Should we post FLAC files?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayc
  • Start date Start date
rayc

rayc

retroreprobate
Being that audio quality is reeasonably important when critically listening to a mix ought we consider posting non stream adio as flac files?
  • It is claimed to be "lossless" and doesn't compress as heavily as MP3.
  • Increased compression ratios in FLAC (0 to -8) garner diminishing returns in terms of file sizes.
  • WMP requires a plug in to play it
  • Winamp plays it easily
  • it can be easily decompressed to recreate the wav fil it was based on
  • Compression takes longer than decompression
I used it to compress a 59 meg wav fil.
At the lightest compression rate it was reduced to 38 meg and at the heaviest to 37 meg.
The decoded file or file played on a flac compatible player (which decodes on the fly) is at the same quality as the original wav.
Even at the heaviest setting the UP & DOWN loading would be thrice the size of a 320 MP3 (which is reduced to 12.3 meg by a standarrd LAME).
Any thoughts?
 
..some big words there Ray :confused:. I'm just now realizing that soundclick may be doing us a disservice sonically :o and that I should start using dropbox with the highest quality mp3 to post songs for review. So, I'm not much of an audiophile and wouldn't know a FLAC if it bit me in the ass! :eek: I'm always open to learn new stuff though :D
 
I don't know if all that is necessary. A 320kb/s MP3 is okay. Most people won't hear the difference between that and the source wav.
 
My super hearing can hear the difference between Flac and MP3. I can hear the difference between Flac and Wave. I can listen to you play guitar and tell you what brand of strings you buy. I can hear the difference between ivory and plastic keys on a keyboard. I can listen to your mix and tell you that you haven't installed all your service packs for Windows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDP
Tough question - People may not want to download FLAC as it is "strange" to them. So I would go with Greg and say 320MP3 for both quality, familiarity and speed of upload/download.
 
Murdersgalore said:
My super hearing can hear the difference between Flac and MP3. I can hear the difference between Flac and Wave. I can listen to you play guitar and tell you what brand of strings you buy. I can hear the difference between ivory and plastic keys on a keyboard. I can listen to your mix and tell you that you haven't installed all your service packs for Windows.
Click to expand...

What scent of air freshener in my truck?
 
hey, yeaaaaa, FLAC being roughly 40 mb a track, and MP3 4 mb, i would say mp3 is better then flac for this forum. though if you want real quality, print some vinyls and mail them around!

And by the way is flac the format for super audio cd's?
 
Good to see flac's being mentioned on here! I thought only us computer geeks knew about that stuff. If I saw a flac, I'd download it and listen to it instead of an mp3, but I've got a nice fat internet connection, and use players that will play flac's with no problem. Not everyone here is in that position, though, so if you post only flac's, you'll probably not get as many reviews. I say post both, if ya have the resources.
 
There was a grateful dead archive online that I frequented maybe 10 years ago and all of the shows had to be in FLAC format. Haven't heard of that file type since then.

It took me a while to figure out how to convert them and they took up an enormous amount of space, but I burned them all to disc and they really do sound pretty amazing. Of course I'm comparing them to cassette tapes of the same shows that were many generations removed from the original recording, so a WAV file probably would've sufficed.

For this place, I'm still using Soundclick with 128 mp3. Probably not doing myself any favors there...
 
Truth be told when my bandwidth is at its normal levels 128 is too hard for me but 320MP3 downloads would be a good standard to use where & when possible.
If only Soundclick & Co would UP their rates. Even utub has higher quality available now.
LOTS of download blogs offer albums on flac & it really is the way to go if you want wav quality audio.
Can you hear the difference? - Most people can tell the diff between a 128 and a 320MP3. Some can hear the difference between a 256 & a 320. Most folk can hear the difference between wav and most MP3s IF they are listening on decent gear.
FLAC is very popular for storing CDs etc on hard drive as it saves 50% of the space and preserves the audio quality.
 
I had no idea about FLAC.

I now know to save my mp3's at 320. Nice. :cool:

Thanks.
 
Murdersgalore said:
I can hear the difference between Flac and Wave.
Click to expand...

Technically, that should be impossible. The L in FLAC is for lossless meaning that when you decompress the file, it's identical to the original wav.

I think FLAC at this point suffers from one of those chicken/egg problems. Very few files are posted in FLAC form, so no one bothers to ensure their media players can play them. Very few people can/know how to play FLAC files, so the people uploading files don't post them.

We could all start trying to make an effort to post FLAC files parallel to our MP3s though.
 
Another joke wasted by the inability to express sarcasm in text.
 
I dunno, you post in that format, you might get alot of FLAC about it...;)
 
You don't have to play the FLAC file as FLAC (Winamp does do it amongst others). It can decompressed by a non playing prog like EZY CD 7 or Super & then played as the wav.
There are a few music sites that are lossless based.
I frequent an Oz music site, (midoz forum), that only allows the UP & DOWN loading of non available music (deleted etc) that insists on 320 minimum.
Actually it's a good option to play the FLAC on a suitable player rather than decomp. as the time & effort goes into the compression process and, supposedly, the decomp for playback is quick & not as big a power user as other formats.
Oh, a 192 bit MP3 drops virtually all data at 16kHz where a 256+ goes to 20Hz unless told to do otherwise.
Parallel posting might be interesting - gives options for the listener - esp if one susses out the soundclick etc, likes what is heard & cares to hear it in a better format.
 
I'm all for anything that gets click-seekers and page-hit-hunters to drop the shit and post something actually worth listening to.
 
What's the craic with WAV files? If I upload a wav that's been mixed down at 44.1, how does this compare with a 320 mp3? As I understand it wav's are less compressed than mp3s.

Apologies if this is a dumb question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top