about your music to rip to lossless, might as well jump through an extra hoop or two to get the best.
I just wish Apple would released a "recently imported" tab on iTunes. When you have almost 10 thousand songs like me, its annoying as hell to go through and try to find the new songs and bring them over to your iPod, rename or add album art to them. Doesn't seem like a very hard thing to fix.
@TonyWonder: It's been said three times already, but I just thought I'd be an ass and point out that there is a Smart Playlist in iTunes called "Recently Added." You should check it out.
Even if you didn't have this list built-in, you could make your own Smart Playlist that could do the job. Scripting: It's Actually Pretty Useful, And Not That Hard.
@Beastage: I can live with that - what bugs me is the obsession with iTunes.
The vast majority of people don't use it since they're running PCs. Only people with iPods or iPhones are locked into using it and while there are a lot of them - they're still a fraction of all the phones out there, and not everyone who listens to music on their computers use PMPs (most don't, in fact).
The majority of Windows users I've talked to really don't like iTunes.
This came up on the 'modern smartphone' comparison when 'iTunes compatibility' was one of the points - which basically was a free point for the iPhone.
"iTunes is a decent audio encoder, and it'll get your music from point A—the CD—to points B, C and D—your computer, your MP3 player and your backup drive—without much trouble. But it'll do it with a less-than-great encoder, with occasionally inconsistent tagging, with album art that'll only work on Apple devices, and without support for the best lossless audio formats."
Lossless is lossless, as in it doesn't lose any information.
How is Apple lossless a "less than great" encoder? How is it any worse than any other lossless encoder?
(Agreed on the wonky album art, but frankly, I couldn't care less about the art, all I care about is the music.)
I know this sounds and looks beautiful and amazing and super-cool, but after reading the articles Giz posted the strains in Dubai and other Gawker sites talking about the horrors of Beijing, I just hope that the people building this eco-friendly building are treated well by USA and European standards ( amongst other countries that treat their citizens well ).
@LindsayJoy's MBP is into S+M: It's just a shame that lots of people tend to forget/ignore/or simply be unaware of some of the suffering that could be behind some of these pretty glittery buildings.
my guess it will be a another six years or more before we see any product using the tech. i heard of blu-ray starting around 1999 or so and if it follows the same time line it will be a while.
@Gilbert Capulong: The key word here is "writing". As long as human beings have been around, chances are good we've been making music in some fashion, but it wasn't being written.
@10:02am: It's also "lossy" from a physical perspective. The grooves get worn down and lose their fidelity. I know, I have New Order- Substance record that skates because I played it until it was smooth.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/20/09
The size difference is irrelevant unless you're encoding for a player that can't store an adequate amount.
09/20/09
Considering that my music collection is larger than any portable media player can handle, then yes it is relevant.
09/19/09
For anyone who keeps their music on their built-in hard drive and have a laptop, lossless is not a very good option of course. However, if you can spare the space, have a desktop, or an external drive for your music library, this is my opinion for Lossless:
The advantage of Apple Lossless is simply that it plays so easily with iTunes/AppleTV/iPods/iPhones. It's easy, quick, and pretty seamless to rip this format in iTunes.
The disadavantage of course is that if you want to use those lossless files on anything non-apple you're going to need to re-encode them. However, the chances of your device supporting FLAC is probably more slim than it supporting ALAC. If this is your (rare) case, than it is fairly quick and easy to just re-encode all your ALAC files to FLAC using Max in OSX.
Bottom line: if you use Apple devices ALAC is probably going to give you the least amount of fuss. Lossless is lossless.
09/19/09
Despite the name lossless codecs do loose a small amount of data, FLAC looses less than ALAC, and being open source will be around long, long after it's completely obsolete. If your purpose is to archive your music then these are key differences and give FLAC the edge.
If you care enough about your music to rip to lossless, might as well jump through an extra hoop or two to get the best.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Even if you didn't have this list built-in, you could make your own Smart Playlist that could do the job. Scripting: It's Actually Pretty Useful, And Not That Hard.
09/19/09
This isn't an Apple article but all the shots are
Apple and OSX and OSX comes before Windows....
News flash Applemodo, osx global market share is not even 5%!!!
09/19/09
The vast majority of people don't use it since they're running PCs. Only people with iPods or iPhones are locked into using it and while there are a lot of them - they're still a fraction of all the phones out there, and not everyone who listens to music on their computers use PMPs (most don't, in fact).
The majority of Windows users I've talked to really don't like iTunes.
This came up on the 'modern smartphone' comparison when 'iTunes compatibility' was one of the points - which basically was a free point for the iPhone.
09/19/09
Lossless is lossless, as in it doesn't lose any information.
How is Apple lossless a "less than great" encoder? How is it any worse than any other lossless encoder?
(Agreed on the wonky album art, but frankly, I couldn't care less about the art, all I care about is the music.)
09/19/09
How much does Best Buy charge to do this?
09/02/09
09/02/09
That was possibly the most ignorant thing I read today. If you were trying to be funny - you are not.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I know this sounds and looks beautiful and amazing and super-cool, but after reading the articles Giz posted the strains in Dubai and other Gawker sites talking about the horrors of Beijing, I just hope that the people building this eco-friendly building are treated well by USA and European standards ( amongst other countries that treat their citizens well ).
09/02/09
No I was not trying to be funny and it was the opposite of ignorant.
09/02/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
04/27/09
As you can see, holographic storage has been around for years.
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
ps
i have no idea what i am talking about
04/27/09
This is the internet after all.
04/27/09
04/27/09
Finding a product name that could not possibly be offensive in any target market.
04/27/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09