Quantcast
is the end of mp3s near??? - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
is the end of mp3s near???
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
It would be very foolish indeed for anyone to offer "wave downloads," since it's essentially a deprecated
What? Belittled? Disapproved? Averted by prayer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
format for audio archiving and media library purposes.
The vinyl guys don't like wavs much, but they certainly aren't going to prefer flacs or mp3s!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
The fact that it plays back compressed means you get tangible storage savings over compressed archives of wave files, and the fact that FLAC compresses wave more efficiently than compressed archives means that your web server (if you're a band or distribution co., etc.) uses less bandwidth to deliver the same material. The same is true of other lossless audio formats. I'd love to hear some reason(s) not to go with a lossless audio codec instead of wave.!
In a few years, storage space will be measured in petabytes or exabytes, and internet connections will be measured in Gbps. At some point people will get tired of dealing with compressing, decompressing and all the finding and figuring out of all the algorithms and codecs. The storage and bandwith demands of your typical wav file will then be entirely insignificant and the demands/interests of the lazy jonas brothers loving sheep, destitute musicians, audiophiles, and obsessively concientious recording engineers will finally converge and we will have good sound for all once again. heh

And ignorant bands/record labels will finally stop pressuring ME's to make square waves out of their music!
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➡️
MP3 on good system with nice loudspeakers (like higher-end car audio or home stereo) sounds waaaay better than wav on typical ****ty stereo used by masses.
MP3 on high bps is totally OK for 95% of music and if song is OK I even don't pay any attention to slight lack of finer details.
Practically no reasons for MP3 to die.
I'm posting so often because I'm refreshing a lot waiting on a PM to work something out with Rufus. So don't freak out that I'm posting like an avalanche in this thread.

But this seems odd to me, you're suggesting that MP3 is going to sound BETTER than WAV, somehow, despite the fact that the difference is that mp3s are missing some bits (for example, with 128kbps mp3s encoded CBR as of at least a couple years ago, there was an aggressive low-pass filter at something crazy like 15khz, still plenty of important stuff going on up there gone forever)? I don't buy that at all. I'll jump on board and say that well-encoded (preferably VBR) mp3s might be difficult or even impossible to A/B reliably even on good equipment (in a double-blind scenario), but the fact of the matter is that they are lossy, as in data is lost in the conversion, and I really doubt that it is a process which would make the resulting audio sound better for most circumstances. At best, you'd end up with due transparency, but not improvement.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveschizoid ➡️
What? Belittled? Disapproved? Averted by prayer? The vinyl guys don't like wavs much, but they certainly aren't going to prefer flacs or mp3s!
In a few years, storage space will be measured in petabytes or exabytes, and internet connections will be measured in Gbps. At some point people will get tired of dealing with compressing, decompressing and all the finding and figuring out of all the algorithms and codecs. The storage and bandwith demands of your typical wav file will then be entirely insignificant and the demands/interests of the lazy jonas brothers loving sheep, destitute musicians, audiophiles, and obsessively concientious recording engineers will finally converge and we will have good sound for all once again. heh

And ignorant bands/record labels will finally stop pressuring ME's to make square waves out of their music!
I don't think you understand. FLACs ARE wavs. They are "lossless." That means that no data is lost. There aren't any bits discarded at the output compared to the input. It's basically a specialized compression algorithm just for wav audio. Think of it as a ZIP file that decompresses in real-time as you listen (except it only ever takes up the "ZIP"ped space). The difference is that a highly compressed FLAC file takes up about half the space of the WAV file to which its input and output are identical. Not "close enough" like an Mp3 is supposed to be, but actually identical.

Do you worry about losing information when you ZIP and unZIP an album's worth of WAVs? Heh.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Deleted 1a30a04
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➡️
MP3 on good system with nice loudspeakers (like higher-end car audio or home stereo) sounds waaaay better than wav on typical ****ty stereo used by masses.
MP3 on high bps is totally OK for 95% of music and if song is OK I even don't pay any attention to slight lack of finer details.
Practically no reasons for MP3 to die.
Well, I really don't like MP3s .. there is something about the encoder
that degrades the upper frequencies and messes with the stereo
image .. it can pull things around transients that I really don't like.

Even at high bitrates, they're making fidelity trade-offs in areas that they
claim "people can't hear." I think that's bunk. You can point it out to
people .. "Hey, did you hear when they hit those cymbals that it
sounded really harsh?" .. most of the time, people will say "yea"

I mean, people have learned the difference between HD television
and Standard Def. I think the same will be true of audio.

I'm still stunned we're living with 44.1kHz, 16bit PCM.

jeff
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Jorg's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Question about FLAC and/or Apple Lossless:

Is it possible to burn these files simply (by using eg Nero) as a redbook CD and retrieve the full quality?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Rufuss Sewell's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Just to note... we got everything cleared up with the download... thanks again Agreed!
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
No, thank you, you responded so quickly you might have been a computer It was entirely my mistake anyway, I shouldn't have assumed that it was an automated system. I apologize for my haste. I am as we speak converting the album to FLAC to compare the storage requirements of well-compressed FLAC versions to the original zipped WAV package.

Jorg, yes, they decompress to a file which is bit-for-bit identical to the WAV which went into making them. Think of it as a "zip" but specialized for audio and so able to achieve a higher ratio of compression, but also able to be played back in the compressed (FLAC) form so you can keep your music collection in its full quality, be able to listen to it whenever you want with your normal media player, but save a great deal of space over the corresponding WAV file.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I went ahead and compressed the Estrum album to FLAC. It comes in a ZIP'd WAV format, 24-bit. Here is a screenshot of the package size as it was downloaded (Rufus can confirm this is the real size):




And here is the FLAC compressed folder full, two screenshots demonstrating the same thing:







So as you can see, in this instance, the savings of FLAC compared to zipping the album full of WAV fils was 154 megabytes. I'll leave it to Rufus to think about how many people download his band's album, and what that would translate into therefore in terms of download time savings, bandwidth savings, etc.

Edit: For the sake of fairness, I decided to use a superior "traditional" compression algorithm (ZIP is universal, but unfortunately has been outdated for some time in optimal compression ratio). So without further ado, here is the mighty 7Zip algorithm!




You'll see this impressive algorithm achieves a full 2 megabytes of savings over Zip! Truly impressive, and only a scant 152MB bigger than the FLAC version.

So you see, FLAC has clear advantages over other compression methods which aren't tuned specifically for audio. The sort of redundancy that allows regular compression to achieve good results with documents, programs, etc., simply isn't nearly as present in audio, and so audio requires specialized compression for best results. 154MB compared to Zip, 152MB compared to 7Zip, and I reiterate that you can decompress FLAC to WAV without losing anything at all.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
I don't think you understand. FLACs ARE wavs. They are "lossless." That means that no data is lost. There aren't any bits discarded at the output compared to the input. It's basically a specialized compression algorithm just for wav audio. Think of it as a ZIP file that decompresses in real-time as you listen (except it only ever takes up the "ZIP"ped space). The difference is that a highly compressed FLAC file takes up about half the space of the WAV file to which its input and output are identical. Not "close enough" like an Mp3 is supposed to be, but actually identical.

Do you worry about losing information when you ZIP and unZIP an album's worth of WAVs? Heh.
My post did not even address thie idea of whether or not FLAC or any other conversion algorithm is "lossless" or not, so, at least as pertaining to my post, you are arguing with a straw man. I understood perfectly what you are alleging (the idea of non-lossy file compression sounds like voodoo, but, much of what we are able to do with computers seems like magic to me), and if it wasn't such a PITA I would find a converter, and do a null test and/or examine the converted then unconverted file to see how they compare at the sample level. However, all that is irrelevant to my post, which was meant to answer your question of why we would still use wav's in the face of the magic of FLAC. When we begin measuring storage in petabytes, and connection speed in gigabytes per second, the difference in file size between an mp3, FLAC and a wav will become irrelevant.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell ➡️
Make a donation for $5 or more and you get the album in 24 bit wave format. (which of course is even better quality than CD.)

The downloads are fast and easy. The link is only good for one download and is emailed to you after we receive the PayPal.

It available right on our MySpace page. You can check it out here:

Estrum on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos
Next time I have some money in my paypal account I'll be sending $5.00 of it to you Rufus!
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
mp3 is ubiquious,in part, due to its light CPU usage on decoding.

hence why everything from toasters, to mobile phones supports it. moving away from mp3 costs money (for faster cpu's & more ram) or battery life (due to higher cpu utilisation). its just not going to happen.

the solution in my mind, isnt to abandon mp3, but deliver content in both lossless *and* mp3. you can stick the mp3 on your phone/clock radio/microwave where quite frankly the sound reproduction is lacking anyway, and play the lossless on your expensive monitor speakers where sound reproduction matters.

use the right tool for the job now.. if only we could convince apple
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveschizoid ➡️
My post did not even address thie idea of whether or not FLAC or any other conversion algorithm is "lossless" or not, so, at least as pertaining to my post, you are arguing with a straw man. I understood perfectly what you are alleging (the idea of non-lossy file compression sounds like voodoo, but, much of what we are able to do with computers seems like magic to me), and if it wasn't such a PITA I would find a converter, and do a null test and/or examine the converted then unconverted file to see how they compare at the sample level. However, all that is irrelevant to my post, which was meant to answer your question of why we would still use wav's in the face of the magic of FLAC. When we begin measuring storage in petabytes, and connection speed in gigabytes per second, the difference in file size between an mp3, FLAC and a wav will become irrelevant.
I don't mean to sound rude, but you have admitted a lack of understanding of what you're talking about. FLAC isn't "magic voodoo," it's a compression algorithm specifically tuned for compressing audio.

Here's a bit of basic info on compression. Let's say you have a sentence:

"If you need to rest, the best way to go forward is west."

To compress that sentence in the simplest way, you simply analyze it and assign a smaller value to combination of bigger values. For example, there are a number of "est" in that sentence. For maximum compression, we're going to call "est" 1. That makes the sentence:

"If you need to r1, the b1 way to go forward is w1."

There are also two instances of "to," so let's let "2" stand for "to."

"If you need 2 r1, the b1 way 2 go forward is w1."

As you can see, the sentence is getting smaller but with a known cypher (that is, a known algorithm for decoding the information) we can expand it losslessly back into the full sentence.

Exceedingly complex variations on this theme make up modern compression algorithms. However, the sort of redundancy that you would see in, say, a coded program, or a large text document, don't occur nearly as frequently in dynamic audio data. To put it more simply, there are fewer instances of repeated data for which a smaller marker could stand, using traditional compression methods. However, other methods are possible, and FLAC uses one such method to achieve much greater compression of audio than traditional compression a la ZIP, RAR, TAR, 7z, etc.

I hope that makes more sense. Mp3, AAC, and most forms of WMA and OGG are "lossy" codecs. That means that data is lost when they are used; in order to try to achieve something like transparency, they use psychoacoustic methods to try to discard only data that isn't "needed," things our ears have the most trouble hearing. They have limited, but important success. FLAC, ALAC, and other forms of WMA and OGG are lossless codecs. That means that no data is lost in compression. They make the file size smaller using means I've tried to explain above, kind of like a really badass, audio-specific ZIP file.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
I don't mean to sound rude, but
Usually the word "but" negates what precedes it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
you have admitted a lack of understanding
Yes I have. I'm comfortable with the fact that I don't understand all that there is to be understood, and have no need to pretend otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
of what you're talking about. FLAC isn't "magic voodoo,"
Originally, to the extent that I was talking about FLAC (it was, and still is, beside the point), I didn't need to understand how it works. And I never advanced the idea that FLAC, or any other process of which I lack understanding, is magic or voodoo and certainly not "magic voodoo" (wouldn't that be redundant?)

I do appreciate the attempt to educate, and I'm sure FLAC is an elegant solution, but you keep harping on one particular species of tree when the entire forest will soon burn.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Yeah, you did call it voodoo magic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveschizoid ➡️
(the idea of non-lossy file compression sounds like voodoo, but, much of what we are able to do with computers seems like magic to me)
And I don't think you're right at all about the tangible future of computing. As more and more users are competing for bandwidth, at the same time as content providers are trying to get legislation enacted that will push the internet into traffic tiers, I don't think your hope of free and easy bandwidth to come will be realized. Storage will continue to become denser and cheaper, but bandwidth will just keep costing more, especially if content providers succeed (and with the amount of money on their side, I have a feeling they will - net neutrality is a "do the right thing" defense, which rarely works against powerful profit-motivated interests). If you could back up your conjecture with facts, as I have done, that would help. But if the current climate leads to what it seems to be leading to (and there is good evidence of this already - even in the U.S.A., where high-bandwidth connections have traditionally been unlimited, there are now much stricter limitations pushed by some high profile services; and elsewhere in the world, it's not uncommon at all for bandwidth to face a sharp monthly limit), the ability to save 150+MB on every single download of an album over ZIP'ing the same thing is far from trivial. That adds up very quickly.

Look, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, and it's clear that you're very highly opinionated on the subject, so let's just drop it.

I hope my information has been useful to others whose minds aren't quite so made up.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➡️
MP3 on good system with nice loudspeakers (like higher-end car audio or home stereo) sounds waaaay better than wav on typical ****ty stereo used by masses.
MP3 on high bps is totally OK for 95% of music and if song is OK I even don't pay any attention to slight lack of finer details.
true

Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➡️
Practically no reasons for MP3 to die.
there is one. most potential buyers (people with only a rudimentary understanding of computers, files, compression, lossy, etc.) do NOT notice the difference between a 96 and a 320 MP3...
This is of course an assumption, but I tested it by asking people. Most think an MP3 is an MP3. Yeah some sound better, but why...

Better is the CD standard. No variations in the model. MP3 is for quick and dirty, even if good MP3s sound reasonably good on a good system. Good for freebies, and long dj mixes that are crap quality anyway..

To the point: People need clarity. If the song sounds bad, it is because of the mixing, and recording. Not because of some (hidden) parameters.
I say hidden, since I noticed on ipods the compression rate is not shown. (It is in Itunes, but only if you bring it to the front)
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
They may not "know" the difference, but it is a different matter entirely to say they don't "notice." I would bet you every penny I have that anyone could reliably differentiate between 96kbps CBR and 320kbps CBR, without any special training. The difference in the low pass filter alone is extremely noticeable. 96kbps sounds like cymbals under water, 320kbps, hey-o you hear the highs all of a sudden. And that has nothing to do with compression artifacts.

So you can either try to educate people so they can "know" instead of just "notice" the difference, or you can buy into the status quo and keep current models rolling along.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
Yeah, you did call it voodoo magic..

No I did not call FLAC voodo magic. As you should be able to see (since you have the actual quote in your post), I said the idea of non-lossy compression sounds like voodoo to me, but then many wonders of the computer seem like magic. Once again, since you seem determined to create an arguement (and win it) where none existed or was necessary, my use of the words "voodoo" and "magic" was (as would be obvious to anyone who wasn't determined to be obtuse) actually meant to acknowledge my ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
I hope my information has been useful to others whose minds aren't quite so made up.
And again I'll repeat myself since you seem determined to misunderstand, not once did I argue that FLAC files were inferior to wav files. Not once. So my mind isn't made up. Again, if I had a converter handy I would easily settle the matter; it's either the same or it's not, right? Wavelab has a file comparer, anyone can do a null test; determining the validity of calling FLAC "non-lossy" would be easy, but that wasn't the point. And I'm not really that opinionated, but you've misrepresented my original post three times, and I had to make my actual point three times before you bothered to respond. This is the source of my irritation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
And I don't think you're right at all about the tangible future of computing. As more and more users are competing for bandwidth, at the same time as content providers are trying to get legislation enacted that will push the internet into traffic tiers, I don't think your hope of free and easy bandwidth to come will be realized. Storage will continue to become denser and cheaper, but bandwidth will just keep costing more, especially if content providers succeed (and with the amount of money on their side, I have a feeling they will - net neutrality is a "do the right thing" defense, which rarely works against powerful profit-motivated interests).
Unfortunately, you may be entirely correct, but during the course of this last week I've been actually allowing myself the hope that the current leaders of the US government will do some of the right things, and I would think that the demand (not just from individuals, but corporations as well) for more bandwith and faster connection speeds would drive the whole process forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
But if the current climate leads to what it seems to be leading to (and there is good evidence of this already - even in the U.S.A., where high-bandwidth connections have traditionally been unlimited, there are now much stricter limitations pushed by some high profile services; and elsewhere in the world, it's not uncommon at all for bandwidth to face a sharp monthly limit), the ability to save 150+MB on every single download of an album over ZIP'ing the same thing is far from trivial. That adds up very quickly.
Agreed! Although (see the word "hope" above), I believe the climate may be changing radically. heh
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
If I have misrepresented and misunderstood your original post as an objection to lossless compression per se, then I definitely owe you an apology. And when it comes to net neutrality, man, I hope that the right thing is done there. I was a big Obama supporter during the primary and the general, and his team looks to be really well thought-out on many progressive fronts, but there's just so much money pushing against net neutrality and most congressional delegates don't really understand what's at stake. But count me in the "hopeful" column there, as well, though with a dollop of skepticism based on past efforts at modernizing digital law (the DMCA, for example).
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
On some of my mixes coversion to mp3 using CBR codes has given me quite a shock of dismay!

The effect was caused despite working using multi-bus compression schemes with some thought given to grouping instruments by dynamic range and the frequencies occupied.

I discovered that even though everything sound great from the lowest lows to the high treble (pre CBR MP3 conversion) the fact remained that for these specific mixes, the beauty of the sounds lay in the articulations and attack components which where in the treble range. So the sense of percussive articulations vanished from my bass instruments as well as for everything else.

My mixes can easily survive radio compression but these particular mixes lost everything in the MP3 CBR conversion. Really hit me hard! I'm now going to make sure I try low pass filtering on my source tracks to see what they loose in the treble region due to the possibility of MP3 conversion by the consumers.

But I will read up on FLAC etc and consider it for archiving and maybe for my listening pleasure. Thanks for bringing this up Agreed.

To the original poster.

In the future the American business model will be down the toilet thank goodness. But then the future is in the hands of gawd knows who? LOL. As much as I hope for bandwidth and storage capacity not to matter in the future, I am equally hopeful that more people in the whole world will get to experience all that civilisation has to offer! So I think demand will outstrip our ability to provide faster internet.

At the moment Korea has a much better infrastructure for it's internet with more bandwidth and more availability than the US. Maybe they are 5-7 years ahead of the game! Australia is 5 years behind Korea. Now given that there is a huge population and market in the US then why is it lagging behind? Surely in a capitalist consumer system like the States the opportunity and demand for fast internet would dictate people providing it! For the cash, but no....

To educate people to demand uncompressed audio is to educate their ears and minds to percieve the need for it.

Some mixes of pop/alternative music etc aren't greatly affected so much by even MP3 CBR conversion in terms of reducing the charm or the sonics of the mix. Some are of course...

It might be better to buy your music in the future from gasp a shop! Pop in your ultra fast usb drive into your video stores computer system and take your movie home in seconds good for viewing 3 times and it then self delites! Then before you know it the consumer is used to purchasing this way and it makes it's way into your supermarket and viola we now buy our music from Kmart!

IMO demand for bandwidth will outstrip supply and this will lead to no improvement in audio quality without a format using lossless compression.

Peace,
cortisol
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Greg Curtis's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GYang ➡️
MP3 on good system with nice loudspeakers (like higher-end car audio or home stereo) sounds waaaay better than wav on typical ****ty stereo used by masses.
MP3 on high bps is totally OK for 95% of music and if song is OK I even don't pay any attention to slight lack of finer details.
Practically no reasons for MP3 to die.
I couldn't disagree more. I was stuck with a Merc. CLS500 for a week (on a vacation with in-laws), and had to listen to satellite radio, which is at best MP3 96kbs. On that really great automotive system (Mark Levinson, I believe) all I could hear were lossy, crunchy-hissy noises. Anything above 4kHz sounded like ass. Switching over to a lame terrestrial FM was a brief sonic relief, (but there are no good radio stations in Stillwater, MN. Unless you like Iron Butterfly 24/7), so I ended up listening to some trucker comedy station because I couldn't stand to hear old, familiar songs "re-mixed" as MP3s.

GC
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
FLAC to me is the best current format choice for the ability to continue high fidelity delivery to the end listener in the future in that it allows the absolute same sound quality on playback as uncompressed PCM for half the download time and half the size it takes up on a Personal Music Player's drive (definite considerations to the end user even if broadband access gets much faster than it currently is - i.e. who wouldn't want to have these things 2x better if all other things are equal?).

There are indeed a number of other lossless audio codecs (i.e. Apple's proprietary format ALAC, Monkeys Audio, WavPack, etc.) - but the facts that FLAC is completely open source, non-proprietary, license free, and already has well developed software support, plus a decent bit of existing hardware support as well - to me makes it the best choice of the current alternatives.

This - along with FLAC's ability to be sent at better than CD quality (24bit with support to 192kHz and beyond), that it can be sent as a surround file (up to 7.1), and that it is fully taggable (FLAC supports all id3 tags, including ISRC and various bitmap formats of cover art - while it should be noted that there is no standard way to tag uncompressed PCM files currently) makes it the best candidate for continuing to have a high fideliity delivery format in a future time when nearly no one is buying optical discs. Honestly - with some folks still complaining that the 16bit/44.1kHz CD format doesn't sound as best as music possibly could - then a 320kbps mp3's made from the same really does not cut it!

As far as when ultra-broadband transmission will be common - this is hard to say and well beyond the scope of my area of knowledge to do any more than guess the same as anyone else on this board. I've read some things indicating that existing infrastructure (such as telephone lines, satellites and transmission stations) and the cost/time of updating it is what's holding up really massive bandwidth - so in a time of economic downturn I don't know whether the investments to make instant transmission of uncompressed PCM a reality will happen soon, later, or not at all.

In the meantime - FLAC can give you all the sound quality of a CD but at half the download time and takes up half the hard drive space. It's already supported by lots of software and a good number of hardware players (both for home and portable) and the Rockbox - Rockbox - Open Source Jukebox Firmware - firmware allows you to update iPods to support it as well.

SO - it's up to us as engineers and artists to start to make our clients aware of the possibilities of the format and to make our tunes available in this format in order to create broader consumer knowledge and demand for it.

There's a few sites that sell FLAC's online already and are open to independent artists for online distribution:
HDtracks high resolution audiophile music downloads
indietorrent.org Digital Music Marketplace - Welcome to indietorrent.org.
Welcome to Mindawn - Home

Which brings me next to the issue of pricing: I see a trend that whenever a higher quality mp3 is sold online it's usually for a greater asking price. I think we as content providers need to start making higher fidelity versions available for the same or even lesser price! - because to a lot of end users the larger download time and larger file size is an inconvenience that they want to avoid - so by making the playing field more equal we have more of a chance of having a high fidelity format continue into the future. i.e. I strongly believe that if when DVD-A and SACD were introduce the discs were priced a few dollars below CD's instead of a few dollars more the formats might be a lot stronger than they are now. But I think once people hear things in a higher fidelity a lot of them will be hooked - instead of accepting the degraded sound of mp3 as "good enough".

To conclude: if you're an audio engineer of artist concerned with having a way in the future to easily deliver your mixes at full resolution to the end listener then
PLEASE SUPPORT FLAC!!!

FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
I second that totally. I would add that FLAC requires little processing power for the encoding and even less for decoding, which makes it interesting to embeded in onboard software. It can also, since a recent version, store the RIFF subchunk (copyright info, loop points and whatnot) that the encoded source file was containing and uses a very flexible tagging system. Last but not least, and whether it really matters or not, it can archive 24 bit 96khz wavs or AIFF and can be very easily transcoded to mp3 to use on a portable device.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Addict
 
Nishmaster's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cortisol ➡️
At the moment Korea has a much better infrastructure for it's internet with more bandwidth and more availability than the US. Maybe they are 5-7 years ahead of the game! Australia is 5 years behind Korea. Now given that there is a huge population and market in the US then why is it lagging behind? Surely in a capitalist consumer system like the States the opportunity and demand for fast internet would dictate people providing it! For the cash, but no...
This argument always bugs the hell out of me. South Korea is roughly the size of Oregon, but with 12.5 times the population density. Of course they're ahead of the game! They don't have to lay expensive backbone over nearly 4 million square miles of largely extremely rural territory.

FLAC, while a great algorithm and good technology, is just never going to catch on with anything other than the fringe consumers, for the same reason that SACD didn't. There just isn't a market for it. The average consumer of audio can't even hear that mp3ness that we all know so well, and I know, because I've tried to point it out to people. Why are people going to wait longer and pay more? That's the antithesis of any good marketing strategy.

The only way I can see it catching on is if Apple decides that the soon-to-be outrageous capacity of it's iPod needs to be balanced with a larger delivery format. Then you'll see it, and not before.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Jorg's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishmaster ➡️

The only way I can see it catching on is if Apple decides that the soon-to-be outrageous capacity of it's iPod needs to be balanced with a larger delivery format. Then you'll see it, and not before.
Exactly, higher quality might not be introduced due to quality but due to evolving of technology.
How could Apple justify selling an IPod with 500GB (apart from the video aspect) if not increasing the quality of audio and making that their selling point.
I doubt that anyone wants to have a 500GB library of 256kB MP3s in their pocket and it is doubtful that anyone could afford such a library legally.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
steveschizoid's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed ➡️
If I have misrepresented and misunderstood your original post as an objection to lossless compression per se, then I definitely owe you an apology. And when it comes to net neutrality, man, I hope that the right thing is done there. I was a big Obama supporter during the primary and the general, and his team looks to be really well thought-out on many progressive fronts, but there's just so much money pushing against net neutrality and most congressional delegates don't really understand what's at stake. But count me in the "hopeful" column there, as well, though with a dollop of skepticism based on past efforts at modernizing digital law (the DMCA, for example).
Thanks! I am well mollified. I used Switch to convert both ways (wav to flac to wav), but when I try to open the end result in Wavelab it gives the following error: "This audio file seems to contain corrupted or damaged data. It can not be opened. Most probably, the application that created this file is responsible." However, I was able to open it in Cubase, and it seemed to completely null with the original, and upon close inspection, seemed identical at the sample level. I then rendered the manipulated file yet again, and Wavelab was able to open that result. When I used the file comparer to compare to the original it gave me a result I've never seen before: "The two files have a different size, but the shorter one is exactly equal to the start of the longer one." They did measure the same length (in wavelab) down to the millisecond, and when I rendered the one from Cubase, I did use the original to set the length. Perhaps a Cubase quirk? Has anyone else done this sort of test?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Gear Addict
 
huarez's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I´m absolutely addicted to High end Audio when it comes to nice Jazz or Orchestral recordings.
Listening to a nice recording over a decent High End System is really great and fascinating experience, BUT... you have to take Place and listen ad a minimum Level and concentrate at the music.

This has absolutely nothing to do where 99% of the music is used. Mp3 is an awsome medium.
The sound Quality is stunning for the fact that it only contains 10% of the Original Information.

But I´m sure, in that Moment when aiff.
can be stored and loaded with no significant loss of storage space or download time, of course .aiff is the better choice and People will want that, even when they can´t tell the difference.heh
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nishmaster ➡️
FLAC, while a great algorithm and good technology, is just never going to catch on with anything other than the fringe consumers, for the same reason that SACD didn't. There just isn't a market for it. The average consumer of audio can't even hear that mp3ness that we all know so well, and I know, because I've tried to point it out to people. Why are people going to wait longer and pay more? That's the antithesis of any good marketing strategy.
I agree - that's why I think artists should make FLAC's available for the same (or even lesser!) price as mp3's!!! As an artist (I play in a string quartet and am about to release an electronic project that I co-produced) personally I'd rather have listeners hear my music at the same sound quality as what I'm hearing in the studio. It's a pride thing - and one for which I'm personally prepared to make a tiny bit less cash from just to make sure happens. If people see they could see prominently advertised on the download site that they can get better sound for the same or lesser price I think a very large percentage would actually choose to wait a few minutes extra for the download.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Head
 
Drill_K's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
the average joe is not going to care about quality they just look for what's on the surface(low bit mp3s) and leave it at that. they just take what's given to them
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by huarez ➡️
I´m absolutely addicted to High end Audio when it comes to nice Jazz or Orchestral recordings.
Listening to a nice recording over a decent High End System is really great and fascinating experience, BUT... you have to take Place and listen ad a minimum Level and concentrate at the music.

This has absolutely nothing to do where 99% of the music is used. Mp3 is an awsome medium.
The sound Quality is stunning for the fact that it only contains 10% of the Original Information.

But I´m sure, in that Moment when aiff.
can be stored and loaded with no significant loss of storage space or download time, of course .aiff is the better choice and People will want that, even when they can´t tell the difference.heh
imho aiff is a worse choice than FLAC for delivery. aiff is twice the file size of FLAC but doesn't sound any better at all on playback - AND it currently can not be tagged (with metadata for artist and track info, including ISRC and cover art) in any standard way - while FLAC already supports all id3 tags.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drill_K ➡️
the average joe is not going to care about quality they just look for what's on the surface(low bit mp3s) and leave it at that. they just take what's given to them
I DISAGREE!!! If presented with easily accessible and clearly displayed choices a very large percentage of people will choose a higher fidelity format if the pricing is the same for the choices!

The key is making the higher fidelity content easily available and making the choices between formats clear. As artists and engineers we can help to lead the way rather than being followers of the lowest common denominator. Equal pricing for higher res formats is of course critical in the successful marketing of them!

Best regards,
Steve Berson
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 5345 views: 1189421
Avatar for SaschaP
SaschaP 2 weeks ago
replies: 64 views: 44679
Avatar for spnc
spnc 23rd December 2020
replies: 106 views: 21125
Avatar for jazzcabbage
jazzcabbage 5th June 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump