Some nagging iTunes & iPod questions
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: MartinC on 2 Aug 2010 16:38 Wayne C. Morris wrote: >> AAC and ALE are both variants of M4A, and not ALE a variant of AAC. > > Incorrect. They're audio encoding formats which can be stored *inside* an M4A > file, but that doesn't make them variants of M4A, any more than a painted > portrait and a photograph are variants of a picture frame. I carefully wrote "M4A" instead of .m4a in order to give it a slightly higher level ob abstractism... Just out of curiosity - how would you define "picture" as a metaphor in this context? I mean this sentence: "just like portraits and photographs are both pictures, ALE and AAC are both HMMPPFF" I tried to use M4A as an obvious synonym for "HMMPPFF". However, since M4A now seems to be something like "the frame of HMMPPFF", then what would be the correct term to use? As I said, even the audio editors are pretty confused about this, so unless there already is a correct term for it, it would be high time to find one...
From: MartinC on 2 Aug 2010 16:52 > Just out of curiosity - how would you define "picture" as a metaphor in this > context? In answer to my own question... if M4A is not a format but rather the "frame" of a format, then a nice name for the missing format itself would be: "ALE and AAC" are both "M4Able" ;-) Just like: "portraits and photographs are both pictures and frameable!" EOT.
From: Wes Groleau on 2 Aug 2010 17:39 On 08-02-2010 12:59, MartinC wrote: > Wes Groleau wrote: >>> If the two are not the same size, then at least one of them >> is NOT a "bit-copy" of the CD format the other poster asked about. > > Nope, because both Apple Lossless and FLAC are *compressed* formats, but the > algorithms are different, and FLAC seems to be a bit better. Then, again, neither is a "bit-copy" as you suggested earlier. Which is why I asked "is it really?" -- Wes Groleau TANSTAAFL http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=984
From: Wes Groleau on 2 Aug 2010 17:44 On 08-02-2010 13:04, Ian Gregory wrote: > On 2010-08-02, Wes Groleau<Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: >> > If the two are not the same size, then at least one of them >> > is NOT a "bit-copy" of the CD format the other poster asked about. > Surely a "bit-copy" of the CD format*is* CD format. > > What was being discussed were competing lossless audio codecs such as > ALEC or FLAC. In essence, with a lossless codec you can take an audio A comment was > (4) I am a hi-fi aficionado and import all my old CDs into apple > lossless files. I am told this format is virtually indistinguishable > from CD quality source material. My question is -- how is the An answer was that "it is a bit-copy" which I questioned. Subsequent clarifications established that Apple lossless is _not_ a bit-copy. Which does not prevent it from being "virtually indistinguishable from CD quality source material" to the ear, and if I implied otherwise, please forgive. -- Wes Groleau The Miracle Worker? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=668
From: Wes Groleau on 2 Aug 2010 17:47
On 08-02-2010 15:04, Jim Gibson wrote: > Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) is not lossless. It, like MP3, throws away > bits of information in the audio stream to reduce the file size. Apple > supports AAC and MP3 in iPods, etc. I think AAC was tossed in inadvertently. My question was to a statement about Apple lossless, not about AAC. -- Wes Groleau If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but garbage. But this garbage, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and none dare criticize it. |