Apple Lossless required space

Question

1blue90210 Author

Level 1

0 points

Apple Lossless required space

Does Apple Lossless (ALAC) music use more memory or hard drive space than mp3 quality music?

Dell Inspiron, Windows XP

Posted on Jul 9, 2010 7:07 PM

Reply

Answer 1

ed2345

Level 9

63,590 points

Jul 9, 2010 8:06 PM in response to 1blue90210

Yes. ALAC uses around 5 MB per minute of music. (It varies depending on the sonic content.) MP3 or AAC at 256 kb/s use about 2 MB per minute of music.

Reply

Answer 2

1blue90210 Author

Level 1

0 points

Jul 9, 2010 8:14 PM in response to ed2345

Now, I remember reading in an article that it would only use bout half of the space of regular mp3's, is there some compression software that could be used?

Reply

Answer 3

Chris CA

Level 10

82,513 points

Jul 9, 2010 10:16 PM in response to 1blue90210

Now, I remember reading in an article that it would only use bout half of the space of regular mp3's,

This is incorrect.
"Regular MP3s" (at 128 KBPS) use about 1/4 the space of Apple Lossless.

is there some compression software that could be used?

MP3 and Apple Lossless are compresses formats.

Reply

Answer 4

Jul 9, 2010 10:20 PM in response to 1blue90210

Yes. iTunes can convert the Lossless files to AAC or MP3. Just go to iTunes Prefs >General and click on import settings and choose the appropriate format. Select the track, go to Advanced menu and choose Create XXX Version. This will create a new track in the compressed format and you will still have the original lossless file, which you can then delete to free up space.

Message was edited by: Diane Wordsmith

Reply

Answer 5

ed2345

Level 9

63,590 points

Jul 10, 2010 3:46 AM in response to 1blue90210

1blue90210 wrote:
Now, I remember reading in an article that it would only use bout half of the space of regular mp3's

Either the article was wrong or you are remembering it wrong. But you don't have to take our word for it. As Diane describes, it is easy enough to take a file and convert it to a new format and look at the size. (iTunes conversion creates a new file but does not affect the original, so you can experiment.)

Reply

Answer 6

1blue90210 Author

Level 1

0 points

Jul 10, 2010 11:19 AM in response to ed2345

This is what I read on Wikipedia, "Apple claims that audio files compressed with its lossless codec will use up "about half the storage space" that the uncompressed data would require. Testers using a selection of music have found that compressed files are about 40% to 60% the size of the originals depending on the kind of music, similar to other lossless formats. Furthermore, the speed at which it can be decoded makes it useful for a limited-power device such as the iPod"

What does that all mean?

Reply

Answer 7

ed2345

Level 9

63,590 points

Jul 10, 2010 11:47 AM in response to 1blue90210

1blue90210 wrote:
This is what I read on Wikipedia, "Apple claims that audio files compressed with its lossless codec will use up "about half the storage space" that the uncompressed data would require. Testers using a selection of music have found that compressed files are about 40% to 60% the size of the originals depending on the kind of music, similar to other lossless formats. Furthermore, the speed at which it can be decoded makes it useful for a limited-power device such as the iPod"

What does that all mean?

1blue, In that article, "uncompressed data" refers to formats that are bit-equivalent to a normal audio CD, namely AIFF and WAV. They use about 10 MB per minute of stereo music.

Apple Lossless is roughly half that big, as noted in the article and the previous posts.

MP3, which you mentioned before, is a compressed "lossy" format. Its size depends on the bitrate selected, but even at its max (320) it is smaller than Apple Lossless.

Reply

Answer 8

1blue90210 Author

Level 1

0 points

Jul 10, 2010 5:11 PM in response to ed2345

OK, that finally makes sense. Thank you very much.

Reply

Answer 9

ed2345

Level 9

63,590 points

Jul 10, 2010 7:13 PM in response to 1blue90210

1blue90210 wrote:
OK, that finally makes sense. Thank you very much.

You are quite welcome. I just took a look at the Wikipedia article that you cited, and it is in fact written in a confused way.

Anyway, glad the issue is clear now. Enjoy the music!

Reply