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

[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.

[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.

[quitemouse]

Originally Posted by Pepelutivruski4

dear god yes. use EAC or something more credible.

thanks! I'll check it out...

[Man-Machine]

Guys, I think you're getting a little off topic here and the person who asked the original question may be a little confused. I think the person is mainly worried about Apple Lossless sound quality and playability on the PS3. So here it is...

First, in the most current PS3 software you CANNOT play Apple Lossless format files. This may or may not change someday with firmware updates.

Now with regards to sound quality of Apple Lossless, let's separate some opinions from facts that may have made previous posts a little confusing to you. I've been dealing with compression formats as a software engineer for about 11 years now. I also have a recording studio so naturally audio compression has been a hobby of mine for many years. So here's the scoop:

- With any compression format that is lossy you will never be able to uncompress and get back the original data information. For example .mp3 and .jpg

- With any compression format that is lossless you will always be able to uncompress back the original data information. Example: .zip and Apple Lossless files!

In other words, if you scratch your original cd, you can always burn a new one from lossless audio format files and keep the same audio quality as the original scratched cd.

Now choosing an audio lossless format may not be right for everybody. I only chose it for backing up purposes of a cd collection and because I can stream it into the proper audio playback equipment. I currently have backed up about 500 cds using Apple Lossless format onto an external hard drive that I feel very confident. This media drive is wirelessly/digitally streamed into a nice surround system or studio monitors. I also have it on my iPod that I listen to with my nice AKG headphones. The only issue with the iPod is, because of the higher disk activity, the battery doesn't last quite as long...

[Galley]

I found this on the Hydrogen Audio forums.

So I took a WAV file, made an md5sum. Compressed it to FLAC and then uncompressed it back to wav and made another MD5 sum. I also compressed the same wav to ALAC and then back to wav and made an MD5sum. Results:

Original WAV: 15a7e53a20e6b7c7de08570717620766 *Nirvana - Lithium - 04 D7.wav

Decompressed from FLAC: 15a7e53a20e6b7c7de08570717620766 *Nirvana - Lithium - 04 D7.wav

Decompressed from ALAC: 15a7e53a20e6b7c7de08570717620766 *Nirvana - Lithium - 04 D7.wav

So that concludes it. It's lossless. So your imagining the difference.