Live data from Hacker News

FLAC 1.3.4

xiph.org

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#121
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. My dad is very skeptical of compression, not understanding the concept of lossless and thinking it reduces quality to compress it. Even if you explain it in terms of "so instead of writing 1111111 it writes 7x1, look how much less space that takes! But it's the same information in the end." Even NTFS compression is a checkbox he insisted I disable. So it's wav all the way. Recently had hard drive issues and I c…

Some of the older generation have been convinced there's a difference with lossless compression, usually by British salesmen using words like "jitter" and "PRAT". It's sad that by the time you're old enough to afford being an audiophile, you probably don't have high-end hearing anymore.

Actually, from my experience, hi-fi audio is more about the complete sound rather than details itself.

I've played in orchestras and have a respectable system at home, and the biggest differentiator is not the details, but how these details interact and create a bigger, more immersive soundstage. Yes, you can hear subtle sounds of a bow or a cymbal, but the exciting part is how sounds mesh and play with each other.

So, as I age, the excitement of listening the same or new songs with that system doesn't fade away. I still get the same joy, and shiver when I hear that soundstage.

Actually, jitter is really something about audio CDs burned in CD Writers. I still have a Yamaha CRW-F1 CD recorder, and it has a feature to abuse Red Book standard to record audio with bigger pits to ease the CD player's job of tracking the disc. It reduces a 80 minute disc to 66 minutes, but with a higher quality CD like TDK, the sound was noticeably different on the system I aforementioned in this comment.

Currently, that set is fed by a much better CD player, and I'm sure that its tracking is leaps and bounds ahead of the older player, but it was really made a difference back then. I'm not sure with today's electronics, it'd make such a difference anymore.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#122
post #2

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…

$RESOURCE might be cheap and plentiful today. In the greybeard world you would have been right because everything was trending towards more-for-less. In 20XX you could wake up tomorrow and find out that some bullshit caused a global supply chain issue at the same time that a Proof of $RESOURCE blockchain is causing a scramble for it.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#123
post #2

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…

> Let's not GZ/XZ our log files. These 20MB files will become 30-40GB, but heck, a 4TB drive is just $65.

But when you tar.gz your log files you do not loss information.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Let's not GZ/XZ our log files. These 20MB files will become 30-40GB, but heck, a 4TB drive is just $65. But when you tar.gz your log files you do not loss information.

When you encode your audio files with the Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC), you do not lose any information either.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Let's not GZ/XZ our log files. These 20MB files will become 30-40GB, but heck, a 4TB drive is just $65. But when you tar.gz your log files you do not loss information.

When you FLAC audio file you do not lose information either.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What other lossless open source codec is "better" than FLAC? I'm not aware of any.

I don't know about "better", it depends on how you measure that, but wavpack[1] is a worthy competitor and has some features that FLAC doesn't.

1. https://www.wavpack.com/

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#127
post #2

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…

the "mentality" you are referring to is not limited to JS at all, and has less to do with the particular language. Market dynamics, company incentives and a larger pool of developers among other reasons contribute to that more.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price gouging has a legal meaning and means raising prices in an emergency. Charging more than you’d happen to like isn’t ‘price gouging’.

I meant price gouging from the consumers' perspective, not being pedantic about the legal meaning of it.

So what is price gouging to you? Just being asked to pay more than you’d like to? Then it’s a meaningless term - I’d always like to pay less.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the "mentality" you are referring to is not limited to JS at all, and has less to do with the particular language. Market dynamics, company incentives and a larger pool of developers among other reasons contribute to that more.

I don't think GP meant "JavaScript Mentality" as "a mentality that's limited to js", but more as "a mentality you see a lot in the js-adjacent world".

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant price gouging from the consumers' perspective, not being pedantic about the legal meaning of it.

So what is price gouging to you? Just being asked to pay more than you’d like to? Then it’s a meaningless term - I’d always like to pay less.

>Just being asked to pay more than you’d like to?

No, I already explained above why I consider it price gouging.

Post reply on HN