Slashdot Mirror
Opensource Apple Lossless Decoder Released
Cody Brocious writes "David Hammerton has released version 1.0 of an ALAC decoder. This allows users of operating systems not supported by iTunes/QuickTime to listen to their Apple Lossless files, a proprietary competitor to FLAC. This is a large leap forward in audio codec interoperability, and paves the way for an ALAC encoder." The site also asks for additional help on the project.
gif-like, could i use it in a real project?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Yes, but I'd find it highly doubtful that Quictime, lossy video compression extraordinaire, would uses ALAC for sound... does it?
there's a better reason than the already mentioned ipod cpu..
now it's their format - possibly with a compression scheme they got a patent going for, so they own it.
why did sony keep insisting on atrac so long? because it was their format, their control. if it had made it big then they could have cashed on it.
true, itunes supports mp3's and ipods do as well - but they have to, nobody would have used them otherwise.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Good luck using Xine after the corps finally crack down on those illegal ripped and hacked win-binary codecs (real, win-media, apple's quicktime)...
Ok honey... illegaly porting someone's software is not covered under free speech rights. Apple might not do anything about it as long as it's not in direct conflict with their interests, but remember this... this doesn't make itlegal.
Because the iPod was designed to have just enough CPU power to do what it was designed to do: play MP3s. (In retrospect this was not a smart decision, but most embedded devices don't plan for future upgrades either.) The other codecs were added years later.
When you have many embedded devices to program for, it is convenient to have control over the future of the CODEC you are using.
While FLAC is great, Apple has no controll over what direction FLAC takes.
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
Now, this is pure speculation, but I think one of the reasons why large companies avoid open source codecs like FLAC or Xvid is that they are afraid of getting sued. In today's everything-is-patented world, many open source codecs out there probably violate at least one patent somewhere, perhaps without even realizing it. Right or wrong, a company could, in the current climate, be sued for using one of those codecs. Individual users and developers of the codec are in the same boat, but they aren't as juicy a target as a large corporation, so the danger of them getting sued is a lot less. Even small companies might escape the crosshairs if they don't go around annoying the big sharks. But a patent holder who held off suing a bunch of individuals and small companies might change their mind and bring out the big guns once a large company with deep pockets made themselves a target. It's certainly a risk many large companies might shy away from. By using stuff from a consortium like MPEG, which has probably used some expensive IP lawyers to verify all their stuff as being on the up and up with respect to patents, companies can shield themselves somewhat from that risk.
Free Hans!
Optimizing at a level that low is counter-intuitive. An algorithm that's more "complicated" might take up less memory or have a more favorable memory access pattern. For example, and I have no idea of the difference between FLAC and ALAC so this is just an example, if a more complicated algorithm has a larger number of stages but they all fit in cache when they're running, it could easily perform better.
For example, Google for "AlphaSort". Basically, they made a mutli-phase sort where the initial stage fit entirely in the cache of the DEC Alpha computers they were using, and beat the crap out of the alternatives. By that I mean they beat a Cray Y-MP by a factor of 4.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
Sony freaks out on their formats because they actually have some kind of power they can gain from those formats. They have an agenda. For example they wanted to turn ATRAC or Minidisc or whatever into a distribution format, one that other people used but that they controlled. They wanted to supplant mp3 and then leverage this to pressure people into using other Sony products. They wanted to control distribution.
But ALAC isn't even intended or positioned for distribution. There's no power in it. ALACs are created in iTunes and ripped from CDs you own, and they're intended to be played back in iTunes and copied to your own personal iPod. Going through the particularly obvious or convenient interface paths in iTunes, there's no reason that once someone creates an ALAC file that ALAC would ever pass into the possession of anyone except them. Apple seems to be almost resisting the idea people could start distributing ALACs the way people distribute FLACs now. So now Apple controls... what? The way iTunes users use iTunes? They had that already, they wrote the thing.
I guess you can say ALAC locks people into iTunes since once they've ripped their collection to ALAC they can't use those ALACs in other programs but... well, no, not really, becuase ALACs are lossless-- that's what they are! So you can just tell iTunes to convert them to mp3s with no degradation or ill effects whatsoever, by simply right clicking on them. Bang, lock-in gone. And the lossy, transcoding-error-prone format Apple's pushing... is an open MPEG format, AAC. If Apple wanted power or to lock people in, they'd be pushing people to rip their iTunes libraries as some WMP-like proprietary lossy format, not pushing people to rip to AAC and then offering their proprietary ALAC as a minor option buried in the iTunes preferences.
Personally I would suspect they used ALAC rather than FLAC simply because they already had the ALAC code internally developed and their engineers were familiar with it. I doubt anywhere near as much thought went into the decision as people seem to be assuming.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You don't need to be a "big J Journalist" to have freedom of the press.
The law should either apply to small and large media sources alike, or apply to none of them.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
So, what does ALAC have to do with DRM? Hmm?
I have music in iTunes because that way I can easily sync to my ipod, it's also the best software available to organise music collections.
Will we ban knives because they are a tool for killing people, and killing people is illegal?
There is a fine line. If a tool has significant legal (and moral) uses, I see no problem with it.
stuff
I don't think so. The truth is, most people who play music on their computer don't know the difference between lossless and lossy, and usually still don't get it very well even after you try to explain it to them. To them, music is mp3, although they may be vaguely aware of other formats such as wma and perhaps (if they own an iPod) AAC.
The people who use lossless encoding and understand what it is and what its benefits are are a much more technical crowd.
So while the Mac fanatics will of course use Apple Lossless because it's produced by Apple, many other people already have most of their CD collection encoded in FLAC and are probably happy with FLAC's less (not?) patent-encumbered, open source nature.
You know, open formats and all that.
I personally wouldn't even consider Apple Lossless. FLAC is an open, documented format with encoders and decoders that work on every platform imagineable. Not only that, but FLAC is a very competitive format, being as good or better on average than essentially any other lossless format out there for most samples.
Simply put, FLAC is a well known and trusted brand among people that know about lossless audio compression, why it's good, and why they should use it. Apple lossless is some other proprietary format that might (due to patents, for example) eventually require a license to be able to legally decode.
And I think I speak for most people that have already encoded hundreds of CDs losslessly for convenience and storage when I say, thanks, but no thanks.
Free Software for me.
OMG. dood, are you for real? If anyone sucks, well... Actually, the real and only reason for hacking DRM, and the one you are ignoring, is to counter the power that these corrupt corporations have given themselves contrary to the common good. Go ahead, justify greed all you want, however, all it looks like to me, and others, is a closed mind standing by unquestioned assumptions and self serving beliefs.
....
First off, just because it's the "law" doesn't ensure that it's the right or "ethical" thing to do. For instance, somehow I feel that you are less ethical than the person you're attacking. In the second regard, you can go on and on all you want about copyright infringement being illegal but the fact of the matter is that in many parts of the world it is not nor was it ever intended to be this draconian by those who first proposed it, in this and other first world countries. Third, and the real issue, is the DRM schemes and IP laws are immoral and should be resisted by all those who support an individual's intrinsic and inalienable rights.
Personally, I'm just getting so tired of here the same old bs marketing lies, over and over and
Words to men, as air to birds.
Well, it doesn't blow away MPEG-4, because it's part of MPEG-4. H.264 is MPEG-4 Part 10. The codec implemented in QuickTime now that people refer to as MPEG-4 is actually MPEG-4 Part 2. MPEG-4 is a big standard.
H.264 is also one of the required codecs (and will probably be the preferred codec) for both rival high-def DVD standards. It's an amazing codec; it really does deliver amazing quality all the way from cell phone streams up through broadcast quality video (at bit rates that residential broadband connections can handle), up to 1080p high-definition (at bit rates similar to what MPEG-4 achieves with standard definition video).
This space unintentionally left unblank.