- This topic has 32 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
They’re lossless, and open source, and that’s really it. That is special because all the other lossless formats are propriatary, so the company that controls the format can do whatever they want with it, regardless of what people want. Because FLAC is open source, you still get the quality of a lossless audio codec, but there’s also the freedom for people to do whatever they want with it without someone being able to close it up.
And yes, FLAC files are large. All lossless audio is large. Apple’s lossless audio codec is also large. Not as large as FLAC, but almost. For instance, the new Nine Inch Nails album is about two megs less with Apple’s lossless codec than with FLAC.
The difference between FLAC and MP3s is much like the difference between .jpgs and .pngs. MP3s / .jpgs remove bits from the files and compresses the files, where as FLAC / .pngs for the most part just compress the files, so they’re smaller than they would be if they were raw, but still larger than MP3s / .jpgs because they don’t have any bits taken out. And by bits, I just mean pieces… not bits in the bits and bytes sense.
I was using FLAC six years ago, so it’s nothing new to me.
But my question is, would the average listener (or, in your jpeg case, viewer) really hear (or see) the difference? I just do see what the trade off is here. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for open source (to a point) but I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon for something just for the sake of doing it.
I must agree with you, Frank — I don’t see what the big deal is, either. In order to really get the most out of a lossless format, you have to have a perfectly quiet room with a high-end audio system, and since I have neither of those things, then I don’t see the point, either.
I listen to audio in the car and on my headphones. I can’t hear the difference between FLAC and mp3s, especially the 320kb mp3s that I downloaded. My question is, apart from the openness of it, can you really hear the difference?
Actually, you’re not really asking about FLAC specifically per se’, you’re asking about all lossless audio in general, considering the question of whether or not you can actually tell the difference applies to all lossless audio, not just FLAC.
It’s actually easy to tell the difference between .pngs and .jpgs with most pictures, because .jpgs have compression artifacts and fuzzy places that .pngs don’t have. But with FLAC and MP3s, or lossless and lossy considering that’s what we’re really talking about here, some songs you can tell a bit of difference, and some you can’t.
Rob is right that in most cases, when the sounds of life are going on around you, you can’t really tell the difference. But if you’re in a quiet environment or listening on good headphones, sometimes you can tell on some of the lower frequencies and even more on the higher frequencies.
Another place it comes into play is if you’re going to burn something to a CD. If you burn to a CD from a lossy file, it’s like a third generation copy, whereas burning something from a lossless file gives you a second generation copy so it’s a bit better there too.
As far as MP3s go, I actually don’t have many MP3s. The only MP3s I really have are either podcasts, or various recordings. All of my music is in OGG format, which is the open source equivalent of MP3.
So basically, in most situations most people won’t be able to tell the difference between a lossy and lossless audio file, but there are some situations where it’s nice, whether it’s proprietary or open source.
That makes sense. Really. But, the trade off is a big difference in filesize, and the difference in quality isn’t worth the space it takes up.
I agree. I just got the album in FLAC just for the fun of it, with it being all pretty and sparkly and all. But I wouldn’t be surprised if after a little bit I converted the whole thing to OGGs and moved the FLACs over to my backup hard drive or a DVD or something.
FYI Robbie, I heard they’ve sold out of the expensive collection. I’ve also heard that the band has, themselves, posted torrent files of the albums on several bittorrent tracker sites (Pirate Bay, etc.) just so people could download them. I think that’s so freakin’ cool. I just want to cough up money for them just because of that alone! Fuck the RIAA!
El Rustirino wrote:Is it bad that I haven’t heard any NIN songs?I’m with you bro, though after hearing so much about them here and on the show, I may just have to check them out…
Yeah, Frank — a news source stated that they would be hard-pressed to sell 2,500 $300 sets, and they did it in less than 36 hours. Pretty impressive.
Nine Inch Nails is one of those bands that have changed so much in the last 18 years — from whiny, to angry, to introspective, to psycho, to sober, then totally speculative, then experimental. It’s been a fun, strange ride for me as a fan, and this latest effort is exactly what I wanted.
For the beginner, I think you should start with The Downward Spiral. It’s more of a story than anything, if you can get into it — kind of like the decline of a human being, very weird cool stuff, and largely considered his best album by critics and the average fan. The one thing you realize is that this is considered more art than anything, and Ghosts is no exception.
I’m not as big a fan as Rob, but I do have a lot of their stuff and I think that Trent Reznor definitely is talented. It’s not the poppy-rock that you hear nowadays (see Nickelback).
I have varied musical tastes. Everything from oldies (which I am finding is rare for an 18 year old), to prog, to alternate rock (not the Nickelback crap), to techno/trance, some pop and punk, a little bluegrass, some blues, some jazz/big band, alternative, and generally any song that is different and catches my fancy. I will definitely get some NIN and try it out. Thanks for the recommendations, Rob.
Robby, I like experimental shit, and remember I want to do a concept album? So I should definitely give that a listen.
Sure, Rusty, yeah. For you, it’s almost a must-buy. Even if you don’t care for 30 of the songs, it’s $5, man. That’s less than 14 cents a song.
I mean, if you want to know the truth, it’s worth 5 bucks to see how it’s all put together — web artwork, some kickass wallpapers, a 40-page PDF of all of the pictures that accompany the tracks — it’s just a groundbreaking release.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.