×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FLAC Gets First Update In 6 Years

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the new-and-improved dept.

Music 197

An anonymous reader writes "The Free Lossless Audio Codec, FLAC, loved by audiophiles for its lossless fidelity has been updated to version 1.3.0. FLAC is an audio format similar to MP3, but 'lossless', meaning that audio compressed in FLAC doesn't suffer any loss in quality. FLAC v1.3.0 is the first update in almost 6 years and it is also the first release from the new Xiph.Org maintainer team." Big new feature: ReplayGain works for sampling rates up to 192kHz so you can finally control the volume of your obsessively ripped LPs.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

197 comments

No updates in 6 years? (3, Interesting)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about 10 months ago | (#43967919)

I wonder if that because no one cared or because it was a solid piece of software...

Re:No updates in 6 years? (5, Informative)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 10 months ago | (#43967951)

The latter.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (0, Flamebait)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 10 months ago | (#43968177)

"FLAC is an audio format similar to MP3"

Aside from the fact they are both audio codecs, aren't they polar opposites?
MP3 is optimized for size at the expense of quality while FLAC is LOSSLESS.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (5, Informative)

Trogre (513942) | about 10 months ago | (#43968345)

No. Both are methods of compressing audio data for later playback, just with different trade-offs.

With MP3 of course you are losing fidelity, and with FLAC you are using more disk space and limiting the devices on which your audio data can be played back.

So while they are both different horses for different courses, but they both have the same goal - storage of audio, with data compression.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 10 months ago | (#43968557)

With MP3 of course you are losing fidelity, and with FLAC you are using more disk space and limiting the devices on which your audio data can be played back.

My cell phone (which doubles as the portable music player) can play FLAC, as can my computer and my network-connected home theater receiver. I think my smart TV can play it too, but I've never had a reason to check...

While you're definitely sacrificing disk space, the argument about fewer devices being able to play it is certainly not as true as it used to be. I still carry most of my music around in FLAC format, and just buy a bigger SD card for the phone, and choose some albums I don't want to carry around.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (4, Informative)

wolrahnaes (632574) | about 10 months ago | (#43969293)

It's worth noting that mobile devices often decode popular compressed audio and video formats in dedicated hardware. Modern, powerful devices can play audio and sometimes video reliably in software, but they use a lot more battery power to do so in comparison, so sticking with formats natively supported by your hardware is still usually the best idea.

I think a few chips got Vorbis support and it wouldn't surprise me to find that FLAC made it in to real hardware somewhere, but there's a reason MP3 was basically the only real portable format choice for years.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969965)

but there's a reason MP3 was basically the only real portable format choice for years.

The iPod? :-p

Re:No updates in 6 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968647)

Android supports FLAC natively. So the number of devices isn't so limited.

iDevices and most car stereo's don't (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 10 months ago | (#43969999)

So yes, it's rather limited still. However, it's not the codec that's the limiting factor, it's the choice of the hardware vendors, since the codec itself is free to implement.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (3, Informative)

Misagon (1135) | about 10 months ago | (#43969623)

Actually, FLAC is technically similar to MP3 in a sense.
It consists of an inherently lossy encoding in the frequency domain (like MP3) plus an encoding of the difference between the lossily encoded audio and the original. The first part is a bit more straightforward than MP3 because it does not do any tricks adapted to the human ear.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969683)

It consists of an inherently lossy encoding in the frequency domain (like MP3) plus an encoding of the difference between the lossily encoded audio and the original.

That's not what "lossy" and "lossless" mean. The terms were coined to describe digital compression only, they have nothing to do with the sampling or signal encoding, or audio fidelity.

If an encoder is "lossless," it just means you don't throw out any information to make the signal more easily compressible. When you decompress, you get back exactly what went in. Under that definition, FLAC for audio is just as lossless as PNG for images.

Re: No updates in 6 years? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969917)

Did you read that right?

FLAC uses a transformative codec as the base (which has some rounding issues that make it lossy) PLUS a means of encoding the differences between the source and the stage 1 output into a lossless codec.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (5, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | about 10 months ago | (#43967955)

Clearly the project should be migrated over to the pdf team at Adobe, they know how to put a little excitement back into software that had been just quietly doing its job.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 10 months ago | (#43967983)

I'm pretty sure that flac doesn't need 3d Flash embedded object support...

Re:No updates in 6 years? (5, Funny)

jsdcnet (724314) | about 10 months ago | (#43967999)

This is why you are not a product manager at Adobe.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968171)

Which on it's own is not a bad thing for him. Think about it, if dude(from Adobe PDF developer team) is gonna get sacked, who will ever take him for any other job?

Re:No updates in 6 years? (3, Funny)

letherial (1302031) | about 10 months ago | (#43968195)

Adobe needs to update, install?

No

Adobe needs to update, install?

No

Adobe needs to update, install?

Yes

Adobe needs to update install?

Shut the fuck up.

Sorry but adobe doesn't quietly do anything

Re:No updates in 6 years? (1, Offtopic)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#43968575)

Thatwasthejoke.jpg

Re:No updates in 6 years? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968771)

Thatwasthejoke.jpg

I tried opening that but I get the following error:

The file is damaged and could not be repaired.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43967965)

I wonder if that because no one cared or because it was a solid piece of software...

I wonder if your mom dropped you as a baby, or if you worked hard to become stupid.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 10 months ago | (#43968083)

Unlike lossy compression where you're always looking for better ways to exploit the bits a lossless compression has a hard limit in that you can't compress it down to less information than it actually contains. FLAC is pretty much as good as it's going to get, you can compare it to for example PNG for lossless pictures that is unchanged for the last 9 years. Sane with ZIP, RAR, 7Z etc. they use many of the same underlying algorithms and change very slowly.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (1)

zome (546331) | about 10 months ago | (#43968935)

You have that hard limit if you try to compress the actual data. On another hand, you can get very small if you change the representation of the data. For example, if you want to send the first million digits if PI to a friend, you can generate that million digit, zip it and send it. Alternatively, you just can send him two number, a starting position (which is 0) and length. It will be a lot smaller that the zipped one.

I read long time ago about a compression algorithm that find the math equations that, once give the right input, gives the output that is exactly the original data that you want to compress. All you need to do is to pack that equations and the input.

Re:No updates in 6 years? (1)

Shados (741919) | about 10 months ago | (#43969111)

congratulation, you just reinvented compression in both cases (lossy and non-lossy)

Re:No updates in 6 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969861)

I read long time ago about a compression algorithm that find the math equations that, once give the right input, gives the output that is exactly the original data that you want to compress. All you need to do is to pack that equations and the input.

In general, this won't help, as the amount of information in those equations will need to be large enough to cover random data, and you will end up with a bunch of equations the same size as original data, or worse, larger. On the other hand, if your data is more likely than not to take the form of such equations (or can be smoothed for lossy encoding), then you might come out ahead.

lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43967937)

Release once every 30 years! We're doing awesome stuff, trust us!

LOL, backwater idiots.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43967997)

Release once every 30 years! We're doing awesome stuff, trust us!

LOL, backwater idiots.

30 years Apple released the Lisa personal computer and you were probably not even a sperm. Backwater twit.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (0, Flamebait)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | about 10 months ago | (#43968039)

You fucking troll.

Have you not heard of Opus [opus-codec.org]? It's a fucking sweetass new codec that beats speex quality-wise for voice compression at equal bitrates, but works equally well for web-radio beating AAC-HE v1 and v2, is better than MP3/AAC/OGG at regular video soundtrack rates (eg 96kbps) and does High-Def lossy audio better than AC3 (192kbps to 448kbps).
It's a fucking amazing codec, and it's already out in beta. VLC and Foobar2000 already plays it. It already has support in FFMPEG and MPlayer.

Have you been that awsome in the the last ten years? NO YOU HAVE NOT.

Go home you stupid child.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968085)

Opus is ONLY useful for voice and low-bitrate audio. For high-fi stuff, it's no better than anything else.

I sure as hell would never use it for music.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (4, Interesting)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | about 10 months ago | (#43968369)

ABX at 192kbps and I can't hear the difference, which is good enough for me. Granted I don't have the best ears.
I don't mean to be overly enthusiastic, it's just nice having a codec that serves basically all purposes.

I don't use it for music really. That's all in FLAC (storage) and Vorbis (players) already, but I do use it for video nowadays. I usually encode at 48kbps at 44.1kHz and it sounds better to me that AAC-HE-PS while using the same space. And it's a free and open codec too, so I have all the unjustified moral superiority to wave around too.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968433)

It all depends on the content.
There are certain albums that sound great at 128Kb/s where others sound like crap at 320Kb/s.
At this point in time disk space is cheap enough that I'm considering going uncompressed instead of FLAC.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968889)

Why not? It should be transparent at high bitrates, just like Vorbis, AAC and MP3.
It has done well in listening tests, even though the encoder is still maturing. Fair chance it will end up beating AAC at near-transparency levels, IMO.

Re:lol, Xiph, like GNU Hurd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968183)

We're not talking about the latest version of Cock-Stroke: Source you idiotic fuck, this is a codec.

Into the trash it goes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43967943)

>implying I will stop using mp3s and ever be able to fully recollect all my music in FLAC

uppermost lel

24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43967973)

Re:24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sen (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968041)

While this is mostly accurate, articles like this fail to mention where 192KHz is useful. That is, for certain types of digital post-processing and effects. Doing a digital time or frequency shift (not a re-sample, that's simple and effectively lossless) yields atrociously poor results if using 44.1 or even 48 KHz. With 192KHz, you can't hear the difference, and that is why it is used in the studio. Auto-tune is a decent example of that kind of processing. It works much better at higher bit rates.

None of this matters to the average listener though, or to the DJ who only cares about a simple speed up or slow down (or re-sample).

Re:24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sen (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 10 months ago | (#43968243)

While this is mostly accurate, articles like this fail to mention where 192KHz is useful. That is, for certain types of digital post-processing and effects. Doing a digital time or frequency shift (not a re-sample, that's simple and effectively lossless) yields atrociously poor results if using 44.1 or even 48 KHz. With 192KHz, you can't hear the difference, and that is why it is used in the studio. Auto-tune is a decent example of that kind of processing. It works much better at higher bit rates.

None of this matters to the average listener though, or to the DJ who only cares about a simple speed up or slow down (or re-sample).

Wrong. Article mentions it as being useful for processing. Article uses oversampling for antialiasing / cutoff as an example.
At no point would the signal have to be stored in a high sampling rate to get this benefit. Article mentions most ADCs/DACs handle this shit transparently.

"Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data, but they are internally essential to several modern digital audio techniques. Oversampling is the most relevant example [7]."

Re:24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sen (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968347)

Oversampling at the ADC level is NOT post-processing. Post means "after", in case you didn't know. If the desire is to use audio for a multitude of uses, say to play back in a sampler frequency shifted or to "correct" some awful notes (as is commonly done), it is still worthwhile to record raw audio at 192kHz. It is never worthwhile to distribute the finished product at high sample rates, unless the finished product IS in fact sample material intended to be used by studio people.

Re: 24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no se (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968759)

"Oversampling" and recording with a high Fs are two different concepts. Oversampling is specifically when the AD runs at a higher sample rate than the effective Nyquist rate.

Oversampling technologies are things like 1-bit delta-sigma ADC and MASH. They trade sample rate for bit width, and are used because high-frequency oscillators are cheaper to engineer than 24 bit symbol encoders.

Re:24/192 Music Downloads and why they make no sen (0)

Darkling-MHCN (222524) | about 10 months ago | (#43969181)

And yet when someone with hearing problems presents themselves to an expert on human hearing they'll tell you the human ear is an incredibly delicate part of the body that they don't fully understand,

I think of digital music and lossy codecs in the same way I think of GM foods. Yea sure, they're probably OK, but maybe they're not. When someone speaks with absolute certainty about a subject no one understands absolutely I have to raise an eyebrow.

Flac (2)

soupbowl (1849394) | about 10 months ago | (#43967981)

I been using flac for all my music collection about 5 years now. Also have had an mp3 player that has supported it for 3-4 years now.

I don't see the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43967985)

Ten years ago, when hard drives were small and NAS systems for home use didn't really exist, I could see the point of all this ripping and converting. But now, with multi-terabyte HDs and the proliferation of NAS appliances, there is a limited need for this or any other 'compressed' music file format.

Re:I don't see the point (4, Insightful)

jsdcnet (724314) | about 10 months ago | (#43968193)

Ten years ago, when hard drives were small and NAS systems for home use didn't really exist, I could see the point of all this ripping and converting. But now, with multi-terabyte HDs and the proliferation of NAS appliances, there is a limited need for this or any other 'compressed' music file format.

I'll give you one: metadata. WAV doesn't really support it in a standard way across applications. AIFF is a little better but it doesn't have a lot of traction on Windows. FLAC has a robust tagging scheme. Since converting to lossless is incredibly fast, and you typically save about 30% of the disk space, why not do it?

Re:I don't see the point (5, Informative)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 10 months ago | (#43968801)

FLAC also includes error detection - each frame has as 16-bit crc and the file header includes an md5 hash of raw audio data. Doesn't help with repairing corruption but at least you can detect it and avoid playing the corrupt frames as ear-splitting noise unlike wav.

Re:I don't see the point (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968827)

Because people swear they can hear the missing bits of data with their SPDIF Monster cable.

Re:I don't see the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969643)

Well, everybody knows fiber optic cables needs gold connectors...

Re:I don't see the point (3, Insightful)

Proteus (1926) | about 10 months ago | (#43968565)

But now, with multi-terabyte HDs and the proliferation of NAS appliances, there is a limited need for this or any other 'compressed' music file format.

Yep, because audio files are never:

  1. Streamed over low-bandwidth data connections (e.g. cellular or crappy public APs)
  2. Stored on small, portable devices with limited storage space, like Phones, solid-state media players, Chromebooks and tablets.
  3. Backed up to remote locations where storage is more expensive

I can't imagine anyone having a need for those things. *eyeroll*

Re:I don't see the point (1)

swalve (1980968) | about 10 months ago | (#43968591)

What other format should someone use? It is mathematically provably lossless. There is literally no reason not to use it.

Re:I don't see the point (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 10 months ago | (#43970015)

There is literally no reason not to use it.

Computational complexity....

But lets not consider the actual realities here... lets assume computation has zero cost.

Re: I don't see the point (4, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 10 months ago | (#43968601)

I'm a sound designer, I mostly work on feature films; I use FLAC for my remote archives -- uploading to S3 goes a lot faster this way, particularly when the audio media is sparse. A 20 minute FX premix might be 10% the size of an equivalent WAV because of all the silence. The flac(1) tool also has a handy --keep-foreign-metadata option that generally gives byte-for-byte round trip accuracy, even for embedded metadata. I also use Apple Lossless for my local library, mainly because it supports ID3 and Apple clients (like Pro Tools) support it more commonly than FLAC.

Thanks for telling me what FLAC is (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968005)

After all I didn't know and why should I it isn't like this site is for news for nerds.

FUNSA

The only thing I'd ever buy (5, Insightful)

cen1 (2915315) | about 10 months ago | (#43968017)

All the music I ever bough was FLAC, mostly thanks to services like Bandcamp. They require the artists to upload their song in lossless and from there they provide all the formats you'd ever want. That's how all music should be sold.. with no shitty codecs and DRM.

Re:The only thing I'd ever buy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968057)

... or as iApple <128k bit poorly encoded MP3s

Re:The only thing I'd ever buy (4, Informative)

MrEdofCourse (2670081) | about 10 months ago | (#43968439)

Apple never sold music below 128kbps, nor as MP3. They currently sell music as 256kbps AAC.

Re:The only thing I'd ever buy (1)

Flagbrew (471794) | about 10 months ago | (#43968491)

Pretty much all the music I have ever downloaded has been in FLAC format. After all, most everything I listen to is from etree or the live music archive, and it would be sacrilegious to make that music lossy.

Re:The only thing I'd ever buy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968911)

I'd look at the spectrals on those "lossless" files you bought. Plenty of music on bandcamp was quite clearly converted to flac from MPs.

Re:The only thing I'd ever buy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969207)

All the music I download is FLAC. All the music I listen to is AAC or MP3.

FLAC superiority to MP3 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968067)

MP3 compresses audio files so that they have the same playback within the range of human auditory sensation. FLAC is superior because it retains full audio fidelity across the entire frequency spectrum. This will be of the utmost importance if you are a dog.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968493)

Have fun listening to your shitty 128kbit/s MP3 then. When MP3 was developed, file size mattered. Way more than now. MP3 sucks not only because of its quality, but also because it's not an open standard, and there are licensing fees.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (2)

swalve (1980968) | about 10 months ago | (#43968619)

MP3 is nice in that it really only specifies what a file must look like in order to be played back. The algorithms use to encode the data can vary; it is what decides what information gets removed. I don't know what the current state of the art is, but I'd bet you can very close to lossless at a similar file size to FLAC. Not that you'd bother given that FLAC exists, but the point is that MP3 isn't necessarily inherently bad.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about 10 months ago | (#43969921)

You can't blame the file format for your decision to rip CDs at such a low bitrate.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (1)

antdude (79039) | about 10 months ago | (#43968675)

That means we will have to get all our MP3s as FLACs. Argh. I wonder when Amazon, Apple, etc. will have their songs in that format. Is OGG dead?

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968985)

This is fantastic because I am a dog. Why does everyone overlook this? Does everyone hate dogs?

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (1)

Typical Slashdotter (2848579) | about 10 months ago | (#43969059)

It goes beyond "same playback within the range of human auditory sensation." It is actually lossless, i.e., decoding a flac file will get you an audio stream bit-for-bit identical to the original. It's more like gzip optimized for music than it is like mp3.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969405)

You said "dog" but I think you meant "Mouse":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grey_Album

And some dude apparently remastered that remix...

http://boingboing.net/2012/11/29/grey-album-remastered-by-golde.html

So sure, if all you ever do is _play_ source material by all means use mp3. But when DJs or audio engineers want to do a remix or mashup they need source material in a _lossless_ format. Otherwise a "remastered remix" is going to suffer a big loss in quality that's perceptible to dogs, humans, Hovas, and even Ringos.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (0)

evilviper (135110) | about 10 months ago | (#43969653)

MP3 compresses audio files so that they have the same playback within the range of human auditory sensation.

Really? Those 32kbps MP3s sound perfect to you, do they? Those 128kbps MP3s that have been re-encoded over and over again sound perfect to you?

In fact, MP3 and most other lossy codecs can't do artifact-free audio encoding at any bitrate. They work in the frequency domain, giving them very poor time resolution, so they badly screw up quick impulses, particularly things like percussion, applause, etc. Most common codecs fall into this category... MP3, AAC, HE-AAC (v1/2), Vorbis, Opus, etc.

If you really want something a person can't differentiate from the original at a low bitrate, you have to resort to temporal domain codecs. These include Musepack, MP2 (MPEG-1 Layer2), DTS, the old high-bitrate ATRACv2, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1#Quality [wikipedia.org]

This will be of the utmost importance if you are a dog.

Dogs can hear higher frequencies than humans, but MP3 and FLAC have nothing specific to do with sampling frequencies. You can encode 44.1KHz or 96KHz into FLAC or MP3 if you are determined to do so.

Psycoacoustics are modeled on normal human auditory systems, so non-humans would probably hear a few more artifacts from MP3 encoding than humans, but that's about it. That also applies to humans with compromised hearing... Certainly, things like intensity stereo won't fool something with only one ear into thinking it sounds anything like the original, though that's not to say it'll necessarily sound very bad.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3 (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about 10 months ago | (#43970007)

The importance of FLAC lies in its storage capabilities, not in its playback ones. With FLAC you can store a sound, then edit, then store it again, an infinite number of times, without the stored sound representation losing one bit of its quality. With MP3s, even high quality ones, it’s not the case.

thanks for the update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968179)

I was wondering what happend to FLAC. It has been a while since I've encoded .wav files into FLAC.

Latest and greatest? (1, Troll)

garyoa1 (2067072) | about 10 months ago | (#43968225)

Funny thing is I remember when reel to reel was touted as much better than vinyl. Then CD's were touted as a hundred times cleaner than vinyl or reel to reel. Then dvd's were superior to cd's. (Then everyone used mp3's anyway)

Now... we're back to vinyl.

Gotta love marketing.

Re:Latest and greatest? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968461)

Vinyl may have a nostalgical value. The quality is indeed WAY worse than that of a CD, for example.

Re:Latest and greatest? (0)

swalve (1980968) | about 10 months ago | (#43968657)

Depends on how you define quality. I believe it can have better frequency response, limited only by the mass of the recording and playback styluses. (When I've hooked up a turntable to a computer and looked at the frequencies, I can see frequencies above 20khz. Whether they are useful or necessary is a different story.) But everything else is worse.

Re:Latest and greatest? (1)

Jiro (131519) | about 10 months ago | (#43968713)

Vinyl is almost always exempt from the loudness war, which can make it legitimately sound better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war [wikipedia.org]

Re:Latest and greatest? (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 10 months ago | (#43969413)

good example of the stupidity of the music industry.

they put the best mix on the worst (physical, playback) medium, vinyl.

the cd (or file) which can have superior specs, they give the compressed loudness-war mix.

makes NO SENSE!

the music industry is fucked up. they just are.

Sampling rate for volume? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968327)

ReplayGain works for sampling rates up to 192kHz so you can finally control the volume of your obsessively ripped LPs.

What does sampling rate have to do with volume? Is there some sort of DSP going on to resample it down to 48kHz and increase bit depth (which increases dynamic range but not volume)?

Re:Sampling rate for volume? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969091)

I think the point was that clueless vinyl snobs have recorded their collections at 192kHz and then may want to use ReplayGain to adjust the gain of the FLAC file recording. Previously this would only work with lower sample rates.

A first for Slashdot (0)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 10 months ago | (#43968431)

This, I believe, is the first time an acronym has been expanded in a Slashdot summary.

Re:A first for Slashdot (0)

steelfood (895457) | about 10 months ago | (#43968513)

It's also likely the first time Slashdot has the story up before the . [sourceforge.net]

Re:A first for Slashdot (0)

steelfood (895457) | about 10 months ago | (#43968533)

"official news page" is what I meant the linked text to read (I probably forgot the ">" in the opening tag).

At least the link goes to the right page...

7YOU ;FAIL IT... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968549)

megs of ram runs phil0sophies must And shouting that Get how people can

Fros1t 4ist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968613)

goals. It's when

Lossless is impossible with digital (-1, Troll)

ls671 (1122017) | about 10 months ago | (#43968669)

Lossless is impossible with digital. You have virtually infinite ways to groove an old LP record. With digital, there is a very finite ways to set the bits to zero or one.

That's a reason why old musician and audiophiles usually prefer LPs. They say they are better with harmonics and they say they can tell the difference, especially with instruments like the violin.

Personally, I find that a brand new high quality LP played on a high end sound system sounds better than numeric, even with no compression at all (raw) formats.

Re:Lossless is impossible with digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968841)

Actually digital or "numeric" is exactly what you call "virtually infinite", watch it in action using analog gear here. [xiph.org]

Re:Lossless is impossible with digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43968929)

sigh

all your damned "brand new high quality" LPs are full of music that has been digitally recorded, digitally mixed, and digitally mastered prior to being printed to vinyl, so those infinite ways of grooving the LP contain the same damned digital information.

the fact that you find LPs to sound better despite this should be evidence enough that the digitial/analogue distinction is not actually the problem your LPs are solving for you

jesus, i thought this was a site for nerds. where's your goddamn intellectual curiosity?

Re:Lossless is impossible with digital (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43969041)

This is absolutely false. People only think that LPs sound better because it's what they are accustomed to. The "warmth" from an LP is, in fact, distortion. CD's are a far more accurate representation of the sound as it was at the time of the studio recording.

Your point about the infinite bandwidth of the grooves on vinyl is moot, since humans can't hear with infinite resolution. All that counts is how accurately the sound is reproduced within the human-audible frequency range, and digital CD quality recordings have vinyl beat, hands down, without exception.

Well.. (1)

houbou (1097327) | about 10 months ago | (#43968743)

I can see that for those who are audiophiles and purists, this is good news. Or those with Super-Hearing :)

Offtopic: to people digitizing rare LPs (2)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about 10 months ago | (#43969145)

To people digitizing rare LPs and the people posting Youtube videos that show a phonograph record going round.

Please oh please fill a spray bottle with a solution of water with a tiny bit of liquid soap, and spray the surface of the record before and occasionally during recording. After, rinse and dry with fluffy-towel and lean on edge to dry completely before re-sleeving.

You will be flabbergasted with the result. Even if you do not flabbergast easily.

Give me some FLAC (4, Insightful)

zoid.com (311775) | about 10 months ago | (#43969423)

It's because FLAC rocks... There has been no need to update it. It's one of the huge open source/open spec success stories.

Compression (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 10 months ago | (#43969889)

Wish we could see 6 years of advancement in file compression technology with FLAC. I know space is on the cheap these days, but that doesn't mean we should just keep inflating files more and more. As much as I do appreciate FLAC, when it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a 6MB file and a 24MB file, it starts to feel a bit wasteful, especially when the source was something like a compact disc to begin with.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...