81–90 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FLAC bitrots less than WAV, because WAV doesn't have checksums.
If you're concerned about bitrot (and I feel everyone should be), you're going to checksum at the filesystem level, so it doesn't make a difference
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Flagship phones today come with 128GB of storage IMO, one of the biggest scams in the mobile space currently. My old OnePlus 3T flagship from 2016 came with 128GB of storage and it "only" cost €480. Also, best phone I ever owned by far BTW. Today, nearly 6 years later, Apple and Samsung flagships (I'm staying away from OnePlus nowadays) are charging huge markups for more than the base 128GB of storage, on phones tha…
This’ll be because since 2016 it’s now expected you’ll stream more media than you’ll did back then, so not much much storage needed.
Any way you slice it it's still price gouging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see If your point is that most users of FLAC would be happier with AAC/Opus etc I agree (and with a more significant savings) And yeah if you're looking at longer archival times, PCM probably makes more sense. But I think FLAC suffers way less rot than, for example WMA
FLAC bitrots less than WAV, because WAV doesn't have checksums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a preprocessor to lossless codecs shaping noise... So it's a lossy compression? Why use FLAC then?
It's just a hobby project, and the structure isn't too different from how other lossy codecs work. (Or lossless ones - you can construct one of those from any lossy one just by sticking the difference from the original on the end.) Most codecs sacrifice transparency to reach a bitrate and this one does the opposite.
That's what LAME's presets and the Ogg Vorbis quality settings do as well, isn't it?
How cheap does storage have to get before people stop bothering to use FLAC? By my calculations, $65 will buy you a 4TB hard drive which can hold over 6,000 hours of uncompressed CD quality PCM. With FLAC you might squeeze 9,000-12,000 hours in. But, is that really worth the bother? I know it’s not obviously relevant to consumers, but an uncompressed PCM .wav file is a format that any high school coder can figure out…
As a developer I'm working with large amounts of data totalling some dozens of TB compressed. I don't have the option of lossy-compressing it since bit-by-bit reproduction is part of the constraints. I don't want to store it uncompressed since that also increases I/O times. CPU is simply not the bottleneck anywhere along this line. And flac works great. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see If your point is that most users of FLAC would be happier with AAC/Opus etc I agree (and with a more significant savings) And yeah if you're looking at longer archival times, PCM probably makes more sense. But I think FLAC suffers way less rot than, for example WMA
FLAC bitrots less than WAV, because WAV doesn't have checksums.
How cheap does storage have to get before people stop bothering to use FLAC? By my calculations, $65 will buy you a 4TB hard drive which can hold over 6,000 hours of uncompressed CD quality PCM. With FLAC you might squeeze 9,000-12,000 hours in. But, is that really worth the bother? I know it’s not obviously relevant to consumers, but an uncompressed PCM .wav file is a format that any high school coder can figure out…
I'm surprised to hear this perspective. I feel like FLAC is to PCM as PNG is to BMP. Why not just work with FLAC directly? Half the file size in exchange for negligible processing time. As a practical use case, FLAC is the only way I can fit my song library on my phone. Flagship phones today come with 128GB of storage, about 90GB is actually usable. Every additional 128GB is $100 more.
Your phone doesn't support some kind of SD cards?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says your filesystem isn't compressing data under you? Actually, who says the disk itself isn't? (Sometimes they both are.)
> Who says your filesystem isn't compressing data under you? Me, because we don't use transparent compression anywhere. > Actually, who says the disk itself isn't? I'm not very sure about that, to be honest. SSDs do that to prolong their life, but the saved space doesn't return as more space on FS level. It just returns as endurance, which is more important in my case. So, disk's transparent compression doesn't mean…
Since Fedora 34, a clean install will result in btrfs with zstd compression turned on. (An update of an older install will of course not change the filesystem from underneath the files.)
How cheap does storage have to get before people stop bothering to use FLAC? By my calculations, $65 will buy you a 4TB hard drive which can hold over 6,000 hours of uncompressed CD quality PCM. With FLAC you might squeeze 9,000-12,000 hours in. But, is that really worth the bother? I know it’s not obviously relevant to consumers, but an uncompressed PCM .wav file is a format that any high school coder can figure out…
Besides the other good points people have made, I would just like to add that this is the kind of mentality that I really dislike to see. Just because resources are cheap, do we really need to waste it all? Computers and smartphones are faster than ever, yet there are always websites that I find completely unusable on my phone. And some of these websites I actually need to use because they are required by the governm…
How cheap does storage have to get before people stop bothering to use FLAC? By my calculations, $65 will buy you a 4TB hard drive which can hold over 6,000 hours of uncompressed CD quality PCM. With FLAC you might squeeze 9,000-12,000 hours in. But, is that really worth the bother? I know it’s not obviously relevant to consumers, but an uncompressed PCM .wav file is a format that any high school coder can figure out…
> How cheap does storage have to get before people stop bothering to use FLAC? Having cheap storage is not a valid reason to not to use that space efficiently. With today's, even last decade's processors, encoding FLAC at ripping speed is not even a CPU saturating task, and decoding is merely a blip on processor's queue. If I can store the same bitstream on a smaller space, why shouldn't I? If we're not compressing a…