FLAC files

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a7f23db0-1df0-4dcd-bbe7-d223bdc5b411@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>I thought I'd toss in this question and see what others think. Why
> hasn't the the file format "FLAC" really caught on? I mean, it seems
> to be superior to Mp3's in every aspect. They take up far less
> harddrive space, the audio is lossless, and the technology is open-
> source. So why is MP3 still the file format of choice?
> Bryan

Metallica and BareNaked Ladies sell em. NIN delivered their recent free
disc in that format. Its not that obscure. I haven't seen many, or any,
portable players support it. Thats probably the big thing.

[email protected] writes:

> I thought I'd toss in this question and see what others think. Why
> hasn't the the file format "FLAC" really caught on? I mean, it seems
> to be superior to Mp3's in every aspect. They take up far less
> harddrive space,

Far less than MP3? No. Far less than raw PCM? I wouldn't even
say that is true. Is 1/2 "far less"? I typically get a compression
ratio of around 1/2.

> the audio is lossless, and the technology is open-
> source. So why is MP3 still the file format of choice?

Because the difference in storage space is still more valuable than the
difference in audio quality to the masses?
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

On Jul 5, 10:39�pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
> Far less than MP3? No. Far less than raw PCM? I wouldn't even
> say that is true. Is 1/2 "far less"? I typically get a compression
> ratio of around 1/2.

I was actually basing this on my own personal experience. I've never
downloaded a FLAC file until today. It was an 8 minute song and was
only 60 KB. And of course, cd sound quality. I never even thought such
a thing was possible! That was my introduction to FLAC. Is that
typical? If it is, than I still don't get why it hasn't caught on the
way Mp3 has. Maybe it will eventually.
Bryan

[email protected] wrote:

>> Far less than MP3? No. Far less than raw PCM? I wouldn't even
>> say that is true. Is 1/2 "far less"? I typically get a compression
>> ratio of around 1/2.
>
>I was actually basing this on my own personal experience. I've never
>downloaded a FLAC file until today. It was an 8 minute song and was
>only 60 KB. And of course, cd sound quality. I never even thought such
>a thing was possible! That was my introduction to FLAC. Is that
>typical? If it is, than I still don't get why it hasn't caught on the
>way Mp3 has. Maybe it will eventually.

What was it.. 4'33?

I think you mean 60 Mb.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

On Jul 5, 9:21 pm, Signal <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >> Far less than MP3? No. Far less than raw PCM? I wouldn't even
> >> say that is true. Is 1/2 "far less"? I typically get a compression
> >> ratio of around 1/2.
>
> >I was actually basing this on my own personal experience. I've never
> >downloaded a FLAC file until today. It was an 8 minute song and was
> >only 60 KB. And of course, cd sound quality. I never even thought such
> >a thing was possible! That was my introduction to FLAC. Is that
> >typical? If it is, than I still don't get why it hasn't caught on the
> >way Mp3 has. Maybe it will eventually.
>
> What was it.. 4'33?
>
> I think you mean 60 Mb.
>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

4'33

LOL

You made my day!

FLAC is used by Smithsonian Global Sound; they offer a lot of material for
download.

The reason it hasn't become hugely popular is that it typicall offers about
a 1:3 reduction in file size, whereas MP3 offers 10:1 or more. That means it
takes a bit longer to download a FLAC file. Convenience always trumps
quality.

Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:
> FLAC is used by Smithsonian Global Sound; they offer a lot of material for
> download.

> Convenience always trumps quality.

Beyond file transfer time (most people today have never had a "low
speed" connection so they have no reference) the major convenience
factor is that just about any computer out of the box can play an MP3
file. To play a FLAC file, you usually have to download and install
something. I probably have something to play a FLAC around here, but I
don't know what.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

On 09 Jul 2008, Mike Rivers <[email protected]> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Beyond file transfer time (most people today have never had a "low
> speed" connection so they have no reference) the major convenience
> factor is that just about any computer out of the box can play an
> MP3 file. To play a FLAC file, you usually have to download and
> install something. I probably have something to play a FLAC around
> here, but I don't know what.

There are FLAC plugins/codecs available for many popular media players.
On my computer I can play FLAC files with Winamp, Foobar2000, Windows
Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC, etc. Yes, you may have to take
that one extra step, but it's an easy one. You don't necessarily need a
special program to play FLAC files.

Nil wrote:

> There are FLAC plugins/codecs available for many popular media players.
> On my computer I can play FLAC files with Winamp, Foobar2000, Windows
> Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC, etc. Yes, you may have to take
> that one extra step, but it's an easy one.

It's only an easy step if you know what to do and that you have to do
it. I don't believe that out-of-the-box computers are yet equipped with
a FLAC codec plug-in. Remember, we're talking mainstream users here, not
people who have a clue.

I'm not saying it'll never happen, just not now, not yet.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

On 09 Jul 2008, Mike Rivers <[email protected]> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> Nil wrote:
>> There are FLAC plugins/codecs available for many popular media
>> players. On my computer I can play FLAC files with Winamp,
>> Foobar2000, Windows Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC, etc.
>> Yes, you may have to take that one extra step, but it's an easy
>> one.
>
> It's only an easy step if you know what to do and that you have to
> do it. I don't believe that out-of-the-box computers are yet
> equipped with a FLAC codec plug-in. Remember, we're talking
> mainstream users here, not people who have a clue.
>
> I'm not saying it'll never happen, just not now, not yet.

Yes, but consider that an out-of-the-box Windows system won't play most
DVD movies, either. For whatever reason, it doesn't ship with an AC3
codec, which is used by most DVD releases. So, you may get picture but
no sound. Or consider Quicktime or Realaudio - I believe you have to
download those components from the manufacturers before you can play
them. So, despite what Microsoft would have you believe, their
operating system can't do everything.

The difference with FLAC might be that it doesn't have a commercial
marketing force behind it popping up ads all over your web browsing
journey, encouraging you to download it (along with a Free! Google
Toolbar!) And, of course, FLAC is a more specialized product - it's not
the best format for streaming or cramming a million songs onto your
iPod. But I use FLAC a lot for archiving and trading uncompressed audio
files. I think it's an excellent and useful format and deserves wider
exposure.