Quaristice & "the real thing"...

Hm, seems I'm wrong about FLAC: it can be 'decoded' to WAV (but maybe without much of the original metadata). It's even better that I thought originally!

 

But, yes, I do want a top quality rip of the bonus disc as soon as it's released - can't get a FLAC version on slsk straight away, and I wouldn't trust just anyone's FLAC rip. BTW, I'm not against 'stealing' it, since it's a limited edition and couldn't be got any other way.

I don't see much wrong with individuals sharing music, since it is not much different than your buddy coming over with a cd saying "yo listen to this". So that can't really ever be stopped, and I feel that individual sharing isn't what is destroying the industry. But I think this mass file sharing networks like moo, Soulseek, Kazaa, limewire, etc, are definitely bad and I wouldn't use them.

  dangulberry said:

There are 'variables' in WAV-FLAC conversion that I want some control over.

 

As for 'decoding' to WAV from FLAC, I see it as a 're-encode', since all of the original pcm data cannot be stored or kept latent in a FLAC file.

You see it wrong.

 

FLAC > WAVE, anytime. It's the exact same quality: LOSSLESS. Free Lossless Audio Codec.

 

And regarding your 'variables' in WAV->FLAC: the only thing you can control is the amount of compression used, regarding the file size. The audio quality, regardless of which flac compression setting, will always be the same.

 

Thus, the best to do is to take the highest compression setting; it will take longer BUT your file size will be smaller for the exact same sound quality.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Fredd-E

  Fredd-E said:

  dangulberry said:

There are 'variables' in WAV-FLAC conversion that I want some control over.

 

As for 'decoding' to WAV from FLAC, I see it as a 're-encode', since all of the original pcm data cannot be stored or kept latent in a FLAC file.

You see it wrong.

 

FLAC > WAVE, anytime. It's the exact same quality: LOSSLESS. Free Lossless Audio Codec.

 

And regarding your 'variables' in WAV->FLAC: the only thing you can control is the amount of compression used, regarding the file size. The audio quality, regardless of which flac compression setting, will always be the same.

 

Thus, the best to do is to take the highest compression setting; it will take longer BUT your file size will be smaller for the exact same sound quality.

 

 

Thanks for your advice. Lossless is amazing. Like I said above, FLAC is even better than I thought originally in that it *can* be 'decoded' to the original format without any loss of audio quality.

  dangulberry said:

[Thanks for your advice. Lossless is amazing. Like I said above, FLAC is even better than I thought originally in that it *can* be 'decoded' to the original format without any loss of audio quality.

No problem. And what's even more amazing is that it's absolutely free of any charge. FLAC is definitely the way to go for storing perfect backups on a dvd/harddisk. For listening pleasure I encode my flacs to v0 (lame mp3 encoder: alt preset extreme) for the iPod and winamp. Recommended! :)

FLAC also has the ability to be higher quality than cd audio (44.1 kHz), however very few people have taken advantage of this: http://flac.sourceforge.net/news.html

 

  Quote

"Gimell Records offers their catalog of The Tallis Scholars in FLAC format in three versions: "CD Quality" at 16-bit/44.1kHz, "Studio Master" at 16-bit/88.2kHz, and "Studio Master Pro" at 24-bit/88.2kHz.

flacs? YOU CANNOT RUB YOUR PENIS ON THEM

Everyone's taken care of the FLAC defense for me so I don't really have anything further to say.

 

Except!

 

I too was skeptical at one time, so I encoded a track to FLAC, then decoded it back to WAV. I then inverted the decoded WAV and mixed it with the the original WAV.

 

Nothing but zeros, baby.

  CATS said:

FLAC also has the ability to be higher quality than cd audio (44.1 kHz), however very few people have taken advantage of this: http://flac.sourceforge.net/news.html

 

  Quote

"Gimell Records offers their catalog of The Tallis Scholars in FLAC format in three versions: "CD Quality" at 16-bit/44.1kHz, "Studio Master" at 16-bit/88.2kHz, and "Studio Master Pro" at 24-bit/88.2kHz.

 

What domestic equipment can play 24bit/88khz data??

  dangulberry said:

  CATS said:

FLAC also has the ability to be higher quality than cd audio (44.1 kHz), however very few people have taken advantage of this: http://flac.sourceforge.net/news.html

 

  Quote

"Gimell Records offers their catalog of The Tallis Scholars in FLAC format in three versions: "CD Quality" at 16-bit/44.1kHz, "Studio Master" at 16-bit/88.2kHz, and "Studio Master Pro" at 24-bit/88.2kHz.

 

What domestic equipment can play 24bit/88khz data??

 

your computer, but you like wont notice much of that frequency range without very expensive equipment