Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Oct 2011 20:42 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Apple Apple has open sourced ALAC. "The Apple Lossless Audio Codec is an audio codec developed by Apple and supported on iPhone, iPad, most iPods, Mac and iTunes. ALAC is a data compression method which reduces the size of audio files with no loss of information. A decoded ALAC stream is bit-for-bit identical to the original uncompressed audio file. The Apple Lossless Audio Codec project contains the sources for the ALAC encoder and decoder. Also included is an example command line utility, called alacconvert, to read and write audio data to/from Core Audio Format and WAVE files. A description of a 'magic cookie' for use with files based on the ISO base media file format (e.g. MP4 and M4A) is included as well. The Apple Lossless Audio Codec sources are available under the Apache license."
Thread beginning with comment 494948
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: 24bit music
by fran on Sun 30th Oct 2011 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 24bit music"
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Do i need to do ABX to proof a higher bitrate IPS panel give better colour reproduction than a normal LCD or another example. Or can i just say that i see it.

If i am of the opinion that motion flow on a 120Hz tv looks better than a 60Hz do I then have to do ABX for you also?

Can you give me an ABX that I am wrong? That a bitrate of 24bit does not sound better than 16bit.

Edited 2011-10-30 15:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: 24bit music
by aaronb on Sun 30th Oct 2011 20:28 in reply to "RE[6]: 24bit music"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Can you give me an ABX that I am wrong? That a bitrate of 24bit does not sound better than 16bit.


You are making the claim, so it is up to you to back up the claim and not for others to disprove you.

For example, if I said that I saw flying ostriches today on the way to the shop. Without me backing this strange claim up you probably would come to one or more of the following conclusions:
1. He is simply suffering the effects of a high fever.
2. Not telling the truth.
3. He does not know what an ostrich is.

That ostrich claim would probably be more believable if I had video and or photographic evidence that was later backed up independently.

An ABX using Foobar2000 would only take a few minutes and would backup your claim that you can hear the difference. No body can prove that you can or cannot hear the difference.

Edited 2011-10-30 20:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: 24bit music
by zima on Fri 4th Nov 2011 23:50 in reply to "RE[6]: 24bit music"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Do i need to do ABX to proof a higher bitrate IPS panel give better colour reproduction than a normal LCD or another example.

Short answer: YES!

If i am of the opinion that motion flow on a 120Hz tv looks better than a 60Hz do I then have to do ABX for you also?

Probably inadvertently, but you asked here a very different thing: "looks better" is not the same as (I presume, from "give") "is better" - if you confuse the two, that could also add to some things.

Longer answer: if you (vs., say, even a quick look at reliable specs, in most shopping scenarios) want to prove that, if you want to BE the measuring instrument - then yes, an ABX test would be an advisable approach.

(also, since you mentioned eyes - go through the list of visual illusions, and read about how non-detailed most of our field of view really is - in short, it's essentially a huge blur with tiny clear area in the centre, the brain just extrapolating / feeling it as quite uniform; and generally, in regards to all senses and their true nature, consider also hallucinations or dreams)


And as a side note, retreating towards the path which leads to "do I need to do ABX to tell the difference between twilight and noon" doesn't help your (only original by now, I hope) position...

Can you give me an ABX that I am wrong? That a bitrate of 24bit does not sound better than 16bit.

...and THIS "gem" obliterates it completely - you essentially clearly demonstrate a doubtful accuracy of your claims, if you uttered something so contrary to dependable approaches, demanding a proof of such negative (also, Russell's teapot, read about it)

The burden of proof is on those who make the claims about existence of something (here: perceptible differences)

Edited 2011-11-04 23:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2