iPod question

Some info on Flac by McIntosh for those that are confused

I posted the following info elsewhere when this subject came up in the past.
From McIntosh's downloadable guide:

Notable features of FLAC
• Lossless: The encoding of audio (PCM) data incurs no loss of information, and the decoded audio is bit-for-bit identical to what went into the encoder. Each frame contains a 16-bit CRC of the frame data for detecting transmission errors.
The integrity of the audio data is further insured by storing an MD5 signature of the original unencoded audio data in the file header, which can be compared against later during decoding or testing.
• Fast: FLAC is asymmetric in favor of decode speed. Decoding requires only
integer arithmetic, and is much less compute-intensive than for most perceptual codecs. Real-time decode performance is easily achievable on even modest hardware.
• Hardware support: Because of FLAC's free reference implementation and low
decoding complexity, FLAC is currently the only lossless codec that has any kind of hardware support.
• Streamable: Each FLAC frame contains enough data to decode that frame. FLAC does not even rely on previous or following frames. FLAC uses sync codes and CRCs (similar to MPEG and other formats), which, along with framing, allow decoders to pick up in the middle of a stream with a minimum of delay.
• Seekable: FLAC supports fast sample-accurate seeking. Not only is this useful for playback, it makes FLAC files suitable for use in editing applications.
• Flexible metadata: New metadata blocks can be defined and implemented in
future versions of FLAC without breaking older streams or decoders
• Suitable for archiving: FLAC is an open format, and there is no generation loss if you need to convert your data to another format in the future. In addition to the frame CRCs and MD5 signature, flac has a verify option that decodes the encoded stream in parallel with the encoding process and compares the result to the original, aborting with an error if there is a mismatch.• Convenient CD archiving: FLAC has a "cue sheet" metadata block for storing a CD table of contents and all track and index points. For instance, you can rip a CD to a single file, then import the CD's extracted cue sheet while encoding to MS300 Advanced Users Guide yield a single file representation of the entire CD. If your original CD is damaged,the cue sheet can be exported later in order to burn an exact copy.
• Error resistant: Because of FLAC's framing, stream errors limit the damage to the frame in which the error occurred, typically a small fraction of a second worth of data. Contrast this with some other lossless codecs, in which a single error destroys the remainder of the stream.
What FLAC is not
• Lossy. FLAC is intended for lossless compression only, as there are many good lossy formats already, such as Vorbis, MPC, and MP3 (see LAME for an
excellent open-source implementation).
• SDMI compliant, et cetera. There is no intention to support any methods of copy protection, which are, for all practical purposes, a complete waste of bits. (Another way to look at it is that since copy protection is futile, it really carries no information, so you might say FLAC already losslessly compresses all possible copy protection information down to zero bits!) Of course, we can't stop what some misguided person does with proprietary metadata blocks, but then again,non-proprietary decoders will skip them anyway.

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/data/ma...users.guide.pdf
__________________
 
Who knew it would get this deep? I just got into all this compressed stuff a couple of months ago. Before it was CD and DAT that I truly dealt with(although I have a stack of vinyl waiting for me to get off my ass and buy a turntable!). Either way I know I wasn't happy with AAC or MP3. The Mcintosh piece is in a whole different league from what I need for music on the go (even if you can rip from it and I don't know if you can!). I enjoy my ipod on many different levels but never as much as my home Mcintosh stack! I consider everything a trade off until I have more money than sense! Cheers...
 
I just got a 30gb ipod for Christmas myself,and I imported about 50 cds,and downloaded them onto my ipod,then I tried to update,after I had taken the old songs off my puter to make room,and all I have now are the new songs.the other 50 cds are gone now!Help!
Jimmy
 
If I understand you right your CD's are not gone, just your time into importing them! Did you clear the ipod or your library on itunes?
 
I'm not a software guy. I'm a hardware guy. So I'm certainly no pro in this area.

My deal is that 16/44.1 Red Book audio is barely adequate. So why try to compress that? Even if it is a lossless compression scheme. Disk space is cheap, so why bother? Ten years ago a terabyte of rotating media took up 5000 cubic feet, and cost millions of dollars. Now I can fit two TB in a 1U rack space for less than two grand.

As far as a 30 gig iPod goes, that will take approximately 58 hours of uncompressed Red Book audio. I don't think I would have much problem taking a few minutes every couple of weeks of listening to swap out my music for new music.
 
As far as my "drop bits" comment, perhaps that wasn't the best way to phrase that. So let's say this: In ALAC, bits go away when moved to storage, and are reconstructed later. In AIFF and WAV formats, no bits go away ever, unless there's some sort of glitch in the I/O bus or in the storage media. I stand by all my previous comments.

And I know the pros and cons of the Wikipedia. Did you see the recent comparison between the Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica on a random sample of articles? The Wikipedia had 28 inaccuracies; the Britannica had 27 inaccuracies.
 
In AIFF and WAV formats, no bits go away ever, unless there's some sort of glitch in the I/O bus or in the storage media.
My point is that it is irrelevant that the bits are compressed. The file is bit for bit identical when it is decoded. If I send out a zip file with a word document and open it in Dos without unzipping it it is a mess. However, when it is unzipped it is exactly the same file.
Now I can fit two TB in a 1U rack space for less than two grand.
The point is that it is cheaper to compress it to half the wav file size. If I can spend 2 grand on two terrabytes, then I could save a grand if I go with FLAC (which is roughly half the size of a wav file) by fitting the same music on one terrabyte.

One other issue for ipod users is that the battery will drain much faster with wav than Apple lossless (at least from the comparisons I have read).

One thing to keep in mind is that you will be stuck with Apple as your only mp3 player down the road if you do go with Apple lossless. Wav files can be played by most "mp3 players" and software programs, Apple lossless cannot. You can transcode back to wav from any of the lossless formats, but that can take time even if you use a batch program.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom