is it possible to play Apple lossless *.m4a audio files on PS3?

[quitemouse]

is it possible to play Apple lossless *.m4a audio files on PS3?

my iTunes folder has about 50GB of Apple lossless *.m4a audio files.
they were all coverted from my entire CD collection, using iTunes.

I suppose I can use iTunes to convert the entire 50GB of *.m4a files
to WAV, but that will probably require a lot of space.(500GB to 700GB?)

Is possible for PS3 to play m4a file natively? (not streaming from Tversity
or having to do a m4a-to-wav conversion?)

thanks!

[Galley]

AFAIK, no.

[WriteSimply]

What Galley said. If you want to enjoy your albums on the PS3, play the CD. The Superbitmapping process makes them sound sweeter but it only applies to CDs.


fuad

[Pepelutivruski4]

quitemouse, i know this doesn't answer your question, but these are very serious 2 cents from an audiophile.

Apple's AAC lossless coding is atrocious.
there is already so much meta-data in its lossy formats as it is, imagine carrying all that meta data that it's used to coding along w/ a big ass file that SOMETIMES inverts your stereo channels for "optimization".

if you really care about audio quality enough to have quality equipment to even make it worth listening to lossless formats, stick w/ FLAC. there is no comparing to FLAC.

you may very well know what you are doing, but most ppl don't.
i don't mean to step on your toes about your compression choices, but in case you weren't aware or were not savvy in audio compression, those are my 2 cents and i'd be happy to elaborate if you would like me to.

[Toxa]

m4a=aac yes you can read m4a files on your Ps3 but Lossless I'm not sure

[Galley]

Originally Posted by Pepelutivruski4

quitemouse, i know this doesn't answer your question, but these are very serious 2 cents from an audiophile.

Apple's AAC lossless coding is atrocious.
there is already so much meta-data in its lossy formats as it is, imagine carrying all that meta data that it's used to coding along w/ a big ass file that SOMETIMES inverts your stereo channels for "optimization".

if you really care about audio quality enough to have quality equipment to even make it worth listening to lossless formats, stick w/ FLAC. there is no comparing to FLAC.

If it's lossless, what's the difference, a few KB in file size?

[Pepelutivruski4]

in this case it's more than just the difference in size.

AAC lossless is really just compression at an incredible bitrate, only it adds all the necessary meta-data that it usually does it all other AAC files when coding it.

due to its added meta-data, and selective "optimizations" AAC is possibly one of the worst audio compressions. it sounds acceptable and all to most, which is why most ppl don't care because they can't hear the difference between an mp3 @128kbps and an mp3 @ 320kbps, but for anyone with a trained ear, you can hear selective enahnced frequencies, and sometimes inverted stereo to give the effect of "WHOA! it sounds better/different than when i had this in MP3" to just about any given consumer.

as far as SQ goes WMA9 @ 192k = Apple's AAC @320k. clearly leaving mp3 completely out of the race in terms of sound quality, but when one considers file size...

the SQ of these is also comparable;
wma9 @ 96k = apple's aac @ 192k = mp3 @ 256k

the real difference between FLAC and Apple's AAC lossless is that AAC lossless is still a compression, and it follows the same process as any other AAC cmopression at any given bitrate.

FLAC on the other hand takes the raw WAV, or .CDA file and just strips the non-audio information from it.

[Galley]

I beg to differ.

Apple Lossless data is stored within an MP4 container with the filename extension .m4a. It is not a variant of AAC, but uses linear prediction similar to other lossless codecs such as FLAC.

[Pepelutivruski4]

i'm willing to admit i'm wrong, but what's your source? wikipedia?

i'm almost certain it's the same process, no matter what name they give it.

i very well could be wrong, but i have heard inverted stereo from ALAC as well as the famous enhanced frequencies, selective reverbs cut, and they still carry the same meta-data that an AAC.mp4 has...

back when i tried to do research, i recall apple not willing to release any actual specs as to how their codec actually runs things
all i had to go on were "claims"

i'm willing to bet you are right though, i just went with experience and the facts given to me when i was looking for them.

[Galley]

Yeah, I copied it from Wikipedia. To get better information on the subject from people that really know what they're talking about (unlike me), check out HydrogenAudio.org.

[quitemouse]

well.... I need a couple more cups of coffee because I'm confused right now.

when I originally ripped all of my CD collection into Apple Lossless format,
my only intention was to store them in my 160GB iPod. Obviously the best
quality was to rip all of them into *.WAV format, but that would have
required me to get a 300GB iPod(which isn't out yet, AFAIK )

so, the next best thing was Apple Lossless, which was what I did.

are you guys now telling me that there's a better format than Apple Lossless
that I could have used? (short of *.WAV files) keep in mind that my main
objective is maximum sound quality at smallest possible file size, for use
on my 160gb iPod.

[Pepelutivruski4]

Originally Posted by Galley

Yeah, I copied it from Wikipedia. To get better information on the subject from people that really know what they're talking about (unlike me), check out HydrogenAudio.org.

i hope you weren't being sarcastic. i didn't mean to step on your toes

Originally Posted by quitemouse

well.... I need a couple more cups of coffee because I'm confused right now.

when I originally ripped all of my CD collection into Apple Lossless format,
my only intention was to store them in my 160GB iPod. Obviously the best
quality was to rip all of them into *.WAV format, but that would have
required me to get a 300GB iPod(which isn't out yet, AFAIK )

so, the next best thing was Apple Lossless, which was what I did.

are you guys now telling me that there's a better format than Apple Lossless
that I could have used? (short of *.WAV files) keep in mind that my main
objective is maximum sound quality at smallest possible file size, for use
on my 160gb iPod.

dude, unless you have professional headphones (AKG K240S and above), plugged into a modified EQ ipod, you are just takign up the drivespace on your ipod.

your ipod's "flat" EQ, is still not flat, and if you have any given consumer earphones/headphones they are usually not full range, let alone flat EQ.

unless the above on the first paragraph apply, you are:
A. not getting all the 20-20kHz frquencies anyway.
B. are listening through a (or a couple) consumer EQ smile(s) (boosted lows and boosted highs)

given, if you are using anything other than an ipod touch w/ an external EQ app, or the stock earphones. you are just as fine listening to your music in aac @ 192 or even 128.

but for lossless codecs, FLAC is definately the best bet. hands down. no contest.

IMO, ALAC is useless. in my experience ALAC coding/decoding is identical to aac. it may have its differences given that AAC is capped at certain bitrates, but i think it still rips in the same process as AAC only w/out the same bitrate cap.
take my word for it, your ALAC is carrying non audio meta-data that would otherwise be raw audio info in a FLAC file.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by Toxa

m4a=aac yes you can read m4a files on your Ps3 but Lossless I'm not sure

i believe you are wrong. When you convert cd's to Itunes, the ps3 does not find the files, i have this problem also cuz i have all my music streamed to the ps3 and when i borrow a buddys cd and rip it, my ps3 doesnt find the file and i cant listen to it... sucks...

[quitemouse]

Originally Posted by Pepelutivruski4

i hope you weren't being sarcastic. i didn't mean to step on your toes



dude, unless you have professional headphones (AKG K240S and above), plugged into a modified EQ ipod, you are just takign up the drivespace on your ipod.

your ipod's "flat" EQ, is still not flat, and if you have any given consumer earphones/headphones they are usually not full range, let alone flat EQ.

unless the above on the first paragraph apply, you are:
A. not getting all the 20-20kHz frquencies anyway.
B. are listening through a (or a couple) consumer EQ smile(s) (boosted lows and boosted highs)

given, if you are using anything other than an ipod touch w/ an external EQ app, or the stock earphones. you are just as fine listening to your music in aac @ 192 or even 128.

but for lossless codecs, FLAC is definately the best bet. hands down. no contest.

IMO, ALAC is useless. in my experience ALAC coding/decoding is identical to aac. it may have its differences given that AAC is capped at certain bitrates, but i think it still rips in the same process as AAC only w/out the same bitrate cap.
take my word for it, your ALAC is carrying non audio meta-data that would otherwise be raw audio info in a FLAC file.

if I rip my music CDs directly to WAV files, are the WAV files 100% identical to the original CD? Storage space isn't really an issue... I have a 160GB iPod and I don't need everything on my iPod. I have a 1.5TB ext hard drive that I use for music only....

I may just end up doing that again, when I get the time....

[Chevypower]

AAC one of the worst compressions? Yeah right. If all I care about was playing on iPod, iTunes, getting the highest quality possible, then Lossless and AAC are great. if you compare AAC and Mp3 at the same bitrate, the AAC sounds so much better. A lot of editing programs can handle AAC also.

[Galley]

WAV files do not support tagging; Lossless does. Lossless is exactly the same as the CD, hence the name.

[Pepelutivruski4]

Originally Posted by quitemouse

if I rip my music CDs directly to WAV files, are the WAV files 100% identical to the original CD?

you will get the same audio data as the CD, it won't necessarily sound the same since audio equipment can often sound very different, my computer speakers for example are some $40 logitech 5.1 speakers, my home threater has klipsch THX certified speakers, and i listen to my mobile phone music with $50 sony earphones.

the difference between the 3 is gigantic.
the klipsch are probably going to get most out of the situation, given they are full range and don't have a consumer EQ smile.

the earphones are very bass heavy and are horrible at handling the higher-mids at around 800Hz-1.5kHz, although bass sounds incredible, i can hear clarity in most basslines that are often muddy in most bass boosting situations.

my pc speakers are mud. lol plain and simple. the sub that it came w/ heavily overpowers the 5 surround speakers and i can't turn it down any lower, also the speaker designated for the center channel is cleverly enhancing the speech articulating frequencies at around the 2k-3kHz. perfect set for any consumer who listens to hip hop and likes to watch movies along with hte price. alas, i do not really listen to hip hop, nor do i watch movies on the computer lol.

given so, i have concluded that i compress music onto my computer which is what gets transfered into my mobile to be wma @ 128k or 192k if the album in question is worth the extra mile. not necessarily due to space, but because the equipment i would use to listen to such wouldn't even come close to presenting me w/ anythign else of higher quality format anyway.

also, i can use that same library to play out of hte PS3 at a party or social gathering where ppl aren't necesarily listening to the music, rather just as ambience, or for dancing.

through my PS3, out of the optical cable, into the receiver out through the speakers however, it would be a crime to listen to anything other than the raw uncompressed audio, specially using a codec like AAC or ALAC to compress a 24/96 capable CD. not nice.

if you are not worried about space and are looking for the highest quality of sound, sure the .WAV extracted properly (not through itunes, WMP, or any other dinky ripping program) is what you want. mind you there is nothing wrong with compressed audio, specially if you don't have equipment to listen to a .WAV for all it is.

[quitemouse]

Originally Posted by Pepelutivruski4

if you are not worried about space and are looking for the highest quality of sound, sure the .WAV extracted properly (not through itunes, WMP, or any other dinky ripping program) is what you want. mind you there is nothing wrong with compressed audio, specially if you don't have equipment to listen to a .WAV for all it is.

wait... are you saying that it's a bad idea to use iTunes to rip a CD directly to WAV files?

[dk3dknight]

Dont you need a mac, I mean so you can shop till you bop.

[Pepelutivruski4]

Originally Posted by quitemouse

wait... are you saying that it's a bad idea to use iTunes to rip a CD directly to WAV files?

dear god yes. use EAC or something more credible.