Why do you download music in FLAC format?
Printable View
Why do you download music in FLAC format?
flac is designed specifically for audio, so you will get much better compression without any loss in quality nor information
it is also the most widely supported lossless audio codec, the only one that is non-proprietary, has no patents, and is also open source
i do it if there is no other format available or if i wanna rip it into a different format on my own which isnt too often but it does come up on occasion.
this thread should be moved to the music discussion unless there is a question concerning music bittorrent trackers on its way
I personally dl in flac because we never know what the future holds. MP3 and other such formats are not exactly the same quality as the orignal cd. From what I read, FLAC is the closest you can get. So, if and when a newer format comes out, and there are devices that support them, I can encode them and not worry about having quality loss before I even start the process, since encoding often includes some quality loss, I will not be doubling my loss.
That plus FLAC sounds sooo much better then MP3 on a high end system.
I agree with the points you've made. However, FLAC simply takes up too much space to be efficient in my opinion. Having a CD take almost 200 more MBs is simply too much and plus, the problem is that most MP3 players don't support FLAC so you'll have to manually transcode the files at least once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokeman
.wavpack has a little better compression but slower decoding than .flac, so i guess you can call that closer to an original cd; .wavpack also handles .cue sheets a little better than .flac does by allowing you to store the cd-text data inside the .cue sheet, whereas .flac stips that data with embedded .cue sheets
Luckily I don't download a whole hell of a lot. I own most of the great older stuff, and a lot of newer stuff is just... well... crap...Quote:
Originally Posted by DemigodI agree with the points you've made. However, FLAC simply takes up too much space to be efficient in my opinion. Having a CD take almost 200 more MBs is simply too much and plus, the problem is that most MP3 players don't support FLAC so you'll have to manually transcode the files at least once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokeman
I also do not own an MP3 player, simply because of the quality of mp3's. Once the storage capacity rises high enough, and its not 100's of dollars for one with good space, I will buy one and use WMA until there's a FLAC player out there, with some nice high end headphones.
all ipods support apple lossless, as well as uncompressed .wav and .aiff filesQuote:
Originally Posted by Demigod
I download in mp3 to just listen when I'm out.
I download in FLAC format for collecting purposes. It is by far the best compression. You get the best quality possible.
for a comparison: http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html
th0r, problem with iPod is they are ridiculously expensive, especially if your planning on using wav or their lossless format, since you need a lot more storage space.
Eh, don't you just add the .cue back in with all the .flacs? And I'm pretty positive flac is 100% lossless, and with flac it is theoretically possible to create a 1:1 cd clone using the correct drive offset and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by th0r
well harddrives are cheap nowadays. even with hundreds of albums as long as you keep what you actually want u'll hardly go above 100gb. alotta people keep flac for archiving purposes. if yu're into collecting movies, it'll hardly put a dent in your harddrive space
Well until recently I was an MP3 fan but a group of torrenters turned me onto flac I tried it and found the sound quality was by far much better than mp3's almost like sitting at a real concert
Same here. I also do a lot of re-encoding to high vbr mp3 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by leopalas
flac is lossless and that's important for me. I simply got tired of low quality mp3's. ;)
Flac sucks.I like low level compression.
get more sounds more quality and enjoy it more =)
Yes, there is definitely a problem of diminishing returns with lossless, but for some it is worth the cost. I Have a high-end speaker, but I only download flac for my FAVORITE albums, or when the only other option is a bitrate that I find unacceptable (192 CBR, v2 etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by DemigodI agree with the points you've made. However, FLAC simply takes up too much space to be efficient in my opinion. Having a CD take almost 200 more MBs is simply too much and plus, the problem is that most MP3 players don't support FLAC so you'll have to manually transcode the files at least once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokeman
tbh i don't as anything I REALLY want as a CD I go buy (not much but hey RIAA you get some money from me - like once annually :D) - everything else is fine as mp3 fort me. But as so many want flac I upload it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Definite
I started downloading it because when I listened to music on my stero the increased quality gave me a boost. Recently I noticed my MP3 player got FLAC support and now I never see any reason for mp3 again :)
you can create a copy image, or append gaps to (beginning of next) track, or non-compliant .cue sheets separately i guess; if ripped properly with the right settings using eac (or dbpoweramp), you can achieve a 100% perfect 1:1 rip of a cd, which is known as secureQuote:
Originally Posted by krunktastic
u took the words out of my mouth...
wat its the diffrent??
well then, that's a price you have to be willing to pay when you listen to such high quality musicQuote:
Originally Posted by Tokeman
:P
For the quality... and... have you ever tried to burn a DVD with mp3 files and then to write down on the disc the content ... :lol: