Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DJ Forum' started by DJFredrikAlm, Nov 9, 2010.
Traktor supports all tag versions now, if that helps you.
Couldn't have said it better.
Well... Itunes has done it again. None of my m4a lossless files are compatable w/ tracktor now. (until NI figures out what is different w/ the update and releasses an update to TP 2.5.) As much as I do not want to go back and convert all of my m4a's to flac.... This is why it would probably be a good idea to do it and get it over with....
Fixed... Had to re-download quicktime and re-install
M4a's are working again
I'm 100% behind 320kbits MP3 as well. Lossless is the better format - theoretically - for sure. But I've never played, and probably will not play on a soundsystem where you can really hear the difference.
If I played at Space Ibiza, for example, I'd worry about lossless (Funktion One system... mmmh), but until then I'll stick to my MP3s ... which are in practice NEVER the bottleneck.
i'm still hoping that beatport will start offering FLAC eventually.
their decision to provide AIFF is beyond me. why would anyone in their right mind prefer AIFF over ALAC? and, in turn, FLAC would be the more obvious choice than ALAC, as FLAC has been more widely adopted.
I think AIFF is a good in between format as you can still store album art and track info inside the file itself and Traktor etc doesn't have to decode on the fly
It makes sense to me.
AIFF has been around forever aand there is no platform I know of that can't support it.
If you want FLAC from beatport - do a simple batch convert and you wont lose anything.
i don't see the relevance of this argument. there is no platform i know of that can't support ALAC.
you can store album art and track info inside an ALAC file as well. AIFF holds no advantage over ALAC here.
decoding ALAC on-the-fly isn't resource-intensive. you can't decode ALAC quite as fast as FLAC, but decoding is still pretty fast.
in any case, decoding is fast enough that loading of ALAC can be *faster* than loading of AIFF on a typical system. why is that? disk i/o is slow, and ALAC saves 30-50 percent disk space over an uncompressed AIFF.
CDJ supports only MP3, AAC, WAV and AIFF
Exactly, until some standards on the newer file formats become widespread, there's no point in offering FLAC or ALAC, they might be better but cause more problems in software decoding.
Traktor already has troubles with FLAC from what I've read
i was talking about general-purpose computers. anyways, imo, the fact that CDJs don't support a single lossless codec is just another reason not to use them (or a reason to only use them in conjunction with traktor).
WAV and AIFF are hugely inefficient. they are a waste of network bandwidth and of storage space.
and FLAC is the dominant lossless codec by far. it has the best hardware and software support by a tremendous margin. and i'm not just talking DJ products here, but also consumer audio and non-DJ pro audio.
Any update about rating support by the way ?
Yeah except itunes :lol:
i said FLAC is the dominant lossless codec. that statement isn't wrong just because itunes doesn't support FLAC out-of-the-box. (although FLAC support can be added to it.)
and besides, i think it is a reasonable conjecture that people which prefer lossless codecs (as opposed to lossy codecs such as mp3 or aac) are not very likely to use itunes anyway.
you gotta realize that the market for lossless is tiny compared to the market for lossy. arguably, the fact that ios or itunes doesn't support FLAC out-of-the-box isn't that important. people that buy lossless are by-and-large enthusiasts. those are people that don't just rely on a limited mainstream product such as itunes. and if they use mainstream products, they are more likely to tinker with them (e.g., you can put a rockbox firmware on an ipod so that it can playback FLAC; you can install a FLAC-capable audio player from the app store on an iphone).
Right so answer me this.
What is the most universally playable uncompressed file format that has tagging?
Is it AIFF or FLAC or ALAC?
Please try hard to actually answer the question.
the question doesn't make sense, as FLAC and ALAC are compressed. the most universally playable uncompressed audio format which has tagging would be WAV. (WAV has tagging, although its tagging is pretty poor and cross-platform compatibility is lousy.)
anyways, the point is not which is the most universally playable format. my point was that i find beatport's decision to offer AIFF as opposed to FLAC or ALAC bewildering.
AIFF and WAV are inefficient. compared to them, FLAC and ALAC save about 30-50% in space while providing bit-identical audio! And both FLAC and ALAC enjoy good support. ALAC has an edge on Apple platforms, FLAC has an edge on PCs, Android, and on consumer audio (think blu ray players, squeezeboxes, uPnP servers and clients, etc.). Overall, I think FLAC is by far the most popular lossless codec (e.g., most people that rip CDs to a lossless codec use FLAC; FLAC is also the dominant lossless codec among file-sharers and in the netlabel community).
Btw: Junodownload, Bleep, and Boomkat sell FLAC. A bunch of other stores which don't specialize in dance music carry FLAC. This includes Deutsche Grammophon, HDtracks, Magnatune, and Bandcamp. Bandcamp carries ALAC as well.
Um yeah i meant lossless.
But don't worry I totally see your point about FLAC.
The files are smaller. That's pretty much it isn't it?
Yes, I argued that the smaller file size of lossless codecs make them better than AIFF. Network bandwidth is limited and smaller files are preferable in times of things like cloud storage. In other words, I prefer both FLAC and ALAC over AIFF.
However, while I prefer audio formats that employ lossless compression (e.g., FLAC, ALAC) over audio formats that are lossless but don't employ compression (e.g., WAV, AIFF), one must realize that not all lossless compression formats are created equal.
I believe that technological differences (compression ratio, encoding speed, decoding speed, supported metadata container, etc.) are not that significant from the perspective of most end users.
However, I also believe that lossless codecs differ substantially in their popularity. And I think it has many advantages to go for the most widely spread lossless codec. I argued that the most widely spread lossless codec is FLAC. It has become the de-facto standard for "audiophiles," geeks, users looking for lossless archival, file-sharers, and others. Also on the NI forums, you will find much more discussion of FLAC than discussion of all other lossless compression codecs combined. (Other lossless codecs include ALAC, WavPack, and TAK. Besides FLAC, only ALAC is supported by Traktor.)