Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

Post a reply

Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :geek: :ugeek: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :3: :wub: >:( :blergh:
View more smilies

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by NeuralStunner » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:14 am

I find it sad that HTML5 was doomed from the start for having the misguided notion that several rival companies could agree on a standard.

Of course, AFAIK it isn't finalized yet, so who knows what may happen. If they actually do agree I'll be surprised.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Blzut3 » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:35 am

Well like any criticism of Ogg, Theora, and Vorbis you can find just as many arguments telling you the opposite. But lets assume for a moment that everything on that page is valid. Ogg isn't the only free container format, there is also Matroska which is used for the WebM standard (Matroska with VP8 and Vorbis) set by Google. If the container was the issue at hand an alternative would have been found, so the decision is basically just on the codecs themselves. I should mention that the video codec is the only thing I've seen a heated argument on. I don't think there were any objections to Vorbis which is probably why Google is using it for WebM.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by BouncyTEM » Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:01 am

Would any of the complaints in this have been relevant on why ogg has not been used, by chance?

http://hardwarebug.org/2010/03/03/ogg-objections/

As someone who's only at a basic level of programming, I can only understand a few things here, but it seems plausible and I figured I'd get some more informed opinions.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Graf Zahl » Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:11 am

Blzut3 wrote:
DaMan wrote:Mostly because Theora is crap. No website is going to pay for the extra bandwidth it would need just to make a few Mozilla devs happy.
On the contrary Apple and Microsoft made it quite clear that it was mainly out of fear of submarine patents. Sure quality was a factor, but it's not the reason that Safari and IE don't support it. (See paragraph 4.) In addition, if I'm not mistaken, Theora's quality is somewhere between h263 and h264. h263 was, at one point, good enough for Youtube.

The entire reasoning is still bogus. It sounds to me more like some companies want to keep control no matter what and use any pretext they can to justify it. It also has the (for them) nice side effect to devalue the free alternative by spreading FUD.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Blzut3 » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:47 pm

DaMan wrote:Mostly because Theora is crap. No website is going to pay for the extra bandwidth it would need just to make a few Mozilla devs happy.
On the contrary Apple and Microsoft made it quite clear that it was mainly out of fear of submarine patents. Sure quality was a factor, but it's not the reason that Safari and IE don't support it. (See paragraph 4.) In addition, if I'm not mistaken, Theora's quality is somewhere between h263 and h264. h263 was, at one point, good enough for Youtube.

Now we have VP8 which competes with h264 and licensed for free by Google. Why Apple/Microsoft continue to refuse these I don't really know. There were some suspicions that VP8 might infringe on h264 patents though.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by DaMan » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:17 pm

Mostly because Theora is crap. No website is going to pay for the extra bandwidth it would need just to make a few Mozilla devs happy.
Graf Zahl wrote:That list makes me wonder why some companies have to reinvent the wheel over and over again. Since all of these codes are nearly identical in terms of compression, what's the point in developing yet another one instead of just using one that fits the intended use?
Most of those lossless codecs were made by individuals. Apple,Real and WMA lossless were probably a case of Not Invented Here.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Blzut3 » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:53 am

Probably for the same reason OGG Vorbis+Theora didn't become the standard for HTML5 video. Fear of submarine patents on the free and open source codecs.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Ryan Cordell » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:22 am

For the (or loss of) money and people that don't know any better, probably.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Graf Zahl » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:21 am

That list makes me wonder why some companies have to reinvent the wheel over and over again. Since all of these codes are nearly identical in terms of compression, what's the point in developing yet another one instead of just using one that fits the intended use?

Well, anyway, looks like ALAC isn't really worth bothering...

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by DaMan » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:53 am

AC3 is worse than MP3 'nuff said.
AAC-LC and Ogg are about the same but AAC-HE can do "good enough" quality at 48-64Kbps. There is the ol' host binaries in a country that doesn't recognize software patents loophole. :wink:
A few lossless codecs compress better but they're all closed source.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by NeuralStunner » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:44 am

randy wrote:(Technically, you also need to be paying a MP3 fee, too, if you distribute wads with MP3s.)
Well that's really LAME. :P (I don't think the quality is as nice as OGG, anyway.)

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Kinsie » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:12 pm

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanations, guys.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by randi » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:37 pm

ALAC: Unless it can be compressed significantly better than FLAC, it doesn't offer anything that FLAC doesn't.
AAC: As Graf said, it's patented, so somebody's going to need to pay that license fee. (Technically, you also need to be paying a MP3 fee, too, if you distribute wads with MP3s.) Vorbis is supposed to subjectively be about the same quality as AAC at the same bitrate.
AC3: This has license fees, just like AAC. Also, my understanding is that at low bitrates, it isn't very good.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Graf Zahl » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:45 pm

AAC - never going to happen. Patent issues are a tricky thing and the best way to avoid them is not using patented technology.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec Support

by Blox » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:39 am

It'd be interesting if AAC support was possible.
Though what do I have to say, I don't play this anyway. :P !

If questions arise, then I'm dropping this because AAC is better than AC3, which is > OGG >=< MP3.
So yeah, just dropping this by because why not. (Honestly!)

Top