As the article says, it's not open source.
FLAC is and has been around since 2001 so is firmly entrenched. Like ALAC it offers no advantages over FLAC, so why would anyone choose to use a proprietary format over a well supported open standard?
WMA is arguably better than MP3, but has also effectively failed as it's a closed, proprietary format.
Since I started storing my CDs however long ago it was, I've always used FLAC. Has anyone done any comparisons with FLAC vs ALAC? I'm not thinking of converting one to the other, but wondering whether any future CDs would be better off ripped to ALAC instead...
Considering ALAC offers no advantages over FLAC (sonically or otherwise), is pretty much only supported by Apple devices and development stopped when it was open sourced in 2011 - whereas FLAC is under constant development and is almost universally supported - I'd ask why would you want to switch to an effectively dead format?
I wasn't saying I was going to switch, was just curious as to whether there would be any benefit in doing so...
Yes, I get that. I was just pointing out that apart from there being no real advantage, it's effectively a dead format outside of Apple circles.
I don't know if it's still the case, but iTunes used to be a no-go area for FLAC. If this still holds true then, if you use iTunes, ALAC would be the preferred format...
Okay, I'm not talking about WMA vs mp3, so much as WMA LOSSLESS over FLAC, etc.
Saying it's a 'closed, proprietary' format, in this context, what does that even mean?
I know, I was just using the example to reinforce the point.
I'd have thought that was pretty clear. Using the example of WMA (all types), the standard was originated by and is maintained by Microsodt. You can't get the details of the inner workings of WMA without paying MS for the privilege and being NDA'd up the wazoo. You also have to pay them a royalty on anything you sell that uses the format.
Contrast that with FLAC, which is royalty free and the full details of its inner workings are freely available from their website to anyone who's interested.
MP3 is similar in that respect, though they do charge a royalty free on encoders I believe.
Okay.
So?
Most people will initially rip music for themselves.In Ye Earlie Dayes people would only have thought of lossless as a home-bound format, with portable being mp3 only.
Even today, I have a Fiio 3, and it'll play WMA Lossless.This suggest to me that the licensing rights to the format are far from prohibitive.
So why hasn't it taken hold?
In "Ye Earlie Dayes" we had no lossless formats other than WAV. Then FLAC and APE arrived. And it was good.
WMA Lossless came along two years after FLAC, it was never going to get much traction outside of Windows. Anyone interested in lossless audio was already using APE or FLAC. You're going to switch to a new, unsupported outside of Windows codec why?
Plus it was from the "evil" Microsoft and had the spectre of DRM associated with it.
So?
FiiO make high end players, of course they'll support every format going. My Karma supports OGG, another format I've never used.
High Resolution YouTube channel list - free. Enjoy!!!