do you use FLAC encoding?

offnote


you know those Lossless Audio Codec files? Shouldn't we all be using them since they lose less quality then mp3 or wma?
Just got one and winamp doesn't know how to play it...   

I thought I read something offnote....that mentioned it just never caught on for some reason. I don't use them. The one that got me which I thought would have caught on....hmm...I can't remember what it was called now. Maybe you or some of the other intelligent gents or ladies will know.
 
But I had this mp3 encoder...one of the first ones I ever found on the net. Anyway, this thing encoded these special mp3's that always ended with a "!" at the end of the file name. Whatever this thing was, the file size was so small, it was incredible yet it never lost quality. It was every bit as good as a 320 kb mp3 with way less size.
 
The weird thing about it...the bit rate was always stripped out of it. So when you brought up the file properties on this thing, it always read "bit rate-0". It was the weirdest thing. The extension was .mp3, but it always put an exclamation point after it. All my players could play it...but I never once saw a file come in to me that looked like it or had the bit rate completely gone from it. I still have that encoder...I should encode something and see if anyone can play it in todays times.
 
-Danny

So FLAC went flacid??   (sorry, i couldn't resist.)  lol

bitflipper


No, I don't use FLAC, but I can envision scenarios in which I would. Sharing tracks with a collaborator would be one such scenario; distributing audio to audiophiles who only want FLAC or WAV files would be another.

The fact that it hasn't undergone changes since 2007 doesn't mean anything. There haven't been changes to the MP3 spec since 1998, none to the WAV spec since 1994. Last I checked, they were both still viable formats.

Just curious bit, why would you use FLAC for sharing tracks with a collaborator over broadcast waves? If size is the reason, that WinZip zipx is incredible for making wave files smaller for sharing etc. I share 24/48's all the time and it's amazing how small that zipx format makes them. It actually scared me at first because I thought the files weren't really in there. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

I don't know but for me it doesn't really matter if I can hear the difference or not but I'd like to stay as close to original analog form of music as possible. Maybe we cannot consciously tell the difference but unconsciously we may actually feel the difference. Our body is analogue, right?

joakes

vanblah


It looks like the development of FLAC stopped in 2007.  As far as I know, there is no easy way to set it up in a 64-bit environment.

Er, yes there is. WMP can read flac's, on my 64 bit W7. Plus there are flac players out there.


Cheers,
Jerry

I haven't had much luck setting up the encoder on my system.  I never used FLAC for anything but portability.  I never played FLACs in media players.  I only ever used the command line utility to endode and decode FLACs to use in projects.

A friend of mine loves FLAC.  I don't know if it has any connection, but he's a big Unix/Linux guy.  I've gotten files from him that sound good.  There was a little bit of a learning curve, but nothing serious.  A quick Google of "FLAC player" turned up a bunch of links.  

Eh. I've compared 320 to wavs before and there is an ever so slight loss in the high end, but I can only tell if I'm doing a direct A/B. I'm never going to hear it just listening normally so I don't bother. I just encode at 320. It's perfectly acceptable to me. Even 192 is pretty darn good and doesn't bother me at all for just normal listening. Flac just seems like a waste of time to me. I'm also an iTunes guy (out of habit) and flac doesn't work natively in iTunes so...

  In uploading to something like soundcloud FLAC might be an option if I were running low on space. If it really can decompress into the original wav. why not? Maybe not so good for downloads if players won't support it.