Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music

FLAC Gets First Update In 6 Years 197

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the new-and-improved dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Free Lossless Audio Codec, FLAC, loved by audiophiles for its lossless fidelity has been updated to version 1.3.0. FLAC is an audio format similar to MP3, but 'lossless', meaning that audio compressed in FLAC doesn't suffer any loss in quality. FLAC v1.3.0 is the first update in almost 6 years and it is also the first release from the new Xiph.Org maintainer team." Big new feature: ReplayGain works for sampling rates up to 192kHz so you can finally control the volume of your obsessively ripped LPs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FLAC Gets First Update In 6 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by SolitaryMan (538416) on Monday June 10, 2013 @06:55PM (#43967919) Homepage Journal
    I wonder if that because no one cared or because it was a solid piece of software...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10, 2013 @07:03PM (#43967973)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10, 2013 @07:14PM (#43968041)

      While this is mostly accurate, articles like this fail to mention where 192KHz is useful. That is, for certain types of digital post-processing and effects. Doing a digital time or frequency shift (not a re-sample, that's simple and effectively lossless) yields atrociously poor results if using 44.1 or even 48 KHz. With 192KHz, you can't hear the difference, and that is why it is used in the studio. Auto-tune is a decent example of that kind of processing. It works much better at higher bit rates.

      None of this matters to the average listener though, or to the DJ who only cares about a simple speed up or slow down (or re-sample).

      • While this is mostly accurate, articles like this fail to mention where 192KHz is useful. That is, for certain types of digital post-processing and effects. Doing a digital time or frequency shift (not a re-sample, that's simple and effectively lossless) yields atrociously poor results if using 44.1 or even 48 KHz. With 192KHz, you can't hear the difference, and that is why it is used in the studio. Auto-tune is a decent example of that kind of processing. It works much better at higher bit rates.

        None of this matters to the average listener though, or to the DJ who only cares about a simple speed up or slow down (or re-sample).

        Wrong. Article mentions it as being useful for processing. Article uses oversampling for antialiasing / cutoff as an example.
        At no point would the signal have to be stored in a high sampling rate to get this benefit. Article mentions most ADCs/DACs handle this shit transparently.

        "Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data, but they are internally essential to several modern digital audio techniques. Oversampling is the most relevant example [7]."

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Oversampling at the ADC level is NOT post-processing. Post means "after", in case you didn't know. If the desire is to use audio for a multitude of uses, say to play back in a sampler frequency shifted or to "correct" some awful notes (as is commonly done), it is still worthwhile to record raw audio at 192kHz. It is never worthwhile to distribute the finished product at high sample rates, unless the finished product IS in fact sample material intended to be used by studio people.

    • by ddd0004 (1984672) on Monday June 10, 2013 @10:11PM (#43969239)

      But this sampling rate goes to 11

    • by Onymous Coward (97719) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @04:53AM (#43970849) Homepage

      If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum.

      My barber was saying this exact thing to me the other day. So I says to him, "Frank, come on, can't you just correct for nonlinearities?" and he laughed at me and gave me a look like he couldn't believe me. I've decided to change barbers.

  • by cen1 (2915315) on Monday June 10, 2013 @07:11PM (#43968017)
    All the music I ever bough was FLAC, mostly thanks to services like Bandcamp. They require the artists to upload their song in lossless and from there they provide all the formats you'd ever want. That's how all music should be sold.. with no shitty codecs and DRM.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10, 2013 @07:18PM (#43968067)
    MP3 compresses audio files so that they have the same playback within the range of human auditory sensation. FLAC is superior because it retains full audio fidelity across the entire frequency spectrum. This will be of the utmost importance if you are a dog.
    • by antdude (79039)

      That means we will have to get all our MP3s as FLACs. Argh. I wonder when Amazon, Apple, etc. will have their songs in that format. Is OGG dead?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is fantastic because I am a dog. Why does everyone overlook this? Does everyone hate dogs?

      • by caspy7 (117545)

        It's the internet. No one knows you're a dog (except the NSA).

        • Buy Woof Brand Dog Chow! It's The Best Tasting Dog Chow Ever!
          90% Of Dogs That Try Woof Brand Dog Chow Want More! (The Others Are Dead And/Or Stupid.)

    • by DeathElk (883654)

      Excellent. Now my Beagles can rock on all day long.

    • What sort of definition is that? It's the first time I've seen it mentioned. Maybe you mean that mp3 uses a psycho-acoustic model that takes out "definition", spatial information and volume dynamics? Depending on the amount of "loss" in the compression, mp3 is somewhere in between "some musicians and audio purists are statistically able to distinguish between the compressed and non compressed format" to "a casual listener on a mediocre audio device may not hear the difference in a noisy environment." Both F
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      FLAC is also superior because it is future-proof. You can convert to any new format that comes along later, without any loss in quality.

      Also, if you invest in good-quality gear you might want to actually play out all frequencies, even if you don't hear them. The barely audible subsonic rumble will create bodily sensations. Likewise for sound so high in frequency that you (barely) hear it.

      If you play your music via $20 laptop speakers hooked to your el cheap Chinese sound card D/A then by all means, you can

    • It's a kind of psychoacoustic [wikipedia.org] compression, not just physioacoustic compression. It does not have the same "playback" in the range of human auditory sensation. It aims to have the same "playback" with human auditory perception. There's a difference.

      ... without significant losses in the (consciously) perceived quality of the sound

      Physiology is a large of it, but it's not all of it. If you compare MP3 output versus original signal with each limited to the range of human hearing you will still see differen

  • I can see that for those who are audiophiles and purists, this is good news. Or those with Super-Hearing :)
  • To people digitizing rare LPs and the people posting Youtube videos that show a phonograph record going round.

    Please oh please fill a spray bottle with a solution of water with a tiny bit of liquid soap, and spray the surface of the record before and occasionally during recording. After, rinse and dry with fluffy-towel and lean on edge to dry completely before re-sleeving.

    You will be flabbergasted with the result. Even if you do not flabbergast easily.

  • Give me some FLAC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zoid.com (311775) on Monday June 10, 2013 @10:43PM (#43969423) Homepage Journal

    It's because FLAC rocks... There has been no need to update it. It's one of the huge open source/open spec success stories.

  • Wish we could see 6 years of advancement in file compression technology with FLAC. I know space is on the cheap these days, but that doesn't mean we should just keep inflating files more and more. As much as I do appreciate FLAC, when it's virtually impossible to tell the difference between a 6MB file and a 24MB file, it starts to feel a bit wasteful, especially when the source was something like a compact disc to begin with.

  • by clickclickdrone (964164) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @05:43AM (#43971071)
    FLAC may be lossless but it's still no guarantee of super HiFi. You've still got the DAC, amp and speakers to worry about. People often assume because it's FLAC, it is the acme of quality even played back on an iPod with Apple headphones. Ain't so.
  • FLAC is an audio format similar to MP3, but 'lossless'

    In other words, it's like mp3, but the exact opposite.

    • by lpq (583377)

      FLAC is an audio format like MP3 in that it is designed to make the music take less space. Unlike MP3, FLAC does this losslessly.

      Happy?
      *doh*!

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.

Working...