Is FLAC really "better" than high-bit rate MP3?

[cinephilia]

i was talking about burned discs. what's burned is generally not on my hdd anymore.

but yeah, sure... next time i wanna bring some music to a friend, i'll think about ripping, converting and burning everything again into more compatible formats.

[Expeto]

the point is that wav is compatible with literally everything. music is about sharing - i see no point in only being able to play flac files on your flac-compatible player or computer.

i mean you're not able to play your music anywhere nor you can lend albums to friends that doesn't have the 'right' equipment. this is a big disadvantage in my eyes.

You can decompress it and convert the track to any format of your choosing so I am not seeing your argument here. I can convert a whole album from FLAC to MP3 HQ VBR directly with Foobar and Lame in less than a minute. Or I can burn an Audio CD in less than 3 minutes using the .cue file mounted in Imgburn.

so you are saying, to listen some music everybody should learn to encode and burn disks? why to use a codec anyway? we can just use RAW formats

[cinephilia]

it's really simple. flac is cool. raw formats aren't.

[sandman_1]

so you are saying, to listen some music everybody should learn to encode and burn disks? why to use a codec anyway? we can just use RAW formats

So using Foobar 2000 + Lame is too difficult for you to do or burn an audio disk? Must be a monumental task for you to do anything.

Why compress files? Hmmm, maybe to save space.

i was talking about burned discs. what's burned is generally not on my hdd anymore.

but yeah, sure... next time i wanna bring some music to a friend, i'll think about ripping, converting and burning everything again into more compatible formats.

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.

[Expeto]

So using Foobar 2000 + Lame is too difficult for you to do or burn an audio disk? Must be a monumental task for you to do anything.

Why compress files? Hmmm, maybe to save space.

First of all, I can encode a file from my arch cli, way before your point and drool gui even shows up. In my home PC, I don't even have to anything, my crontab scripts automatically converts every complete music of any format file in my /home/download/ and saves them as ogg vorbis to my /home/music/ and adds them to my xmms playlists.

Some people with large hdd space said they didn't cared about the size, and I'm saying if your hdd doesn't matter why not go with raw. Why to use a compressed format at all?

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.

the problem is its unnecessary, the difference is unnoticeable. You are adding unnecessary complexity.

I love FLAC, its open source and its great. Its a perfect format for backup, its almost %40 smaller than raw files, replay gain support, very easy to work with and easy to encode. When an audio expert talks about it I respect them, they can hear the difference, but many of the time FLAC supporters are bunch of noobs trying to brag about their audio skills. FLAC is 6times larger with unnoticeable quality difference, it drains battery very fast on portable players, its not for everyday use.

[cinephilia]

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.

there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.

[sandman_1]

First of all, I can encode a file from my arch cli, way before your point and drool gui even shows up. In my home PC, I don't even have to anything, my crontab scripts automatically converts every complete music of any format file in my /home/download/ and saves them as ogg vorbis to my /home/music/ and adds them to my xmms playlists.

Some people with large hdd space said they didn't cared about the size, and I'm saying if your hdd doesn't matter why not go with raw. Why to use a compressed format at all?



the problem is its unnecessary, the difference is unnoticeable. You are adding unnecessary complexity.

I love FLAC, its open source and its great. Its a perfect format for backup, its almost %40 smaller than raw files, replay gain support, very easy to work with and easy to encode. When an audio expert talks about it I respect them, they can hear the difference, but many of the time FLAC supporters are bunch of noobs trying to brag about their audio skills. FLAC is 6times larger with unnoticeable quality difference, it drains battery very fast on portable players, its not for everyday use.

Yes it is for archival purposes. If you are at your place of residence, why listen to something inferior, i.e. some lossy format, when you have the lossless version available? And there is noticeable difference if you know what to listen for. You do not need to have bionic ears to know the difference. Personally I can spot the difference with PC speakers with Foobar and its Double Blind component just to prove that it wasn't just a coincidence.

And I never said use it on portable players. MP3 has its uses, i.e. portability. Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.

there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.

Wav is a Windows format. It is a RAW audio file with a header. AFAIK, plain jane CD players will not play WAV files unless it explicitly says so in the spec's.

[Expeto]

Yes it is for archival purposes. If you are at your place of residence, why listen to something inferior, i.e. some lossy format, when you have the lossless version available? And there is noticeable difference if you know what to listen for. You do not need to have bionic ears to know the difference. Personally I can spot the difference with PC speakers with Foobar and its Double Blind component just to prove that it wasn't just a coincidence.

Still what applies to you doesn't not apply to me. FLAC, like any codec, is a trade-off. For me 6x space, lack of native player support does not worth a small quality difference. Same goes for most of the users, so there no point pushing FLAC into general use.

First of all, I'm sorry, that noob thing wasn't intended for you. I was talking in general.

Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?

You are also speaking generally here. For a person, who is not going to work on the file, who can't tell the difference of quality, using a lossless form is not just noob but also idiotic. Its a fact that, many of the FLAC users are bunch of imitators trying to look like experts. Again, I'm not talking about you here.

[sandman_1]

Still what applies to you doesn't not apply to me. FLAC, like any codec, is a trade-off. For me 6x space, lack of native player support does not worth a small quality difference. Same goes for most of the users, so there no point pushing FLAC into general use.

First of all, I'm sorry, that noob thing wasn't intended for you. I was talking in general.

Also I would like to know how keeping your music, in its original bit exact form, is somehow being a "noob" as you so eloquently put it?

You are also speaking generally here. For a person, who is not going to work on the file, who can't tell the difference of quality, using a lossless form is not just noob but also idiotic. Its a fact that, many of the FLAC users are bunch of imitators trying to look like experts. Again, I'm not talking about you here.

Well I suppose we will have to disagree on opinion here but I do see where you are coming from. Some people cannot tell a difference in MP3 as opposed to a CD track or other lossless source. Part of that I think is due to other things like Dynamic Range Compression and increased loudness in today's music. When you got that with clipping and limited range, it could be difficult to point out which is which with all of the distortion.

[cinephilia]

On PC, about any player can play FLAC files, even Windows Media Player with directshow filters. If you are talking about playing it in a portable player, then what is the problem about having it convert to say mp3 on the fly directly to that device? You gotta transfer the files at some point.

there must be some misunderstanding. i'm just saying that if space isn't an issue, then why not sticking with WAV, especially if you burn your music onto discs ? unlike FLAC, WAV is compatible with any CD player and you don't have to convert anything before burning.

Wav is a Windows format. It is a RAW audio file with a header. AFAIK, plain jane CD players will not play WAV files unless it explicitly says so in the spec's.

then, i must have confused with cda or whatever it's called.