Just curious why people seem very insistent on FLAC when most audio recordings that come from CD's are essentially 16 bit uncompressed WAV files. Does converting to FLAC really make a big difference, or is there something else I am missing. Thanks

FLAC is derived from WAV (not the other way round). It's essentially a codec for compressing WAV into a smaller filesize with zero quality loss. Mp3's however have various quality levels depending on the bitrate they're encoded at. At a high enough bit-rate, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.

People request FLAC for a number of reasons ranging from (in no particular order):

- They can hear the quality difference between FLAC and MP3
- They feel reassured in the knowledge that what they're listening to is as good as it gets (until the next remaster or hi-res re-issue comes along)
- They're preparing for the apocalypse and require FLAC jackets

Ahh okay, so it's akin to ALAC. I always thought it was a bigger file cause when I opened FLAC files in my audio editor, they show up as a '32 bit float'. I guess that stands for something else. I'll have to look into that.

Thanks for the reply!

usually flac files having 45-55% of filesize for wav. less size if fewer happening musically.

You're really missing something. FLAC compresses without loss of quality. 50% of a WAV file.

What more do you want?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????

- They're preparing for the apocalypse and require FLAC jackets

we all must be prepared for the apocalypse... :D :D :D,,

Contact Nostradamus or the Mayas for the new date :)

Ahh okay, so it's akin to ALAC. I always thought it was a bigger file cause when I opened FLAC files in my audio editor, they show up as a '32 bit float'. I guess that stands for something else. I'll have to look into that.

Thanks for the reply!

Generally, audio editors will do all their internal processing at 24 or 32 bit depth to minimise generational loss due to dithering errors.

Generally, audio editors will do all their internal processing at 24 or 32 bit depth to minimise generational loss due to dithering errors.

Okay, so it's the program overcompensating to protect the integrity of the original file. It's all making sense now! Thanks!

I'm gone for a year and miss out on the all the fun. :/

Generally, you can export all audio to 16bit and do a good job.
Saving in 24bit (or 17-23 stored in a 24bit container with zero filling the remaining valid_bits) is kind of useless. Unless you want to any further processing in the future.
Or if it's a multichannel file and want to play it back later on a 2.0 sound system with DirectShowFilters that downmix the multichannels internally (which will help reduce any clipping/distortion even greater).

Just make sure you do everything right before saving as 16bit.

if you explore other forums, you'll see a lot of people getting paranoid and wanting to save everything in 32 float. :notgood:
those people, you don't want to make friends with or talk to. They're superstitious ways will hinder your sucess and progress.

Final 16bit is absolutely logical and practical.

Downloading the High-Def 24bit is logical if you wish to edit and crap.
Or if you're heavy into DSP's and garbage.
With 24bit depth, your trailer trash sound system can use up all the DSP's it wants and reduce the inevitability of clipping/distortion from over killing the sound with junkyard technology.

FLAC rhymes with crack and urrybuddy loves them some crack!

In all seriousness, as Mr. Merrick up there kindly explained: it's just a wave container with higher compression meaning a lower file size but no decrease in quality, lost bits and all that unpleasantness. Personally if I hear, side-by-side, a 128 MP3 version followed by an uncompressed FLAC version then naturally, yes I can hear the difference but I've found several 320 MP3 rips that are virtually indistinguishable from the FLAC. If you insist on having the absolute best that is being offered then naturally FLAC will mostly be the best thing for you. That's where it becomes a double-edged sword: some people don't mention that their FLAC rips are actually from a lossy source so you're getting no better or worse quality than the lossy MP3 version. Don't let anyone try to tell you any different.

I like FLAC personally because I can save my MP3s to FLAC should I want to do some later editing and won't have to worry about anymore quality loss from each saving process. Of course, naturally the more editing you do to your music the worse it's gonna sound. I also hopefully make it to where people bitch less should they find an issue with my edits. It's conveniently mastered in FLAC so they can do whatever they want with it when they're done listening to it. If they just wanna listen then they've got the closest thing to the original sources versus if I re-transcoded to lossy MP3 again. There, you will definitely hear artifacts.

They say the human ear cannot hear more than 44.1k/16b sounds (or something close enough to that) so the whole 48k/96k and 24b thing sounds a bit mis-advertised to me. I mean from an authentic 96k/24b source, you're gonna get great sound but if you downgrade to 44.1k/16b, I can almost guarantee you that the differences will be so miniscule you'll think you've gone crazy because you can't hear the difference. Even ripping a vinyl at, say, 48k/24b and then re-ripping it at 96k/24b, you're not gonna notice much of a difference. The audiophiles out there will call me a blasphemer on this but I'm just saying what I know. I know I can't tell a difference (and I have great hearing) so I'm inclined to believe you can't either unless you've worked with enough authentic 96k/24b sources to be able to call me out as the bullshitter here.

When you're working with the waveform peaks, there you may be able to read differences between 96k/24b and 48k/24b but you still probably can't hear it. I'm just one of those fools who chooses to indulge in the fine art of acquiring high quality home theatre equipment and other electronics just to have the one-up on everyone else here and take envy out of the equation. I'm spoiled so it's just the way it has to be. If I see something that just sounds or looks cool, including a recently acquired 96k/24b audio card, I will eventually get it. I've gotten screwed a few times but just remember it takes more than one screw to put a lightbulb in. Sometimes you're gonna get screwed until you can't be screwed anymore and then the light shines on. That's why I'm thankful for store return policies in case the damn bulb doesn't fit.

ripping a vinyl

Lately, I've been under the impression that ripping a vinyl is completely impractical, as well.
I mean, the only seemingly logical reasoning behind it is in the case of pre-LaLaLand for The Black Hole where the score only existed on vinyl.
Sure, some bootleg CD's but all sourced from vinyl, as I am to understand.

From what I've been seeing around the internet is that it's really just a bunch of phooey.

How do you rate/measure the quality of a "good" or "excellent" vinyl ripping rig?
Just how much do you have to spend to get a seemingly great rip that's accurate to the intended listening scenario?

I think in the case of the ever fluctuating vinyl, it should stay analogue.

Lately, I've been under the impression that ripping a vinyl is completely impractical, as well.
I mean, the only seemingly logical reasoning behind it is in the case of pre-LaLaLand for The Black Hole where the score only existed on vinyl.
Sure, some bootleg CD's but all sourced from vinyl, as I am to understand.

From what I've been seeing around the internet is that it's really just a bunch of phooey.

How do you rate/measure the quality of a "good" or "excellent" vinyl ripping rig?
Just how much do you have to spend to get a seemingly great rip that's accurate to the intended listening scenario?

I think in the case of the ever fluctuating vinyl, it should stay analogue.
I agree but for some, dragging out the record player every time you wanna hear your favorite album is impractical. I personally like ripping them to my hard drive so that I don't wear out my records so I can keep them longer and be able to listen to them more as I grow older. There are some albums I'd like to see make it to old age with me so that I can pass them on to my children and their children's children and so forth and so on. By then, vinyl may not even exist anymore which will make it an even more valuable learning tool on the value of music. Kids past 2010 and up already probably don't know what a cassette tape is however I think vinyl will live on just a while longer, just to carry on with the next generation but like all trends, die down and become obsolete again. Then years later, gain another surge in interest. Personally, I expected more from my re-entry into the vinyl world (the way it was explained to me is, I imagine, equivalent to the news of sliced bread) and while the pops, clicks and crackles are a nice blast from the past, I simply won't listen to a vinyl rip on my iPod if there's a clean digital counterpart available. You're right in some cases that ripping a vinyl is impractical but for some people, it's the only way to get their favorite scores as you mentioned. Personally, I just like being able to hear the analog versus the digital sound because, thankfully, I do remember my early childhood during the analog days with cassettes and records so it brings back fond memories to hear my favorite songs/cues remastered for vinyl or CD. Sometimes the cleanliness of digital CD rips is too perfect for me however. Some scores benefit from the lack of analog noise while others I simply can't imagine without it. It's a pick and choose type of thing.

Vinyl's great. You can spin the turntable in reverse and hear hidden messages. Why just 30 years ago I reverse played A Shot in the Dark by Ozzy Osbourne and I suddenly got the urge to go down the pub for a pint and a bat sandwich.

- They're preparing for the apocalypse and require FLAC jackets


Vinyl's great. You can spin the turntable in reverse and hear hidden messages. Why just 30 years ago I reverse played A Shot in the Dark by Ozzy Osbourne and I suddenly got the urge to go down the pub for a pint and a bat sandwich.

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/hahaha-024.gif

What a remarkably sensible thread this is...! :D


he audiophiles out there will call me a blasphemer on this but I'm just saying what I know. I know I can't tell a difference (and I have great hearing) so I'm inclined to believe you can't either unless you've worked with enough authentic 96k/24b sources to be able to call me out as the bullshitter here.

It's not just what you know; it's simple, reproducible, provable truth. Those frequencies are completely outside of our hearing range.

I doubt if they realised it at the time, but whoever decided CDs should be 16-bit 44100khz future-proofed consumer audio reproduction FOREVER. There will always be people who go with the "higher number = better" method of deciding quality - but those who base their opinions on common sense and fact will know better and can feel smug in the knowledge that they are the TRUE "audiophiles"...

As for vinyl... as a recording medium, IT'S HORRIBLE, plain and simple. High noise (low and high frequency), distortion, wow, and flutter - and that's assuming you're playing a record in pristine condition. I maintain an interest in vinyl for the following reasons:

a) Some things are not available on any other format.
b) Some ARE but have been subject to ill-advised "remastering" (ie, volume boost, limiters, and super-bass) making the vinyl genuinely superior.
c) Some ARE but sound poor due to deterioration in the original analogue source media. A lot of bad stuff can happen to a master tape over a period of 30-40 (or longer) years.

I also enjoy the vinyl "experience" - the act of physically pulling a record off a shelf, carefully removing it from its sleeve, cleaning it, placing it upon a turntable, cueing it up, and listening whilst enjoying the album art. The value-add. The act is a throwback to a calmer, more civilised time. It's nostalgia, for me.

Bugger-all to do with sound quality. I'm under no such delusions. (Except in cases described above, where for whatever reason - badly mastered CDs, worn-out source material, etc - the vinyl can actually be better.)

The One True Audiophile!



I've been thinking lately of going through some old scores and running them through with some VST effects that simulate fake analogue noises. Noise, pop, clicks, etc, etc, let's not split hairs on terminology.

It would be interesting to take the Inception score and run it through an older vinyl feel than the actual vinyl has to offer.
I'm talking real ould vinyl days where the only speaker was a horn and the volume was fine at its low-level infiltration on the ears.
That snazzy rolling sound that repeats itself as if to count sheep for you as you pass out on the chair while reading a newspaper.

It ain't pretty... Zippyshare.com - inception1932.mp3 (http://www14.zippyshare.com/v/69107376/file.html)

The problem with CD-AUDIO is that my attempt to publish a CD I call "Music for Cats & Dogs" will simply fall on deaf ears. Just kidding. But seriously, how many CDs out there which were even classed as DDD have been remastered, and actually do sound better on the same CD player. This kind of proves the point that the CD-AUDIO quality standard is high, and that it's up to the music makers, neigh, their duty, to make a high def sound for the consumer. Personally, I hate touching the bass & treble knobs, but hey, I do it on occasion because the layabouts from the 80s and 90s were somewhat ignorant of quality control. Someone tell me I'm talking bollocks.

It ain't pretty... Zippyshare.com - inception1932.mp3 (http://www14.zippyshare.com/v/69107376/file.html)

:awsm: I love it when it gets to the main theme.

:ashine: I'm going to play this when I sleep and see what happens.