The Radio 3 Boards Forum from myforum365.com
01:42:26, 03-12-2008 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Whilst we happily welcome all genuine applications to our forum, there may be times when we need to suspend registration temporarily, for example when suffering attacks of spam.
 If you want to join us but find that the temporary suspension has been activated, please try again later.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: FLAC - is it worth bothering with?  (Read 223 times)
Andy D
*****
Posts: 3061



« on: 20:57:44, 16-08-2008 »

I've been trying out ripping CDs to FLAC format. It certainly provides a considerable saving in space eg a track which is 84.1MB in WAV is only 31.4-33.7MB in FLAC (I used MediaMonkey which offers different levels of compression). I'm considering the possiblity of storing CDs on hard drives and only burning a CDRW when I really need a CD copy.

However storage is cheap and a major problem for me is that SonicStage (Sony's MD software) doesn't recognize FLAC. I'd probably have to burn to CDRW, then burn that to MD. Alternatively make sure I burnt the original to MD at the same time as I rip it.

I know some of you use FLAC - any comments? Is FLAC really as good as is claimed ie is there really no deterioration during compression followed by decompression? Is it something that seems like a good idea but is really a blind alley in light of the dominance of MP3 and WAV?
Logged
Bryn
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3002



« Reply #1 on: 21:13:29, 16-08-2008 »

FLAC is particularly useful for transferring audio over the Internet. There are a few pocket audio players which can handle FLAC. FLAC is a lossless codec. By definition the reconstructed audio from an FLAC file should be identical to that from which it was derived.
Logged
richard barrett
*****
Posts: 3123



« Reply #2 on: 21:34:50, 16-08-2008 »

FLAC is particularly useful for transferring audio over the Internet. There are a few pocket audio players which can handle FLAC. FLAC is a lossless codec. By definition the reconstructed audio from an FLAC file should be identical to that from which it was derived.
I use FLAC for the downloadable audio on my website precisely for that reason, as does the Avant Garde Project. Information of course is always lost in mp3 encoding, and this becomes in my opinion more critical the more complex the music is (not just in terms of "how much is going on" but also in terms of things like spatial imaging). The actual amount of compression FLAC does varies according to the source material - I encoded an electronic piece which had a lot of silence (ie. digital silence, not "atmosphere" as you get in silences in acoustic recordings) in it and the eventual file size was much smaller than with soundfiles of equivalent duration without silences in them - presumably because the codec just says "repeat this sample x times" rather than stringing a bunch of empty samples together.
Logged
Ron Dough
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 5133



WWW
« Reply #3 on: 21:41:02, 16-08-2008 »

I don't use FLAC unless I'm providing for someone who may need it, or happen to be working on my PC, but use ALACs (Apple Lossless Files, a close equivalent) regularly, Andy (mainly because the Mac-based programme I use for time shifting produces them), with great success. They share the .m4a container with AACs (Apple Lossy Files), so they'll open directly in iTunes for those who use it, and they convert to wave files easily and impressively when needed. I've steered well clear of mp3s right from the start, except as a basic travelling back-up, (probably because I've spent too long in Hifi circles and I don't like the way their compression affects the sound, particularly the low-level detail which recreates ambient nuances) but the Lossless route certainly works for me.

Much of the signal space on a CD is taken up with the complex Reed-Solomon error correction code, which duplicates the material so that a mechanical player has two chances to retrieve and interpret it: there's really no need for it to be there if you're storing it as data and playing back from a solid-state reservoir, so you really aren't compressing the signal itself at all in either Lossless format given the same 16/44.1 standard, even though it's taking up less space: one might even describe it as a win/win situation. 
Logged
JP_Vinyl
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 37



« Reply #4 on: 09:49:51, 22-08-2008 »

>>I use FLAC for the downloadable audio on my website precisely for that reason, as does the Avant Garde Project.

And the material I've downloaded from the AGP's torrents sounds great. But, to derail the topic a little, would anyone know a good application for converting flac to mp3 so I can load the music on my portable player?

Incidentally, I've found SonicStage quite unsatisfactory, especially the quality of files ripped from CD via SS, and the need to maintain redundant folders of music in attrac format on my hard disc. These are some of the reasons I've more or less retired my Sony mp3 player, handsome little gadget though it is, in favour of a fairly standard Transcend model (which however does not support flac either).
Logged

I am not going to be shot in a wheel-barrow, for the sake of appearances, to please anybody.
Ron Dough
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 5133



WWW
« Reply #5 on: 10:01:30, 22-08-2008 »

On the Mac platform, it's easy - there's a little bit of Freeware called Tool Player. For PC, one of these should help.
Logged
JP_Vinyl
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 37



« Reply #6 on: 10:31:32, 22-08-2008 »

Aha! Thanks for the link. You, and this forum, are a fount of knowledge.
Logged

I am not going to be shot in a wheel-barrow, for the sake of appearances, to please anybody.
Ron Dough
Admin/Moderator Group
*****
Posts: 5133



WWW
« Reply #7 on: 10:42:05, 22-08-2008 »

In the fountain of this forum's knowledge, I am but a sprinkle, JP_V.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: