FLAC 1.4 Released With AArch64 Optimizations, Faster x86_64 FMA

[Old Grouch]

For people talking about audio quality: Loudness war

[Anux]

It would be nice if Opus, AAC and such targeted a level of quality instead of a bitrate, like video codecs do.

They already do, you need to use a special mode if you really want a specific bitrate.

[willmore]

I wasn't aware that 1.4 had been released. The last thing on the mailing list was it being an RC and that additional testing was ongoing.

[rmfx]

A little rant - imho 90-99% of users of flac (or other such formats) don't really need it, I used to keep .flac files around but lately I transcode any flac to opus (256 KiB) and it takes 3-4 times less space without any noticeable loss in quality.

People do what they want, even if opus is good, and flac for music makers is great since it keeps the original quality for half the weight of wav with native speed.

[user1]

I agree with your first paragraph, and note that the first step in maintaining 'exciting' acoustic sound quality beings at the microphones. But I disagree with your characterization of MP3 as an adequate format for finicky end users; even in old age, my own ears (worn out with lots of pro music-making) can tell the difference between MP3 and versus Opus 'lossy' conversion at their highest bit rates. For my own use (even in the car, where my audio files must be subjected to a TON of compression) MP3 @ 320 kb sounds lifeless, compared to FLAC. My auto head unit doesn't understand OPUS

I don't know much about Opus since I never used it, but there were like 2 cases when I couldn't distinguish a 320kbps MP3 from lossless format, so that's probably why I got this impression. But yeah, MP3's usually sound lifeless.

Btw, what's your opinion about DSD and Hi Rez Audio in general? Cause that's what I really can't distinguish from standard CD quality. Some however claim they can hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. They claim that DSD sounds more "analog", (probably because it stores the digital data differently). But I think if someone claims to hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM, it's simply a result of a different master.

[cl333r]

Lossless: Good for archiving content used in production (lossy is a huge no-no here)
Lossy: Good for end consumer (transparent if done right)

That's what pretty much what everyone agrees upon or should agree.

[Brisse]

I don't know much about Opus since I never used it, but there were like 2 cases when I couldn't distinguish a 320kbps MP3 from lossless format, so that's probably why I got this impression. But yeah, MP3's usually sound lifeless.

Btw, what's your opinion about DSD and Hi Rez Audio in general? Cause that's what I really can't distinguish from standard CD quality. Some however claim they can hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. They claim that DSD sounds more "analog", (probably because it stores the digital data differently). But I think if someone claims to hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM, it's simply a result of a different master.

I used to collect hi-res FLAC for my music library once, but the more I learned about digital audio from people way more knowledgeable than me, the more I realized it doesn't make sense.

Here's an often shared video which for me was quite enlightening at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM&list=PL5j-gF46yjuBi9IVJOsr92o68x9X-tc4z

With that said, I also dabble in music production, although not professionally. There is a place for hi-resolution in production, but in distribution to end-user it makes no sense.

[rickst29]

I don't know much about Opus since I never used it, but there were like 2 cases when I couldn't distinguish a 320kbps MP3 from lossless format, so that's probably why I got this impression. But yeah, MP3's usually sound lifeless.

Btw, what's your opinion about DSD and Hi Rez Audio in general? Cause that's what I really can't distinguish from standard CD quality. Some however claim they can hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM. They claim that DSD sounds more "analog", (probably because it stores the digital data differently). But I think if someone claims to hear a difference between DSD and high resolution PCM, it's simply a result of a different master.

I have a couple instances in which a friend has the capability of recording 96bit audio live shows, and the files which he can send me from close-miked instruments in his arrangement have been better than my results with a different mixer, using a variety of 24-bit and 32-bit recordings from in-the-venue options with other mix-down tools. Our best result with those musicians has involved a pro studio, generally working with 32-bit tracks to create a 44.1kbps standard CD. But the studio solo microphones cost thousands, and the room acoustics were well managed.

Some Classical Music sounds really great in SACD 24/96 FLAC, although the skill in mixing the result accounts for a lot of the difference. A few specific musical instruments, such as cymbals, seem to have a lot "air" and "spacial context" if recorded properly and mixed to that end format.

[emblemparade]

A little rant - imho 90-99% of users of flac (or other such formats) don't really need it, I used to keep .flac files around but lately I transcode any flac to opus (256 KiB) and it takes 3-4 times less space without any noticeable loss in quality.

It's not about audio quality when listening to FLAC (most people won't even notice a difference between FLAC and low-bitrate MP3), it's about having a lossless "master" from which you can then create any lossy format you want.

It used to be MP3, then OGG, now Opus... in 5 years there might be something better. Or maybe a new kind of device or way to listen to music (lossy streaming to your toaster). The thing is, keeping your files in FLAC lets you create any of these other formats as needed.

Compare to keeping the original RAW image from a digital camera even if a JPEG could be enough for viewing it on a computer. The original RAW allows you to remaster the image for various uses, e.g. large prints, other color formats, etc.

[cl333r]

It's not about audio quality when listening to FLAC (most people won't even notice a difference between FLAC and low-bitrate MP3), it's about having a lossless "master" from which you can then create any lossy format you want.

It used to be MP3, then OGG, now Opus... in 5 years there might be something better. Or maybe a new kind of device or way to listen to music (lossy streaming to your toaster). The thing is, keeping your files in FLAC lets you create any of these other formats as needed.

Compare to keeping the original RAW image from a digital camera even if a JPEG could be enough for viewing it on a computer. The original RAW allows you to remaster the image for various uses, e.g. large prints, other color formats, etc.

That's what I mean, regular people don't need it, unless in weird cases like your where you have plenty of space and want to be able to transcode from flac to any lossy format at any time. Most people don't bother with any of this.

I'm deleting the original comment because I get too many misunderstood replies.