Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FLAC 1.3.4

xiph.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#151

Post by astrange »

dale_glass wrote: post #104
astrange wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it sounds like ADPCM with a fixed ratio like that. It's extremely simple and adds no latency, which are both good for streaming. Usually a fixed compression ratio is a terrible tradeoff, but for streaming it kind-of makes sense.

I don't think it's ADPCM since it sounds really good. I'm not an audiophile or have done any comprehensive testing, but it' the kind of quality a normal person would use for music without complaining.

That was meant to agree with you - AptX is a kind of ADPCM with some other filters added on, so this could be the same thing. That's how it gets low latency.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#152

Post by namibj »

dale_glass wrote: post #62
namibj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both FLAC and Opus[0][1] have a dial to trade efficiency against CPU time. Have you even tried? I doubt FLAC remains a superior choice at low-complexity Opus settings. The library also has a complexity setting for the encoder. [0] https://opus-codec.org/docs/opus-tools/opusenc.html [1] > Set encoding computational complexity (0–10, default: 10). Zero gives the fastest encodes but lower quality, while 10 gives the hig…

I have tried it. It works, but the difference in my experience isn't a huge one. Complexity 0 is about twice as fast as 10. Which isn't bad, but if you want to go really fast it still leaves something to be desired.

I hope this has been measured with the binary optimized for the CPU architecture in question, in oder to sqeeze out reasonable gains from likely more portability-focused opus code, particularly regarding vectorization opportunities.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#153

Post by fomine3 »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #15
lazyjeff wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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…

Also it's 128GB not 128GiB.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#154

Post by astrange »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #58
erdewit wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other lossy compression methods generally happen in the frequency domain and, depending on the type of music, can introduce audible distortions. This preprocessor on the other hand throws away some of least significant bits to save data. This increases the quantization noise but has no other sort of artifacts. The quantization noise can be dithered to fall in the higher frequencies (noise shaping) and is generally no…

Doesn't 16 bit audio already require dithering to capture the full audible dynamic range? That makes me worry somewhat about cutting more bits and layering dithers on dithers.

You always want dithering no matter the bit depth, but 16-bit is actually quite a lot - there's literally no point in better than CD-quality audio. (Except of course that real life is in surround not stereo.)

But yes, if you're doing it repeatedly you'd want an un-dithering filter. Noise reduction tends to do this by accident but it helps if you know what the dither shape was.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#155

Post by kstenerud »

corysama wrote: post #140
kstenerud wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of reasons: * Most FLAC tools support metadata. For the more "bare" formats that's not the case. When converting to a lossy format, I want my metadata intact. * FLAC can be played directly on most media players (with metadata). * The format may be complicated, but the source is open and actively maintained, and there's support everywhere. Using FLAC in your software project is a breeze. * 2x compre…

> Someday when I look at 1TB the way I look at 100GB today, this won't be a concern anymore. And, there it is. Thank you.

You missed the other points. This one point is the weakest of them all. FLAC is simply better supported for the things people care about.

JPEG2000, for example, never caught on because nobody cares enough about the storage savings, and there were no other compelling features that anyone cared about. But for audio, we want our metadata. Had WAV been built with strong metadata support, FLAC wouldn't have gotten very far. But that ship has sailed.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#156

Post by thealig »

klez wrote: post #129
thealig wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

well, setting blanket labels in that way is bound to be inaccurate and even inflammatory, as on the surface it sounds like bait to disparage groups around one specific language.

or, a more better term would be 'Atleast it works' mentality.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#157

Post by copperx »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #136
fho wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how a 200€ Xiaomi phone has 256 GB of storage these days. No idea though if that is fake HDD somehow.

Why would it be fake? NAND flash is cheap, that's why Xiaomi can offer 256GB on cheap phones since few people rush to buy Xiaomi. Apple and Samsung are name brands and can afford to overcharge their customers.

Isn't Xiaomi a name brand? I mean, the name is right there: Xiaomi.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#158

Post by andrewzah »

Aachen wrote: post #117
astrange wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FLAC isn't an unmaintainable "engineering marvel", the algorithm is pretty simple and all the data is checksummed. That's enough to make it a better archival format than WAV.

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…

FLAC is about future-proofing.

Opus and MP3 are lossy formats. You can’t transcode them to anything else without losing data.

With how cheap storage is these days there’s really no argument against FLAC because you can also transcode it to whatever. Players like Navidrome use ffmpeg to transcode on the fly.

If I put all this effort into ripping CDs and maintaining backups, it’s not going to be in a lossy format that I can’t convert to anything else.

Use ZFS to prevent bit rot.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#159

Post by andrewzah »

bayindirh wrote: post #121
astrange wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

What is a “much better” CD player? It’s a digital medium so that doesn’t make any sense. It either reads the disc and the data on it or it doesn’t.

If you’re referring to the DAC portion that does make a difference obviously but that doesn’t have to do with the CD itself or tracking.

Re: FLAC 1.3.4

#160

Post by bayindirh »

andrewzah wrote: post #159
bayindirh wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

What is a “much better” CD player? It’s a digital medium so that doesn’t make any sense. It either reads the disc and the data on it or it doesn’t. If you’re referring to the DAC portion that does make a difference obviously but that doesn’t have to do with the CD itself or tracking.

No, I'm talking about tracking and digital signal generation for the DAC, not the DAC itself.

The two players have 20 years of development apart. First one was a lower cost Sony, and the latter one is an entry level, yet higher end one (Yamaha CD-S300).

On the tracking stability, first one skips if you knock it lightly, and Yamaha doesn't care if you bump into it accidentally. Also, newer electronics can switch much faster, and in turn, creating a clearer eye pattern for DAC to work on [0].

When you used CRW-F1's audio mode, it elongated the pits and lands, so the digital part had more time to switch properly. This created a clearer eye pattern.

A clearer eye pattern allows DAC to create more cleaner signal since it switches and understands the signal much better and allows it to create a more "correct" (or clearer if you pardon the term) analog signal, esp. on higher frequencies.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_pattern

Post reply on HN