Sonic Youth Gossip

Sonic Youth Gossip (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/index.php)
-   Non-Sonics (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   what the hell is .flac? (http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=21359)

debradarko 04.22.2008 03:59 AM

what the hell is .flac?
 
i downloaded the ciccone youth album a while ago but all the tracks are a FLAC file
what the hell is flac?

i need help cause im a n00b

█████████ 04.22.2008 04:00 AM

www.google.com

use your imagination.

debradarko 04.22.2008 04:02 AM

thanks

pbradley 04.22.2008 04:59 AM

file type

"lossless"

like .mp3 but with more data and, therefore better sound quality.

drawbacks: large files, not compatible with all media players

SYRFox 04.22.2008 05:05 AM

I don't get that audiophile thing to be honest. I mean, okay for classical music for instance, you got tons of instruments so maybe that makes a difference, but come on I don't notice any difference when I hear flac and say, 192kbps MP3. I'm not a sound ingenior, maybe I just don't get good ears, but well.

debradarko 04.22.2008 07:24 AM

but i cant put the files onto my itunes

ZEROpumpkins 04.22.2008 07:54 AM

Debra- flac is Wav quality at half the size (i.e. lossless, unlike mp3 which is 1/10 the quality) You'll find a program that converts it to .wav with a quick google search, and you can convert .wav to mp3 with another quick google search.

king_buzzo 04.22.2008 08:07 AM

just get Switch, its a really good program for converting different audio files.

!@#$%! 04.22.2008 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYRFox
I don't get that audiophile thing to be honest. ... maybe I just don't get good ears, but well.


it's not that necessarily but

1) there is a difference between live sound and recorded sound

2) there is a difference between different kinds of recordings

the difference will be there if you pay attention.

if you're running your audio in your computer with a pair of desktop speakers, definitely you won't hear the sound, but if you've got a decent speakers, the difference will be evident.

i can hear the difference between cd-quality and mp3 in my car stereo-- in a big way. mp3s sound flat, "thin", and shrill when you turn up the volume.

i can also hear the difference between vinyl and cd-- not just the vinyl noise, ha ha, but it's like the vinyl sound is "thicker"; i can't explain this because the language doesn't have a huge vocabulary specific to sound, but there is a difference between vinyl and cd, on how the music "feels", unless of course the vinyl pressing is crummy and worse actually than the cd.

on the subject of vinyl i bought this beauty last week:

 


 


the record itself is this soft pink thingy beautifully tinted but i can't find pix online.

but anyway, ha ha, that has nothing to do with the sound, i just wanted to show off my new record :D

king_buzzo 04.22.2008 10:34 AM

^nice buy!

atsonicpark 04.22.2008 10:36 AM

Haha, instead of google, I was going to reccomend "en.wikipedia.org".

Flac blows.

That Pelican vinyl looks amazing.

king_buzzo 04.22.2008 10:44 AM

flac is allright, especially when you've got live shows.

Sonic Youth 37 04.22.2008 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by king_buzzo
just get Switch, its a really good program for converting different audio files.


Switch is great, just go with it. It's what I use and it will convert .flac to 128 AAC in one go.

StevOK 04.22.2008 03:08 PM

download winamp. It plays flac.

Rob Instigator 04.22.2008 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SYRFox
I don't get that audiophile thing to be honest. I mean, okay for classical music for instance, you got tons of instruments so maybe that makes a difference, but come on I don't notice any difference when I hear flac and say, 192kbps MP3. I'm not a sound ingenior, maybe I just don't get good ears, but well.


it is not your ears that are the issue, but the system and speakers you are using to play back the music.

sobriquet 04.22.2008 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by debradarko
i downloaded the ciccone youth album a while ago but all the tracks are a FLAC file
what the hell is flac?

i need help cause im a n00b


.Flac will probably replace Mp3 in the next few years as it obtains better compression ratios.It stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. Mp3 is fine and all, but in order to achieve its desired file size, it compromises with quality. FLAC does not do this. The only reason not to use it right now, is that not all portable music players support it. The Ipod/Iphone being the only popular players that I can think of, that should, but don't ( last time I checked anyway ).

ZEROpumpkins 04.22.2008 08:05 PM

Yeah It'll be nice once we can use .flac instead of .mp3's on our music players.

pbradley 04.22.2008 08:09 PM

".flac" always reminds me of these


 


and this


 



(this relevant, interesting post brought to you by boredom and hunger)

!@#$%! 04.22.2008 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sobriquet
.Flac will probably replace Mp3 in the next few years as it obtains better compression ratios.It stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. Mp3 is fine and all, but in order to achieve its desired file size, it compromises with quality. FLAC does not do this. The only reason not to use it right now, is that not all portable music players support it. The Ipod/Iphone being the only popular players that I can think of, that should, but don't ( last time I checked anyway ).


that or more likely the continuing cheapening of both storage & bandwidth, which will make file size irrelevant, just like one doesn't think of the file size of word documents these days.

ZEROpumpkins 04.22.2008 09:41 PM

Yeah they won't be able to compress it much more, it's more of a case of better, cheaper storage methods.

forkimified 04.22.2008 10:13 PM

Mp3s generally sound like garbage. I use them to test out music before i buy the CD (or vinyl [for some reason, I like vinyl for things like Earth, Sunn O))), Sleep, etc...]).

But that's prob. just because I've gotten used to having good-quality headphones and stereos around.

debradarko 04.23.2008 04:53 AM

thanks, i downloaded switch and converted them

atari 2600 04.23.2008 08:39 AM

You deserved some flak, but got nary any. Glad you're all sorted now. I'm sure that somewhere, Josh Coalson and Bram Cohen are proud.

Pookie 04.23.2008 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atari 2600
You deserved some flak, but got nary any. Glad you're all sorted now. I'm sure that somewhere, Josh Coalson and Bram Cohen are proud.

Hey, when did you get a sense of humour???!!!

Welcome to the club.:)

atari 2600 04.23.2008 08:46 AM

Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network club?

I hear Roberta Flack is a member.

Pookie 04.23.2008 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atari 2600
Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network club?

I hear Roberta Flack is a member.

You're cooking on gas now.

I could kiss you.

sobriquet 04.23.2008 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!
that or more likely the continuing cheapening of both storage & bandwidth, which will make file size irrelevant, just like one doesn't think of the file size of word documents these days.


When that does happen people will end up with big lossy files or big lossless files. Personally I would choose the latter, being that the result would be closer to PCM, providing that these bandwidth/storage increases don't scrub out the need for such lossy/lossless codecs totally of course.Personally I don't see that happening for a long time.It's cheaper and more efficient to deliver via compression. For the likes of TV for example where bandwidth is more of an issue, then codecs will probably always be needed.

!@#$%! 04.23.2008 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sobriquet
When that does happen people will end up with big lossy files or big lossless files. Personally I would choose the latter, being that the result would be closer to PCM, providing that these bandwidth/storage increases don't scrub out the need for codecs.Personally I don't see that happening for a long time.It's cheaper and more efficient to deliver via compression. For the likes of TV for example where bandwidth is more of an issue, then codecs will probably always be needed.


ha ha ah ha.

do you remember the days of the 2400 modem?? (probably not-- it was around, oh, 1991?) anyway, now i get 6mbps downloads for peanuts. usb2 killed usb1. 2GB jump drives? and now we have 64GB solid state hard drives, how long until they are so cheap you can have one on your keychain?

sure bandwidth with always be an issue, but a lot less of an issue as technology evolves-- detail-rich virtual environments are going to be the next "online thing"-- im not talking star trek shit, just-- where does the 3D movie with 7.1 audio go next?

uncompressed 1080i HD video is about 600GB/hour. what travels through satellite/cable/blueray is very compressed. but technology catches up with those things.

re: audio-- i'm waiting for 24-bit audio to become widespread... SACD is sort of an esoteric format, and not a lot of titles are available. i want the digital equivalent of vinyl-- no, better even-- the digital equivalent of live music. oh yummy. instead we have crap sound for tin ears. where did we go wrong? fuckers...

ZEROpumpkins 04.23.2008 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

uncompressed 1080i HD video is about 600GB/hour. what travels through satellite/cable/blueray is very compressed. but technology catches up with those things.


Holy crap!!!

!@#$%! 04.23.2008 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZEROpumpkins
Holy crap!!!


ok, more accurately

http://www.digitalservicestation.com/tips_tricks.html

notice 4:4:4 reaches 840GB/h

and that doesn't include 1080p which is int he works and ultra-high-definition is being researched.

and digital cinema 2K/4K-- the bandwidth for that alone is something around 1.2GB/s i think

o yea.

ZEROpumpkins 04.23.2008 09:16 PM

MORE Holy Crap


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content ©2006 Sonic Youth