Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greystash]

Hello,

After becoming increasingly frustrated with OSX I've revived my iMac G4 and set it up with OS 9.2.2.
I mostly want to use the system for playing music from my network drive, I have it connected to an 8TB NAS drive with all my music on it. The problem is that all of my music is in the Apple Lossless format (m4a) and I can't find any music players that will recognise these files.
Are there any music players that will play m4a files on OS9 or is there a better lossless format that OS9/iTunes 2.0.4 or other players can recognise? I would rather not convert all of my music to AIFF format as that tends to lose metadata and the files are much larger.

Any ideas out there?
thanks!

[macStuff]

i think you should be able to use an old version of itunes?
pretty sure i remember itunes working with .m4a format

[macStuff]

itunes v2.04 is the last version for os9 according to these posts:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/128530 macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,1570.msg7243.html#msg7243


download here on the garden:
https://www.macintoshrepository.org/2750-itunes-2-0-4

for those interested in a brief overview of itunes history:
http://www.oldschooldaw.com/forums/index.php/topic,4949.new.html#new

[Naiw]

Apple didn't use AAC before 2003. No point it looking in old iTunes releases.

It's unlikely any OS 9 product supported AAC.

[Astroman]

you may consider a streaming app running on your NAS (or using the NAS drive) that re-encodes m4a to a format which can be received in OS9.

[Zach]

ALAC is supported since QuickTime 6.5.1, can't see a way to play on os9. Anyway disk space is not a problem anymore, I'd convert m4a files in wav or aiff.

[devils_advisor]

bullshit, why would you turn a small file into a several megabytes big file? at least mp3 or something like that. and maybe if you install itunes and see what it has to offer (after turning it into a full/pro version) you might find another lossless codec you can deal with.




anyway you might wanna have a look at the top post here


http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=480.0

[Protools5LEGuy]

Better Amadeus II that supports Flac IIRC.

Flac is the open source alternative todo Apple Lossless

[GaryN]

Amadeus II, while it will handle FLAC and is a Carbonized app that will run on OS9, is an editor. It was not designed to be and makes a lousy player.

There is NO music player for ≤OS9 that will handle lossless files. Maybe you should tolerate OSX enough to play music with it.

[devils_advisor]

Thats what they said about video too and they are wrong.

[Protools5LEGuy]

https://happymacs.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/moving-current-library-to-mac-os-9-itunes-2-x/

[GaryN]

As usual, the combination of Apple's determination to "think different" whether you want to or not, has created utter confusion.

The problem is simple: Apple has decided that all AAC (lossy) files and ALAC (lossless) files shall be called .m4a.

This could only make sense to Apple, where it's inconceivable that anyone would ever NOT follow along with and keep up with the Apple ecosystem, keeping everything "new" and current because that's what makes all of those toys play together effortlessly and require zero intelligence to operate. Outside of the Spaceship, it's obvious to anyone with connected brain cells, that calling two different types of files the same thing is going to confuse the hell out of everybody, and evidently HAS done just that, even among our own members who are supposedly better-informed than the general masses.

Bottom line: iTunes2 will play AAC files suffixed as .m4a.  It will not play ALAC files suffixed as .m4a. Period, full stop.
FLAC and ALAC and all other variations of lossless files require far more processing power to uncompress and play in real time than other types.
The hardware of the Nineties was not up to the task.

This is not much different than asking "Why can't we have nice things like 4k video on our 68k Macs?"

[Naiw]

As usual, the combination of Apple's determination to "think different" whether you want to or not, has created utter confusion.

The problem is simple: Apple has decided that all AAC (lossy) files and ALAC (lossless) files shall be called .m4a.

No, it’s simpler than that. Apple decided to use MPEG4 part 14 to house their audio files.
m4a is a container and you could store pictures inside it if you wanted to.

[GaryN]

No, it’s simpler than that. Apple decided to use MPEG4 part 14 to house their audio files.
m4a is a container and you could store pictures inside it if you wanted to.

Potayto potahto.

My point is that Apple has actually managed to create yet another unnecessary source of confusion by not differentiating between the lossy and lossless formats commonly found inside that container. There is no way to tell what's inside a .m4a from the file suffix. No big deal if you're tone deaf and use OSX only but a real pain in the ass if you actually want to have some knowledge of and control over your own environment.

Here's a fun pastime: Hop over to Wikipedia and search "MPEG" After reading that, you'll have to check out "MPEG4" since that's what the issue is here. If you can keep it together there, be sure to include checking out Part 14.

If you can actually get a grip on all of that shit without your head exploding you're highly employable in tech. You will also have left another little bit of your humanity behind in the process but that's OK too…just "Think Different"…

[devils_advisor]

No, it’s simpler than that. Apple decided to use MPEG4 part 14 to house their audio files.
m4a is a container and you could store pictures inside it if you wanted to.

Potayto potahto.

My point is that Apple has actually managed to create yet another unnecessary source of confusion by not differentiating between the lossy and lossless formats commonly found inside that container. There is no way to tell what's inside a .m4a from the file suffix. No big deal if you're tone deaf and use OSX only but a real pain in the ass if you actually want to have some knowledge of and control over your own environment.

Here's a fun pastime: Hop over to Wikipedia and search "MPEG" After reading that, you'll have to check out "MPEG4" since that's what the issue is here. If you can keep it together there, be sure to include checking out Part 14.

If you can actually get a grip on all of that shit without your head exploding you're highly employable in tech. You will also have left another little bit of your humanity behind in the process but that's OK too…just "Think Different"…

at the end does it really matter? they didnt invent mpeg and other things. mp3 for example was created to trim the filesize down by cutting out a range of frequency's that no human can hear anyway. i dont call that a loss since i cant hear it. everything you call lossy format is based on the same concept. quicktime is a container too just like avi and whatever you dump inside doesnt matter. i never caught myself double clicking on a file and asking what could be inside (like christmas time picking up a gift and shaking it) if you need the details quicktime got information or can pull it up for you. so no i dont get the point.

[GaryN]

Are you effing kidding me? Of course it matters!! Maybe you can't hear shit, but I sure as Hell can. If I'm sorting, transferring or most importantly duplicating music files I have better things to do than examine each one to make certain I don't end up sending a shit copy to the artist or radio or ….

Believe me, I try really hard to just cruise along in AppleWorld but they make it almost impossible and it pisses me off. Why? Because they don't have to be that way but they just don't give a shit anymore.

This is what you get when the corporation just gets too damn big. The company credo turns from customer service and satisfaction to "Do it our way or leave - we really don't care."

This Forum is focused on audio and the creation thereof, remember? I honestly can't believe I'm having to explain this.

[devils_advisor]

finding out whats in a container is a real big deal.

you would be the first and only person on this planet to be able to hear those frequencies. nice to meet you you should get a noble prize for your breakthrough. in all honesty this is the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. those frequencies are displayed with oscillation and other devices but the human ear is not able to hear them unless you are a dog or some other animal in this case we dont have anymore conversations

[GaryN]

finding out whats in a container is a real big deal.

you would be the first and only person on this planet to be able to hear those frequencies. nice to meet you you should get a noble prize for your breakthrough. in all honesty this is the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. those frequencies are displayed with oscillation and other devices but the human ear is not able to hear them unless you are a dog or some other animal in this case we dont have anymore conversations

Let me be sure I understand this: There's no significant difference between the quality of compressed files and uncompressed ones and nobody can hear any and it's all bullshit.

So, when your client (assuming you've ever had one) comes back at you saying:"What the Hell is wrong with you? I/we/asked for aiffs/waves/flacs etc. to send to my/our/manager/agent/lawyer etc. for promo/radio/record company submission and you sent us fucking Mp3's! Are you insane?"
You would say: "Wrong with me? What's your problem? Neither you nor anybody else can hear the difference! This is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard!"

Really?

I'm going to stop responding to this now after I make one last statement, and honestly, I've never posted anything this direct about anyone on this forum or any other, but for you I'm making an exception.

The more you write, the more you display your complete and total ignorance about human hearing, compression and your arrogance as well.
Possibly you failed to get laid this week and you're just trolling this to get your ya ya's out. That would be incredibly rude. BUT…

It's either that or you're a complete fucking idiot.

    (Sorry everyone - this is just too juvenile to be ignored)

[Naiw]

mp3 for example was created to trim the filesize down by cutting out a range of frequency's that no human can hear anyway. i dont call that a loss since i cant hear it. everything you call lossy format is based on the same concept.

This is partially true and partially false.

Every lossy compression algorithm removes data (that's what make them lossy to start with, ie. a lossy compression algorithm can not expand back to be identical to the input file)

MPEG 1 Layer 3 (MP3) indeed does this by filter away audio information that should have as minimal effect on our aural perception as possible, but to claim that no one can hear a difference is bold.

Lossless audio on the other hand retains and is able to reproduce every single bit of the input data 100% identical, which is also why the best compression factor is at most between 1:3 and 1:2 of the original size.

If it's worth the effort to store the audio as lossless or not is a different aspect and for those who believe they hear a difference it might be worth it, for others- rejoice.

[GaryN]

Actually Naiw, that's mostly false, though your understanding of it is pretty accurate.  Mp3, AAC, Ogg and every other comp algorithm do what is generally called perceptual coding.
The audio waveform is analyzed both instantaneously and predictively. Variable (often large) amounts of data are removed if it is decided that what remains will "cover up" what's missing. It's actually pretty damn ingenious, but it's anything but perfect and it's anything BUT high-fidelity.

The first thing to go is detail…NOT just frequency response. The fine phase relationships between channels that contribute to ambience, presence and imaging are gone… period. That great convolution reverb plugin that cost you an arm and a leg might as well not be there. The timbres of some instruments are degraded as the upper harmonics are reduced and shifted. That's just for openers! This is a subject that can be and is often discussed at reaaalllly long length-far more that we will here. For now, let us simply apply some l-o-g-i-c .

If Mp3 was so indistinguishable from the original there wouldn't BE Ogg, AAC, DTS, TTA, OFR and on and on as they keep trying to improve on what evidently needs improvement. ALL of these damn codecs were created to make up for the fact that HDD's were smaller then, downloads took forever and it was calculated that "the masses" could barely tell the difference and wouldn't really care as long as it meant more songs on their iPods.

The thing about saying "mp3 for example was created to trim the filesize down by cutting out a range of frequency's that no human can hear anyway. i dont call that a loss since i cant hear it." smacks of someone who grew up starting with Napster and is so acclimated to the mediocre crap that streams over Shitify and such that they simply don't know what they're missing because they never learned to "hear" it to begin with.

Thought for the day:
Isn't it odd that 99% of people have NO trouble at all seeing and understanding what JPEG compression does to images but somehow can't make the leap to hearing and understanding how MPEG does the exact same thing with sound.

Finally, the point waay back in the beginning (before all of this BS) was simply that those of us in the industry would appreciate it if Apple could be bothered just once in a while to NOT continually make things more difficult for us and force us to work around an endless series of aggravations just to maintain our loyalty to their damn platform.