peter;294975 Wrote: > Eric Seaberg wrote: > > tyler_durden;294822 Wrote: > > > >> As for Apple- they have a "lossless" compression format that is > >> proprietary. Why would they develop their own when open source > >> compression formats exist? Because they want control. > >> > > > > This isn't totally accurate... Apple's lossless CODEC was > co-authored > > with Dolby Labs and others, and is capable of carrying up to > 8-channels > > of interleved audio. I don't think FLAC can do that. > > > > Don't think, check: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac#Technical_details > > FLAC allows for Rice parameter between 0-16, and up to 8 channels of > audio and a wide range of sampling rates up to 192 kHz, in various > bits-per-sample width.more correctly, FLAC supports up to 8 chanels and > sample rates over 600kHz. FLAC in some other container like Ogg can support more than 8 channels but nobody has needed that.
SuperQ;294970 Wrote: > The other one I heard (from a reputable portable mp3 player developer at > empeg/rio) was that ALAC has a lower decoding overhead which would allow > it to be played back on the low powered CPU in the iPod. Where as the > RIO Karma had the next level up in CPU, which had enough power to > decode FLAC.that is worse than just false, it's backwards, but this rumor will probably never die. FLAC decoding has lower complexity than ALAC and was running on ipods since the beginning of 2005 if not earlier. -- Josh Coalson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Josh Coalson's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2651 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=46690 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
