What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
I know that FLAC is a lossless codec. Usenet has a flac newsgroup and a lossless newsgroup. I see on Usenet a lot of "lossless" albums that are nowhere near the size of FLAC albums, though they are both considered lossless music, obviously.
For example, Metallica's Ride the Lightning album which is listed in a.b.sounds.lossless is 36.57 MB in size. If I view that same album on the tracker Exigo, the album is 363.49 MB - 10 times the size.
So my question is, are they both lossless and FLAC is just bloated, or is the lossless category on Usenet full of albums that are not considered lossless?
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
allen(s)
Were you going to answer the question, or just post random Wiki links?
That link doesn't even discuss FLAC. :dry:
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
i posted a link that tells you all the lossless compression methods:
Audio compression
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
I know that FLAC is a lossless codec, but I see on Usenet a lot of "lossless" albums that are nowhere near the size of FLAC albums.
flac and lossless are not the same thing. flac comes under the catagory of lossless.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
allen(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
I know that FLAC is a lossless codec, but I see on Usenet a lot of "lossless" albums that are nowhere near the size of FLAC albums.
flac and lossless are not the same thing. flac comes under the catagory of lossless.
So what are the differences? :rolleyes:
Quality-wise. I mean, 364MB and 36MB is a huge difference.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
i dunno, maybe its a dodgy copy, try playing it to listen / compare the two. if you know the real size is larger, i would choose that one.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
allen(s)
i dunno, maybe its a dodgy copy, try playing it to listen / compare the two. if you know the real size is larger, i would choose that one.
You're leading this conversation in circles. Go back to the original post. :dabs:
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
lossless would be the larger size yes. 36MB is far to small to be lossless imho
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
allen(s)
lossless would be the larger size yes. 36MB is far to small to be lossless imho
I don't think the "lossless" stuff is anywhere close. The current copy I have of that album is 256kbps and the album size is 87MB.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
i think you answered your own question. :hooray:
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
you sure that 35 mb isnt just one file. there is no way the flac version of any album will be 35mb.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Even for a single song 35MB is a little small. Just because it's posted in the lossless group doesn't mean it's lossless for sure.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
the flac format has a variable bitrate. It's much smaller than wav because wave files have a lot more in them besides music. Most flac songs will peak in quality at about 700-1000 kbps.
Anyway, lossless means that there has been no compression of the audio streams, and flac is a form of a lossless file. Saying lossless and flac is like saying processor and Core 2 duo. One is general, the other is specific.
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mbucari1
Anyway, lossless means that there has been no compression of the audio streams
Not strictly true. Lossless means that the audio quality hasn't been compromised in any way by the compression.
To use an analogy, a zip file or a rar file is a lossless compression method. The file sizes are much smaller, but no data has actually been lost.
Just think of the chaos if zip files were lossy :O
Anyway, by that definition, depending on the compression algorithm used, there can be different lossless compression formats that result in differently sized files.
10% of the original file size seems a bit too good to be true however. I'm suspectiing that wasn't truly lossless...
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Lossless=non destructive compression
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mbucari1
Anyway, lossless means that there has been no compression of the audio streams
Not strictly true. Lossless means that the audio quality hasn't been compromised in any way by the compression.
To use an analogy, a zip file or a rar file is a lossless compression method. The file sizes are much smaller, but no data has actually been lost.
Just think of the chaos if zip files were lossy :O
Anyway, by that definition, depending on the compression algorithm used, there can be different lossless compression formats that result in differently sized files.
10% of the original file size seems a bit too good to be true however. I'm suspectiing that wasn't truly lossless...
Well said.
-bd
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
i hate flac, why would use flac, when you can you just convert into mp3
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowultra
i hate flac, why would use flac, when you can you just convert into mp3
Because its lossless?
:p
Re: What's the difference between "FLAC" and "lossless"
I like lossless. Gives more depth to the music. MP3s sound a little tinny.
