I can't say if it is "great" sounding, or just pretty nice.
I don't take their custom designed drivers with a grain of salt, because I used to design my own drivers as well. Many speaker companies do that. Many others buy them off the shelf. It often depends on what performance you need, and also on how many you will sell, and at what price.
But, Apple did one thing that most other manufacturers have not done. And that it to give meaningful specifcations. I stress the word "meaningful".
The reason is that a company can't gice one spec without giving the other that will define and limit that spec.
When frequency response is given, it MUST be accompanied by the delimiter+-db. Without that, it means nothing. That's why I say that the spec 20-20KHz is an indusrty joke. By itself, it means nothing.
When I was a teenager (in the early-mid sixty's), the console manufacturers, such as GE, RCA, Zenith, and others were the big guns in the industry. Hi-fi was just becoming well known.
It wasn't unusual to see them advertize that their models had 2,400 watts peak music power. But, what did that mean?
Well, first, it could be divided into two channels for 1,200 per channel. Then it could be divided in half again, because peak power was a simple doubling of music power. That gave 600 watts. Take off another 25% for music power, and you had about 450. The specs usually used by these companies past that were usually about 5% HD from 100 t0 10Kcycles (no Hertz in those days.
Retest, and bring those numbers to 50 to 15Kcycles with 1% HD, and you got about 50 watts.
So, those 2,400 watt amps were really 50 watt stereo amps.
That's what a lack of standards does. There were hearings before Congress about this, and a law was passed requiring that whenever a company advertises power output, it MUST be accompanied by both frequency at the -3 db levels (at worst), and HD numbers. The amp must also be tested at one third power output for one hour, to see if it gets too hot, ot turns off, or blows up, or melts down (some did).
Too bad, but that law didn't cover small devices that were not intended as hi-fi. Table radio's and the like. It is a loophole.
Apple is to be admired that they give the system response as 53 to 16KHz +-3 db, 108 db output level 1 meter, ac, 102 db 1 meter batteries.
That's a real spec!
The amp power doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was sized for the speaker system. We know the output levels and that is all that is needed. we won't know any more by knowing how many watts is has.
Distortion levels are ticklish. Remember that these are system specs. There never has been a rule, and certainly no law about speaker specs.
The amp will have low distortion. That's not a problem these days, except for single-ended tube amps, which have a lot of distortion.
The problem with stating system distortion specs, is that people can easily get scared off by the levels of distortion that speakers exhibit.
A good small speaker can have 2% distortion in the mid range. 4% in the treble, and 10% in the base.
But those would be good specs for a small inexpensive speaker.
I'm not sure that the public is ready for those numbers when they read of amps with levels of 0.01% or less.
OK, yes to all that. The plus and minus numbers on the frequency response are welcome, perhaps unusual in this market, but not amazing-- lots of manufacturers cite their rolls-offs, but I guess if the competition is a $100 boombox, then sure.
Still, SPL numbers without some kind of distortion figures are pretty much in the same league as frequency without roll-off, esoteric as some of the measurements may be.
Be that as it may, my guess would be that one of the main design dictates on this was to get loud, as in volume all the way up, without objectionable distortion, which is certainly one area where Apple can improve on most of the small one box systems on the market, many of which do fine up to a point and then simply turn into hideous unlistenable distortion machines.
A further guess would be that a lot of the design decisions assume 128k music files, with their truncated frequency response and dynamic range.
How much you want to bet this thing sounds better with iTunes downloads than with lossless CD rips?
I see no tweeters so no wonder it rolls of at 16 kHz. Hi-Fi my ass.
There are many different ways of achieving good sound. A wide stereo image can be achieved by electronically mixing right and left channel phase, creating a "phantom" stereo image that's far wider than the speakers would otherwise suggest.
As far as frequency response, a test in 1999 by Sound & Vision magazine of a ($1400 USD) Bose AM-15 "cube" system found a frequency response of:
Mains: 280hz to 13.3khz +/- 10.5db
Sub: 46hz to 202hz +/- 2.3db
I'd be the last to claim Bose cubes are "hi-fi", but it appears that Apple's high-frequency response is potentially much better than an example of a higher-priced popular-selling consumer sound product.
I'm planning to listen and let my ears be the judge.
OK, yes to all that. The plus and minus numbers on the frequency response are welcome, perhaps unusual in this market, but not amazing-- lots of manufacturers cite their rolls-offs, but I guess if the competition is a $100 boombox, then sure.
Still, SPL numbers without some kind of distortion figures are pretty much in the same league as frequency without roll-off, esoteric as some of the measurements may be.
Be that as it may, my guess would be that one of the main design dictates on this was to get loud, as in volume all the way up, without objectionable distortion, which is certainly one area where Apple can improve on most of the small one box systems on the market, many of which do fine up to a point and then simply turn into hideous unlistenable distortion machines.
A further guess would be that a lot of the design decisions assume 128k music files, with their truncated frequency response and dynamic range.
How much you want to bet this thing sounds better with iTunes downloads than with lossless CD rips?
I mentioned the distortion specs that are possibly in the ballpark, from my experience with something like this. That's why I can't wait to get to the Apple store and pick one up. I do want to test it.
But, as I said. distortion numbers for speakers, especially small one, will be much higher than the general public can relate to. That's true, even though all small models that are cheap, distort rather strongly when turned up.
People don't relate that distortion with a number, even though it can easily be more than 100%.
We will find tests of this on the web sites, as well as in the audio magazines. So, we'll see.
I don't see how it could sound better with a poorer signal. You know, "garbage in, garbage out".
I just got my Hi-Fi today and I can say I love it. Sure the price is a bit high but you can tell the quality of the product is very good. The sound it awesome as well. No complaints here.
I just got my Hi-Fi today and I can say I love it. Sure the price is a bit high but you can tell the quality of the product is very good. The sound it awesome as well. No complaints here.
I'm not at home right now. I can take some pics when I get back, but you need to see it in person to see how great of a product it really is. It feels very solid and the bass is amazing. The iPod (any model) has a pretty solid grip and it shouldn't fall out when you are moving the system around. All I can say is that some people are trashing this product without even taking a look at it or hearing what it sounds like. I love it.
Yes. But more importantly I have HEARD Apple Lossless and it doesn't sound great.
At any rate, my comment was that this is not a Hi Fi stereo replacement (something Steve Jobs embarassingly mentioned in his address). I didn't say it wasn't a bad product, just nothing to brag about.
I mentioned the distortion specs that are possibly in the ballpark, from my experience with something like this. That's why I can't wait to get to the Apple store and pick one up. I do want to test it.
But, as I said. distortion numbers for speakers, especially small one, will be much higher than the general public can relate to. That's true, even though all small models that are cheap, distort rather strongly when turned up.
People don't relate that distortion with a number, even though it can easily be more than 100%.
We will find tests of this on the web sites, as well as in the audio magazines. So, we'll see.
I don't see how it could sound better with a poorer signal. You know, "garbage in, garbage out".
I'll be interested in hearing you evaluation, once you get a chance to listen to one.
My though about 128k optimization is that it allows the designers to work towards a limited dynamic range without worrying that the target buyer is going to overtax whatever headroom the amp has available. So that such a file might sound fine (insofar as such a file sounds "fine") while, say, CD dynamic range might push it past its limits into clipping.
Yes. But more importantly I have HEARD Apple Lossless and it doesn't sound great.
At any rate, my comment was that this is not a Hi Fi stereo replacement (something Steve Jobs embarassingly mentioned in his address). I didn't say it wasn't a bad product, just nothing to brag about.
Clearly you don't hear OR read well. Sucks to be you.
If Lossless doesn't sound good to you then something is definately wrong, because that's what Lossless means.
Yes. But more importantly I have HEARD Apple Lossless and it doesn't sound great.
Are you trying to make yourself sound like a moron with that comment?
Do you know what Lossless means?
It means that if you compress something with it, what you get when you play back the file is exactly the same bit for bit, as the original.
If you take an AIFF, and an Apple Lossless compressed version of the same file, and listen to them back to back, and reckon you can hear a difference, then your ears are playing tricks on you because the bitstream to the DAC is exactly the same in both cases.
I'll be interested in hearing you evaluation, once you get a chance to listen to one.
My though about 128k optimization is that it allows the designers to work towards a limited dynamic range without worrying that the target buyer is going to overtax whatever headroom the amp has available. So that such a file might sound fine (insofar as such a file sounds "fine") while, say, CD dynamic range might push it past its limits into clipping.
I'll repost the link that s_sarinana posted earlier.
I'll also steal a few lines from their first impression:
"Audio quality? We don?t ever like to comment on this until we?ve done straight comparisons, but it was evident in each of Apple?s four demo rooms that the Hi-Fi is capable of revealing flaws in compressed audio - good for audiophiles, perhaps less so for average people or those accustomed to iTunes Music Store downloads."
I'll also steal a few lines from their first impression:
"Audio quality? We don?t ever like to comment on this until we?ve done straight comparisons, but it was evident in each of Apple?s four demo rooms that the Hi-Fi is capable of revealing flaws in compressed audio - good for audiophiles, perhaps less so for average people or those accustomed to iTunes Music Store downloads."
That sounds good. Let's hope it really is a great sounding box, since that would bode well for Apple's continued forays into CE land.
It would also suggest that Apple is capable of bringing real quality to areas outside their core competency, which further suggests that they know how to hire the right people and give them the right resources, always good for the future of their product line, whatever direction it may take.
Are you trying to make yourself sound like a moron with that comment?
Do you know what Lossless means?
It means that if you compress something with it, what you get when you play back the file is exactly the same bit for bit, as the original.
If you take an AIFF, and an Apple Lossless compressed version of the same file, and listen to them back to back, and reckon you can hear a difference, then your ears are playing tricks on you because the bitstream to the DAC is exactly the same in both cases.
I know what I said and I stand buy it. I have ripped songs in FLAC, AAC, MP3, and Apple "lossless" and listened to them decoded compared to Aiffs and they do not sound the same when being played back. Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me or maybe its the decompression process, but I stick to Aiffs.
Further, anyone who has listened to Apple's conversion to ALAC while using Airtunes can attest to it's ineffciency and poor sound quality.
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM. Anyone dumb enough to use this codec instead of FLAC or leaving it as Aiffs, is in for a wake up call in about 10 months. Have fun re-ripping all of your CDs when you want files that will play on something other than an iPod.
No, not maybe. Definitely. The bitstream is exactly the same. Not one single bit is different.
Quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Further, anyone who has listened to Apple's conversion to ALAC while using Airtunes can attest to it's ineffciency and poor sound quality.
Ever considered that it might be a poor clock (high jitter) in the Airport Express and bit-errors that cause AirTunes to sound poor (in your opinion)? That's got nothing to do with the Apple Lossless codec.
Quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM.
Yes, it is a "closed" codec. But that isn't necessary for DRM. Witness Apple's DRMed AAC files.
Also, just because it is closed, doesn't mean that there are no non-apple devices that can play it. Squeezebox software can transcode it, Roku's HD1000 can decode it, and so can the Sonos system.
I know what I said and I stand buy it. I have ripped songs in FLAC, AAC, MP3, and Apple "lossless" and listened to them decoded compared to Aiffs and they do not sound the same when being played back. Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me or maybe its the decompression process, but I stick to Aiffs.
Further, anyone who has listened to Apple's conversion to ALAC while using Airtunes can attest to it's ineffciency and poor sound quality.
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM. Anyone dumb enough to use this codec instead of FLAC or leaving it as Aiffs, is in for a wake up call in about 10 months. Have fun re-ripping all of your CDs when you want files that will play on something other than an iPod.
Regarless, this is all off topic.
Wow if ever you needed proof that people speak total crap about being able to hear differences in sound quality this, and your previous post, are surely the posts to quote. Also good for condemning the mass paranoia that runs rampant among certain crowds too. Apple isn't going to add DRM to things that don't already have it.
Wow if ever you needed proof that people speak total crap about being able to hear differences in sound quality this, and your previous post, are surely the posts to quote. Also good for condemning the mass paranoia that runs rampant among certain crowds too. Apple isn't going to add DRM to things that don't already have it.
Apple Lossless, like lossless WMA is exactly the same as CD quality. Whether they decide to add DRM has absolutely nothing to do with the codec. Your claims to the contrary are outright insane and showing blatant fanboyism for open source as there is no rational basis for them.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
I can't say if it is "great" sounding, or just pretty nice.
I don't take their custom designed drivers with a grain of salt, because I used to design my own drivers as well. Many speaker companies do that. Many others buy them off the shelf. It often depends on what performance you need, and also on how many you will sell, and at what price.
But, Apple did one thing that most other manufacturers have not done. And that it to give meaningful specifcations. I stress the word "meaningful".
The reason is that a company can't gice one spec without giving the other that will define and limit that spec.
When frequency response is given, it MUST be accompanied by the delimiter+-db. Without that, it means nothing. That's why I say that the spec 20-20KHz is an indusrty joke. By itself, it means nothing.
When I was a teenager (in the early-mid sixty's), the console manufacturers, such as GE, RCA, Zenith, and others were the big guns in the industry. Hi-fi was just becoming well known.
It wasn't unusual to see them advertize that their models had 2,400 watts peak music power. But, what did that mean?
Well, first, it could be divided into two channels for 1,200 per channel. Then it could be divided in half again, because peak power was a simple doubling of music power. That gave 600 watts. Take off another 25% for music power, and you had about 450. The specs usually used by these companies past that were usually about 5% HD from 100 t0 10Kcycles (no Hertz in those days.
Retest, and bring those numbers to 50 to 15Kcycles with 1% HD, and you got about 50 watts.
So, those 2,400 watt amps were really 50 watt stereo amps.
That's what a lack of standards does. There were hearings before Congress about this, and a law was passed requiring that whenever a company advertises power output, it MUST be accompanied by both frequency at the -3 db levels (at worst), and HD numbers. The amp must also be tested at one third power output for one hour, to see if it gets too hot, ot turns off, or blows up, or melts down (some did).
Too bad, but that law didn't cover small devices that were not intended as hi-fi. Table radio's and the like. It is a loophole.
Apple is to be admired that they give the system response as 53 to 16KHz +-3 db, 108 db output level 1 meter, ac, 102 db 1 meter batteries.
That's a real spec!
The amp power doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was sized for the speaker system. We know the output levels and that is all that is needed. we won't know any more by knowing how many watts is has.
Distortion levels are ticklish. Remember that these are system specs. There never has been a rule, and certainly no law about speaker specs.
The amp will have low distortion. That's not a problem these days, except for single-ended tube amps, which have a lot of distortion.
The problem with stating system distortion specs, is that people can easily get scared off by the levels of distortion that speakers exhibit.
A good small speaker can have 2% distortion in the mid range. 4% in the treble, and 10% in the base.
But those would be good specs for a small inexpensive speaker.
I'm not sure that the public is ready for those numbers when they read of amps with levels of 0.01% or less.
OK, yes to all that. The plus and minus numbers on the frequency response are welcome, perhaps unusual in this market, but not amazing-- lots of manufacturers cite their rolls-offs, but I guess if the competition is a $100 boombox, then sure.
Still, SPL numbers without some kind of distortion figures are pretty much in the same league as frequency without roll-off, esoteric as some of the measurements may be.
Be that as it may, my guess would be that one of the main design dictates on this was to get loud, as in volume all the way up, without objectionable distortion, which is certainly one area where Apple can improve on most of the small one box systems on the market, many of which do fine up to a point and then simply turn into hideous unlistenable distortion machines.
A further guess would be that a lot of the design decisions assume 128k music files, with their truncated frequency response and dynamic range.
How much you want to bet this thing sounds better with iTunes downloads than with lossless CD rips?
Originally posted by 1984
I see no tweeters so no wonder it rolls of at 16 kHz. Hi-Fi my ass.
There are many different ways of achieving good sound. A wide stereo image can be achieved by electronically mixing right and left channel phase, creating a "phantom" stereo image that's far wider than the speakers would otherwise suggest.
As far as frequency response, a test in 1999 by Sound & Vision magazine of a ($1400 USD) Bose AM-15 "cube" system found a frequency response of:
Mains: 280hz to 13.3khz +/- 10.5db
Sub: 46hz to 202hz +/- 2.3db
I'd be the last to claim Bose cubes are "hi-fi", but it appears that Apple's high-frequency response is potentially much better than an example of a higher-priced popular-selling consumer sound product.
I'm planning to listen and let my ears be the judge.
Originally posted by addabox
OK, yes to all that. The plus and minus numbers on the frequency response are welcome, perhaps unusual in this market, but not amazing-- lots of manufacturers cite their rolls-offs, but I guess if the competition is a $100 boombox, then sure.
Still, SPL numbers without some kind of distortion figures are pretty much in the same league as frequency without roll-off, esoteric as some of the measurements may be.
Be that as it may, my guess would be that one of the main design dictates on this was to get loud, as in volume all the way up, without objectionable distortion, which is certainly one area where Apple can improve on most of the small one box systems on the market, many of which do fine up to a point and then simply turn into hideous unlistenable distortion machines.
A further guess would be that a lot of the design decisions assume 128k music files, with their truncated frequency response and dynamic range.
How much you want to bet this thing sounds better with iTunes downloads than with lossless CD rips?
I mentioned the distortion specs that are possibly in the ballpark, from my experience with something like this. That's why I can't wait to get to the Apple store and pick one up. I do want to test it.
But, as I said. distortion numbers for speakers, especially small one, will be much higher than the general public can relate to. That's true, even though all small models that are cheap, distort rather strongly when turned up.
People don't relate that distortion with a number, even though it can easily be more than 100%.
We will find tests of this on the web sites, as well as in the audio magazines. So, we'll see.
I don't see how it could sound better with a poorer signal. You know, "garbage in, garbage out".
Originally posted by s_sarinana
I just got my Hi-Fi today and I can say I love it. Sure the price is a bit high but you can tell the quality of the product is very good. The sound it awesome as well. No complaints here.
Let's see some pics !!
Originally posted by hmurchison
Let's see some pics !!
I'm not at home right now. I can take some pics when I get back, but you need to see it in person to see how great of a product it really is. It feels very solid and the bass is amazing. The iPod (any model) has a pretty solid grip and it shouldn't fall out when you are moving the system around. All I can say is that some people are trashing this product without even taking a look at it or hearing what it sounds like. I love it.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Let's see some pics !!
Also, if you want to see some good pictures, iLounge has posted a bunch of them. You can find them here:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/firstlooks/
Originally posted by melgross
Have you ever heard of "Apple Lossless Encoding"?
Yes. But more importantly I have HEARD Apple Lossless and it doesn't sound great.
At any rate, my comment was that this is not a Hi Fi stereo replacement (something Steve Jobs embarassingly mentioned in his address). I didn't say it wasn't a bad product, just nothing to brag about.
(Personal attack deleted-JL)
Originally posted by melgross
I mentioned the distortion specs that are possibly in the ballpark, from my experience with something like this. That's why I can't wait to get to the Apple store and pick one up. I do want to test it.
But, as I said. distortion numbers for speakers, especially small one, will be much higher than the general public can relate to. That's true, even though all small models that are cheap, distort rather strongly when turned up.
People don't relate that distortion with a number, even though it can easily be more than 100%.
We will find tests of this on the web sites, as well as in the audio magazines. So, we'll see.
I don't see how it could sound better with a poorer signal. You know, "garbage in, garbage out".
I'll be interested in hearing you evaluation, once you get a chance to listen to one.
My though about 128k optimization is that it allows the designers to work towards a limited dynamic range without worrying that the target buyer is going to overtax whatever headroom the amp has available. So that such a file might sound fine (insofar as such a file sounds "fine") while, say, CD dynamic range might push it past its limits into clipping.
Originally posted by buckeye
Yes. But more importantly I have HEARD Apple Lossless and it doesn't sound great.
At any rate, my comment was that this is not a Hi Fi stereo replacement (something Steve Jobs embarassingly mentioned in his address). I didn't say it wasn't a bad product, just nothing to brag about.
Clearly you don't hear OR read well. Sucks to be you.
If Lossless doesn't sound good to you then something is definately wrong, because that's what Lossless means.
You must know!
Originally posted by buckeye
Yes. But more importantly I have HEARD Apple Lossless and it doesn't sound great.
Are you trying to make yourself sound like a moron with that comment?
Do you know what Lossless means?
It means that if you compress something with it, what you get when you play back the file is exactly the same bit for bit, as the original.
If you take an AIFF, and an Apple Lossless compressed version of the same file, and listen to them back to back, and reckon you can hear a difference, then your ears are playing tricks on you because the bitstream to the DAC is exactly the same in both cases.
Originally posted by addabox
I'll be interested in hearing you evaluation, once you get a chance to listen to one.
My though about 128k optimization is that it allows the designers to work towards a limited dynamic range without worrying that the target buyer is going to overtax whatever headroom the amp has available. So that such a file might sound fine (insofar as such a file sounds "fine") while, say, CD dynamic range might push it past its limits into clipping.
I'll repost the link that s_sarinana posted earlier.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/firstlooks/
I'll also steal a few lines from their first impression:
"Audio quality? We don?t ever like to comment on this until we?ve done straight comparisons, but it was evident in each of Apple?s four demo rooms that the Hi-Fi is capable of revealing flaws in compressed audio - good for audiophiles, perhaps less so for average people or those accustomed to iTunes Music Store downloads."
Originally posted by ecking
I would just like to point something out.
Apple never said this WAS a boombox.
Actually they did... iPod Boombox ... they just changed their mind.
Originally posted by melgross
I'll repost the link that s_sarinana posted earlier.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/firstlooks/
I'll also steal a few lines from their first impression:
"Audio quality? We don?t ever like to comment on this until we?ve done straight comparisons, but it was evident in each of Apple?s four demo rooms that the Hi-Fi is capable of revealing flaws in compressed audio - good for audiophiles, perhaps less so for average people or those accustomed to iTunes Music Store downloads."
That sounds good. Let's hope it really is a great sounding box, since that would bode well for Apple's continued forays into CE land.
It would also suggest that Apple is capable of bringing real quality to areas outside their core competency, which further suggests that they know how to hire the right people and give them the right resources, always good for the future of their product line, whatever direction it may take.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Are you trying to make yourself sound like a moron with that comment?
Do you know what Lossless means?
It means that if you compress something with it, what you get when you play back the file is exactly the same bit for bit, as the original.
If you take an AIFF, and an Apple Lossless compressed version of the same file, and listen to them back to back, and reckon you can hear a difference, then your ears are playing tricks on you because the bitstream to the DAC is exactly the same in both cases.
I know what I said and I stand buy it. I have ripped songs in FLAC, AAC, MP3, and Apple "lossless" and listened to them decoded compared to Aiffs and they do not sound the same when being played back. Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me or maybe its the decompression process, but I stick to Aiffs.
Further, anyone who has listened to Apple's conversion to ALAC while using Airtunes can attest to it's ineffciency and poor sound quality.
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM. Anyone dumb enough to use this codec instead of FLAC or leaving it as Aiffs, is in for a wake up call in about 10 months. Have fun re-ripping all of your CDs when you want files that will play on something other than an iPod.
Regarless, this is all off topic.
Originally posted by buckeye
Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me
No, not maybe. Definitely. The bitstream is exactly the same. Not one single bit is different.
Originally posted by buckeye
Further, anyone who has listened to Apple's conversion to ALAC while using Airtunes can attest to it's ineffciency and poor sound quality.
Ever considered that it might be a poor clock (high jitter) in the Airport Express and bit-errors that cause AirTunes to sound poor (in your opinion)? That's got nothing to do with the Apple Lossless codec.
Originally posted by buckeye
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM.
Yes, it is a "closed" codec. But that isn't necessary for DRM. Witness Apple's DRMed AAC files.
Also, just because it is closed, doesn't mean that there are no non-apple devices that can play it. Squeezebox software can transcode it, Roku's HD1000 can decode it, and so can the Sonos system.
Originally posted by buckeye
I know what I said and I stand buy it. I have ripped songs in FLAC, AAC, MP3, and Apple "lossless" and listened to them decoded compared to Aiffs and they do not sound the same when being played back. Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me or maybe its the decompression process, but I stick to Aiffs.
Further, anyone who has listened to Apple's conversion to ALAC while using Airtunes can attest to it's ineffciency and poor sound quality.
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM. Anyone dumb enough to use this codec instead of FLAC or leaving it as Aiffs, is in for a wake up call in about 10 months. Have fun re-ripping all of your CDs when you want files that will play on something other than an iPod.
Regarless, this is all off topic.
Wow if ever you needed proof that people speak total crap about being able to hear differences in sound quality this, and your previous post, are surely the posts to quote. Also good for condemning the mass paranoia that runs rampant among certain crowds too. Apple isn't going to add DRM to things that don't already have it.
Originally posted by Telomar
Wow if ever you needed proof that people speak total crap about being able to hear differences in sound quality this, and your previous post, are surely the posts to quote. Also good for condemning the mass paranoia that runs rampant among certain crowds too. Apple isn't going to add DRM to things that don't already have it.
Flame on fanboys.
Originally posted by buckeye
Flame on fanboys.
fanboys?
If you'd care to explain how you reckon Apple Lossless can sound different, I'm all ears...
Originally posted by buckeye
Flame on fanboys.
Apple Lossless, like lossless WMA is exactly the same as CD quality. Whether they decide to add DRM has absolutely nothing to do with the codec. Your claims to the contrary are outright insane and showing blatant fanboyism for open source as there is no rational basis for them.