MP3 or FLAC?

[DJAd]

I've just been grabbing some tunes and noticed a shit load of the stuff posted seems to be in FLAC format.

I've always been an mp3 man myself and never had a .flac file. I've heard of it being another (very good) compression method for music.

Just wonder if anyone here is a fan or knows more about it?

I was under the impression mp3 was king of audio, but not from what I've seen today.

[Waka]

flac will deffo be a better quality than mp3s - even though it's compressed it's losless.
Of course your car stereo/mp3 player probably won't play them, but on the pc vlc etc. will play them nicely.

w.

[tombott]

Mp3 is so vanilla.
It's all about FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) and OGG
Anything I rip or download now I always get in FLAC (then convert to OGG) or OGG.

[blaggard]

Not really "lossles" if compressed but certainly better, less, "throw baby out with bathwater" of mp3 and the like. For truly lossless you'll need wav/aif or the like and there are plenty of analogue fans who would give you and argument about ANY digital format including me!
I've recorded in major (and FAR from major) studios in both analogue (luvverly 2" analogue tape machines) and the earliest to recent digital versions and guess what? with the exception of "pure" digital signals (synthetically produced, all dig signal path) Analogue beats the living crap out of dig!!

that feels better!!

[braymond]

analogue rules , no doubt.
where have you recorded blaggard? i' worked in the pro audio industry for 15 years,
been to many famous studios all over the planet, and many broadcast studios.
its widely accepted in the industry that the best sound came from big analogue desks and 2inch tape running at 30ips.
we used to use an old revox at work for testing our high end mixers.
it sounded awesome :-)

[blaggard]

analogue rules , no doubt.
where have you recorded blaggard? i' worked in the pro audio industry for 15 years,
been to many famous studios all over the planet, and many broadcast studios.
its widely accepted in the industry that the best sound came from big analogue desks and 2inch tape running at 30ips.
we used to use an old revox at work for testing our high end mixers.
it sounded awesome :-)

Gawd, too many to remember!! When I was with Mammoth we had Battery which was impressive but the album was done at Jacobs. Of course BBC at Maida Vale and various of their contracted studios.......it's all a blur

One of the nicest sounds was a stuio local to me next to the Crystal Palace footie ground, RMS. 2" 16 track so BIG lush sound, the engineer Andy le Vien knew his equipment and room really well, great place and reasonable. I'd rather record there than the most hight profile studios around. I wouldn't mind spending some time at Compass Point though!

[braymond]

i know jacobs, that was a nice residential from what i remember.
think they had an ssl.....
compass point, thats tina weymouth and chris frantz's place in the bahamas isnt it
y. nice
dont do a shaun ryder there tho!

[stimpy]

Not really "lossles" if compressed but certainly better, less, "throw baby out with bathwater" of mp3 and the like. For truly lossless you'll need wav/aif or the like and there are plenty of analogue fans who would give you and argument about ANY digital format including me!


that feels better!!

They may be compressed, but they are lossless. When extracted, the resulting audio file matches the original WAV/AIFF byte for byte (looking at the raw data, not the headers, checksums etc...), making it completely lossless.

Think of it as ZIP, only far more efficient.

[blaggard]

i know jacobs, that was a nice residential from what i remember.
think they had an ssl.....
compass point, thats tina weymouth and chris frantz's place in the bahamas isnt it
y. nice
dont do a shaun ryder there tho!

Yep, Sly and Robbie's hangout, Jacobs was residential yes, great grub!!

[blaggard]

They may be compressed, but they are lossless. When extracted, the resulting audio file matches the original WAV/AIFF byte for byte (looking at the raw data, not the headers, checksums etc...), making it completely lossless.

Think of it as ZIP, only far more efficient.

Have to completely disagree about it being truly lossles, heading out now so can't get into it but an uncompressed file with the space left in will ALWAYS be better. Having said that FLAC and OGG have been around for a long time and are a reasonable compromise whrn filesize is an issue.

[Mr.James]

Have to completely disagree about it being truly lossles, heading out now so can't get into it but an uncompressed file with the space left in will ALWAYS be better. Having said that FLAC and OGG have been around for a long time and are a reasonable compromise whrn filesize is an issue.

Lossless cannot be anything other than truly lossless by the very definition of the word. It's either lossless or it's not. There's no grey area lol

It's exactly as Stimpy said. An efficient form of .zip file for audio.

Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec (FLAC)

[blaggard]

Still not agreeing.

[braymond]

Lossless cannot be anything other than truly lossless by the very definition of the word. It's either lossless or it's not. There's no grey area lol

It's exactly as Stimpy said. An efficient form of .zip file for audio.

Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec (FLAC)

mate , if you take wiki as science, then you you should know better.

your comments apply to the world of computing, not of digital audio reproduction.

audio reproduction is a highly complex subject, and one very badly understood by the majority. its becoming a bit of a lost art with the advent of cheap digital audio, and the presumption that digital is better.

i've listened to cd's mastered at different speeds and heard differences, never mind diffrenent compression technologies.

this isnt bullshit, its a known fact in the pro audio industry.digital audio is simply not the panacea most think it to be, its convenient and cheap , and provides a good cost/quality ratio.

if you want me to forward you some Aes papers on the subject, please do so.

honestly, i read these views on audio with total dismay! :-)

[blaggard]

mate , if you take wiki as science, then you you should know better.

your comments apply to the world of computing, not of digital audio reproduction.

audio reproduction is a highly complex subject, and one very badly understood by the majority. its becoming a bit of a lost art with the advent of cheap digital audio, and the presumption that digital is better.

i've listened to cd's mastered at different speeds and heard differences, never mind diffrenent compression technologies.

this isnt bullshit, its a known fact in the pro audio industry.digital audio is simply not the panacea most think it to be, its convenient and cheap , and provides a good cost/quality ratio.

if you want me to forward you some Aes papers on the subject, please do so.

honestly, i read these views on audio with total dismay! :-)

Predictably I'm with you, I'm 55 have been in the music business all my working life and have bloody good ears.
you won't convince people who've never heard truly flat, colourless audio. I'm afraid it's a lost cause!

Recording the air around an instrument seems arcane to most but that "ambience" is the first thing lost in the digital recording process, and that's before any further adulteration takes place such as compression.

[braymond]

yes blaggard you are right. but after 4 pints after work it seemed like a good idea. tho i probably wasted 5 mins of my life.
lost cause indeed :-)

[Mr.James]

LMAO @ you two.

If you actually read up on the mechanics behind the compression technology you'd realise that far from coming at this from a 'computers' view it's a mathematical one. Are you going to try and debunk mathematics instead? I think you'll be a bit hard pressed on that one as mathematics is quite well established nowadays lol

Let me try to explain this to you simply:

Take the number 140000000000000000000000000000000

This can be mathematically represented as:

140*10^30

(That 140 multipled by 10 thirty times for the noobs out there)

Do you see how this works? A 33 character string represented by 9 characters.

Just think of the 1st number as the wav file, the 2nd number is how FLAC would store this number.

Upon playback the FLAC codec simple expands the 140*10^30 back to it's original format before playing it.

Try to remember that a digitally recorded audio file in whatever format (at it lowest mechanics) is a string of characters like in my example and the FLAC codec is simply using matematical trickery like I have to represent the audio stream in a way that takes up less space.

[blaggard]

LMAO @ you two.

If you actually read up on the mechanics behind the compression technology you'd realise that far from coming at this from a 'computers' view it's a mathematical one. Are you going to try and debunk mathematics instead? lol

Let me try to explain this to you simply:

Take the number 140000000000000000000000000000000

This can be mathematically represented as:

140*10^30

(That 140 multipled by 10 thirty times for the noobs out there)

Do you see how this works? A 33 character string represented by 9 characters.

Just think of the 1st number as the wav file, the 2nd number is how FLAC would store this number.

Upon playback the FLAC codec simple expands the 140*10^30 back to it's original format before playing it.

Try to remember that a digitally recorded audio file in whatever format (at it lowest mechanics) is a string of characters like in my example and the FLAC codec is simply using matematical trickery like I have to represent the audio stream in a way that takes up less space.

Don't talk down to me, I've been in the business for far too long to have you condescend to me!
I also have been into computing and recording that way for as long as it has been possible so take your lecture and shove it
Fucking cheek!

[Mr.James]

I couldn't care less how long you've been in the industry... I've grew up in it and was glad to get out when I could, fuckin hated it.

I was trying to get my point across as simply as possible for the benefits of everyone in the thread who may not have a clue as to how a lossless codec's compression algorithm works.

[maltloaf]

Flac (or any codec) is not lossless. By the very nature of the quantization process there is a point where the actual sound is between two discreet sample levels (plus checksum plus overhead) so the only true lossless audio is raw analogue. As soon as a sound is digital it's lost definition no matter how good the codec, definition or bitrate. (reply with whatever you like but from my years in DSP I am stating facts)

[stimpy]

Flac (or any codec) is not lossless. By the very nature of the quantization process there is a point where the actual sound is between two discreet sample levels (plus checksum plus overhead) so the only true lossless audio is raw analogue. As soon as a sound is digital it's lost definition no matter how good the codec, definition or bitrate. (reply with whatever you like but from my years in DSP I am stating facts)

The argument isn't whether the source is lossless compared to the anologue source, it is whether or not it is lossless compared to the digital capture. Which can be easily proven by comparing the data before compression and decompressed data.

If you have ever zipped a word document, you'd be a bit pissed off if it started taking words out it thought you wouldn't need to make it compress better.