PDA

View Full Version : .m4a file


Karst
2005-03-22, 10:34 AM
Bumped into to this one at a U2 filesharing forum. Not really seen this before so I was wondering what the consensus on this is? Did a search (http://www.m4a.com/) and I'm pretty convinced this is lossy. What does everybody else think?

jraras
2005-03-22, 10:49 AM
Bumped into to this one at a U2 filesharing forum. Not really seen this before so I was wondering what the consensus on this is? Did a search (http://www.m4a.com/) and I'm pretty convinced this is lossy. What does everybody else think?

Definitely lossy... another name for it (used by Apple) is "AAC", the preferred file format of iPod/iTunes. I like it for my pod, but definitely not for my archives/torrents/collection.

HTH!

Jim

ffooky
2005-03-22, 02:43 PM
Stupidly, the .m4a extension is used for both AAC and ALAC (Apple Lossless) so the quickest way to tell one from t'other is filesize. You need iTunes to play the ALAC variety though you can decompress them usingthis (http://craz.net/programs/itunes/alac.html) if you don't want to install iTunes.

Five
2005-03-22, 02:54 PM
apple lossless :puke

ffooky
2005-03-22, 04:15 PM
Indeed Five but at least one can hold one's nose and convert them to a usable format, much as one has to do with those APE things ;)

Punkishlyevil
2005-03-22, 04:27 PM
apple lossless :puke

I don't use them, but may I ask, what is wrong with them?

Five
2005-03-22, 05:42 PM
I think RainDawg could explain better, but my big issue with apple lossless is that ipod users wanted the ability to play FLAC like some other players had so the kind people at apple invented apple lossless so that now you can play FLAC on an ipod but only if you first convert everything to their brand new proprietary format. At least, this is how I recall it happening. If apple lossless was acutally better they might have a leg to stand on. There's also microsoft lossless which somebody was saying isn't really lossless, I'm not sure if this is true.

I stick with FLAC and APE (yes ffooky, I still use it at home ;) ).

wazoo2u
2005-03-22, 08:27 PM
The basic objection to closed source formats is that they hamper developers efforts to improve/create better software by demanding license fees, even for non-commercial use.

FLAC, SHN and APE are accepted due to their open source status. (tho some are only free if not used commercially).

willndmb
2005-03-22, 09:36 PM
I think RainDawg could explain better, but my big issue with apple lossless is that ipod users wanted the ability to play FLAC like some other players had so the kind people at apple invented apple lossless so that now you can play FLAC on an ipod but only if you first convert everything to their brand new proprietary format. At least, this is how I recall it happening. If apple lossless was acutally better they might have a leg to stand on. There's also microsoft lossless which somebody was saying isn't really lossless, I'm not sure if this is true.

I stick with FLAC and APE (yes ffooky, I still use it at home ;) ).
its better then mp3 for starts--thats why itunes uses it, smaller file with better sound
and the only place i have ever seen or heard of ipod users wanting to play flacs on an ipod is here--the general ipod user doesn't even know about flac

bottom line is the ipod isn't for trading or for audio junkies
its for the normal ear and the person who wants a small walkman with 10000 songs at their fingertip

h_vargas
2005-03-23, 04:58 AM
its better then mp3 for starts--thats why itunes uses it, smaller file with better sound
and the only place i have ever seen or heard of ipod users wanting to play flacs on an ipod is here--the general ipod user doesn't even know about flac

bottom line is the ipod isn't for trading or for audio junkies
its for the normal ear and the person who wants a small walkman with 10000 songs at their fingertip


i would have to agree with this, emphasizing the key words "general ipod user."

and i would add to the end "for the normal ear and the person who wants a small walkman with 10000 songs at their fingertip... who can afford apple's pricing." :lol

ffooky
2005-03-23, 06:46 AM
Why the discussion of AAC ? The OP was most likely to be talking about ALAC and you ain't going to get 1000 of them on an ipod :)

Karst
2005-03-23, 08:07 AM
Stupidly, the .m4a extension is used for both AAC and ALAC (Apple Lossless) so the quickest way to tell one from t'other is filesize.

Right. The track plays through itunes. I only downloaded the Intro which is 1:03; size: 0.99 MB (1,044,226 bytes). Let me know what you think.

jraras
2005-03-23, 10:03 AM
Right. The track plays through itunes. I only downloaded the Intro which is 1:03; size: 0.99 MB (1,044,226 bytes). Let me know what you think.

In iTunes what's the bitrate? That should also give a clue... though, I'm not familiar w/ ALAC, so...

JR

Karst
2005-03-23, 10:15 AM
From Get profile in iTunes:
Kind: AAC
Size: 1,019.8k
Bit rate: 128 kbps
Sample rate: 44.100 kHz
Profile: Low Complexity
Channels: Stereo
Encoded with: Helix Producer SDK 10.0 for WIndows, build 10.0.0.240

U2Lynne
2005-03-23, 10:22 AM
It's an AAC file - similar to an mp3. An ALAC file would have a higher bit rate and be larger in size than what you said.

willndmb
2005-03-24, 01:13 PM
i don't know much about it
but it you goto prefs in itunes and select high quality mp3 you see a data rate of 160kbps
if you change it to aac the high quality rate is 128kbps