Firefox 51 Released With FLAC Audio Support, WebGL 2.0 By Default

[liam]

Uncompressed PCM at 16b 48kHz is 768kb/s. That is not an order of magnitude (unless you are working in base 2) higher. And FLAC frequently reaches a compression ratio of 2 (aka “half the size“) on many sources that are not mostly white noise.

As for Opus, I suspect it should be transparent at 128kb/s already. It's VASTLY better than MP3. I wonder why Music stores still sell MP3 by default instead of Opus (probably because certain groups of consumer still have outdated players that only play MP3, even though Opus has been out for 5 years (bitstream freeze)).

https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/201594722-How-good-is-the-sound-quality-on-TIDAL-

HiFi:
Flac 1411 kbps - Lossless
(16/44.1 khz)

So, half an order of magnitude
Regarding opus, xiph says that 128 is pretty much transparent. Nice estimate, cg.

https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings

I think the main reason why mp3 is still around is laziness I'm not really joking, but that is kinda sad. On the desktop, I believe all the major browsers support opus, so, no issue there. On mobile, it should, mostly, be the same (not positive about iPhone, but definitely Android is fine).

[liam]

Huh? It has nothing to do with the "majority". Those of us with real hi-fi audio equipment won't touch lossy codecs with a ten foot pole. Yes hi-fi enthusiasts are not a large number. But then again, Netflix has been offering 4k streaming content for a while now - I don't even know anyone who owns a 4k television. Unless your screen size is 80" or larger, there's no compelling reason to use 4k over 1080p. From a normal living room couch viewing distance, 4k video is completely useless to the vast majority of TV watchers. On the other hand, I know a half dozen people with serious hi-fi home audio systems.

Following your logic, the majority of internet users don't use Linux, therefore why should any browser vendor, Firefox, Chrome, etc. bother with a Linux port? Focus on Microsoft and skip that tiny niche operating system with the penguin.

By saying majority, I was trying to politely say pretty much everyone, bar unreplicated golden ear listeners.
One more thing, the size of the screen doesn't mean much, and I'm not going to claim to know what a "normal" distance might be, but I'd be interested in reading about where such values come from.
For a 50" 4k tv you should be able to see a difference up to about 6.5ft.


Btw, I'd agree that Linux desktop doesn't warrant a port of lots of software, but browsers are a bit special. If developing new software, if at all possible, you should maximize your potential market by using a cross platform framework.

[mulenmar]

Btw, I'd agree that Linux desktop doesn't warrant a port of lots of software, but browsers are a bit special. If developing new software, if at all possible, you should maximize your potential market by using a cross platform framework.

As long as the browser is not misused as that framework. A UNIX- or (some vaporware)Plan9-derivative actual operating system, sure, that's what it's for. It can even be a usermode layer.

Browsers, however, are for delivering hypertext with *suggestions* on how to display it, not for lazy developers who can't be bothered to even learn Python and QT for delivering platform-independent programs, or how to write fallback code for people with handicaps like blindness.

[torsionbar28]

Question is, do you have any reason to expect that anyone *will* follow? If yes, then by all means be the leader. But if not, not much point in spending time implementing a feature that everyone will ignore for lack of cross-browser support.

Aaaaaaaand BAM, Chrome 56 lands tonight with FLAC support built in. Does that answer your question, lol?

[liam]

As long as the browser is not misused as that framework. A UNIX- or (some vaporware)Plan9-derivative actual operating system, sure, that's what it's for. It can even be a usermode layer.

Browsers, however, are for delivering hypertext with *suggestions* on how to display it, not for lazy developers who can't be bothered to even learn Python and QT for delivering platform-independent programs, or how to write fallback code for people with handicaps like blindness.

You're welcome to your opinion.
My view is that ignorant elitists are a particularly toxic form of so-called "life".

[torsionbar28]

One more thing, the size of the screen doesn't mean much, and I'm not going to claim to know what a "normal" distance might be, but I'd be interested in reading about where such values come from.
For a 50" 4k tv you should be able to see a difference up to about 6.5ft.

I've heard of 10 ft used as a "typical" viewing distance for a residential living room tv. According to this graph, at a 10 ft viewing distance with a 60" or 65" display (both common sizes), 1080p is the optimal resolution, and 4k is "not worth it".

I have a 46" television, and I measured my viewing distance as 11 ft 2 in. I've noticed that at this distance and display size, 1080p is barely discernible from 720p, which is again confirmed by the graph.

So for 4k to be "worth it", one either needs a very large television with a shorter than average viewing distance, or an extremely large television at a standard viewing distance. Neither are commonplace.

[liam]

I've heard of 10 ft used as a "typical" viewing distance for a residential living room tv. According to this graph, at a 10 ft viewing distance with a 60" or 65" display (both common sizes), 1080p is the optimal resolution, and 4k is "not worth it".

I have a 46" television, and I measured my viewing distance as 11 ft 2 in. I've noticed that at this distance and display size, 1080p is barely discernible from 720p, which is again confirmed by the graph.

So for 4k to be "worth it", one either needs a very large television with a shorter than average viewing distance, or an extremely large television at a standard viewing distance. Neither are commonplace.

My point was that I'm not sure we have the data for the typical viewing distance.
For me, i think one is right around 6' and the other 7'.
I think both my tvs are currently 42", so, moving to 55" doesn't seem outrageous.
It doesn't really matter, though.
Enjoy now having two browsers with flac support

[Azrael5]

I gave a try to this browser with this upgrade but it has proved a completely disappointment. A disaster. Slow slow and rather overcharging resources. It lacks of optimization with hardware resources so to take benefit of hardware acceleration unlike chrome/chromium and their derivatives able to enhance hardware providing an efficient diagnostic system. Uninstalled just after few time. Problem of this browser does not concerns with the software itself but it is focused on the incompetence of developers and management. With the end of support to XP firefox will disappear.

[Hi-Angel]

I gave a try to this browser with this upgrade but it has proved a completely disappointment. A disaster. Slow slow and rather overcharging resources. It lacks of optimization with hardware resources so to take benefit of hardware acceleration unlike chrome/chromium and their derivatives able to enhance hardware providing an efficient diagnostic system. Uninstalled just after few time. Problem of this browser does not concerns with the software itself but it is focused on the incompetence of developers and management. With the end of support to XP firefox will disappear.

Nah. Although I feel your pain — e.g. every time I want to watch a video, I launch Chromium — but Firefox has one important feature that justifies the use of the browser at least for plain surf of the Internet, it's Pentadactyl. Chromium/Chrome have no analogs to it both because of lack of API and wrong architecture decisions (e.g. addons don't work for some sites and, apparently, blank tabs, problems with hotkeys, just off top of my head).

[Iffith]

Very glad to see flac support.