Phish Moves To FLAC

Re:Yay! by adamofgreyskull · 2003-06-23 22:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately, I bet this gets far less mainstream press coverage than if they were shouting to the heavens and anyone who would listen that their fans were evil criminals.

Good, but we have a long way to go yet.. :o)

why lossless for live? by croddy · 2003-06-23 22:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can understand spending the disk/cpu for lossless compression on, say, a 96khz classical recording, but most of what comes out of a live mix (or even a commercial rock studio recording) is just not worth the system resources. for live recordings, ogg at 256 or mp3 at 320 is more than enough, and small pipes and short CPUs are much happier.

(then again, I haven't been able to deal with internet show traders ever since CD-R enabled them to be even more demanding about recording quality.)

Re:why lossless for live? by croddy · 2003-06-23 22:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

yes. the percussion always gives it away (sounds better with ogg than mp3), but failing that, the strings, particularly the attack on the violins, just turn to nasty digital noise.
my friends will put on some CD and I say "that's from mp3". usually it's the cymbals.
Re:why lossless for live? by fwankypoo · 2003-06-23 22:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

most of what comes out of a live mix (or even a commercial rock studio recording) is just not worth the system resources

Well, sure, I'll give you that - many mixes come out with undesirables, but the issue is not one of the music needing that extra bit of quality that a lossless compression scheme supplies. Rather, the use of such compression addresses the issue of multiple generations. By trading with SHN (or FLAC) we can then make an _exact_ copy of the master copy; each generation does not add any noise/distortion to the mix, as it might with audio tapes.

If a lossy compression were regularly used, and people burned to disc, encoded to OGG/MP3, decoded and burned again, distortion and data loss would be added to that copy of the source, which is unaccptable. That's why we also use MD5s as well.

--
The time of day is 29:33.
Re:why lossless for live? by nathanh · 2003-06-23 23:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can understand spending the disk/cpu for lossless compression on, say, a 96khz classical recording, but most of what comes out of a live mix (or even a commercial rock studio recording) is just not worth the system resources. for live recordings, ogg at 256 or mp3 at 320 is more than enough, and small pipes and short CPUs are much happier.

Because we're talking about audiophiles here (who else would *complain* about the previous audio format on the Phish site). You know. These are the people who think they can hear the difference between a CD and a CD with green ink on it. The same people who insist that vinyl has higher fidelity than CD. The same people who compare the dry tonality of different digital interconnects.
Even supposedly decent sites make so many mistakes when discussing digital audio that they'd fail an undergrads signals course. "No information is lost" my arse. And what sort of nonsense is that idiot trying to pass off as a digital signal; don't these "experts" know what low-pass filtering means?
Audiophilia. It's a disease. Kill it before it spreads.
Re:why lossless for live? by Fallen_Knight · 2003-06-23 23:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thats not the point, i use FLAC for a couple reasons:
1) lossless so its an exact COPY.
2) (important one!) i can reencode it to ANY format i want, as many times as i like. SO i can always keep up with whatever my portable want, my CD player wants, what ever format a friend wants, ect.

HD space is cheap anyways=P
Re:why lossless for live? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-23 23:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

How about:

4. We realise that MP3 is not going to be around forever, and converting from one lossy codec to another ends with crappy sound?

So you disgree that FLAC is suitable for end use. Fine. But a master copy compressed in a non-lossy way helps the sound quality five, ten, fifteen years from now. You aren't thinking about forwards compatibility.
Re:why lossless for live? by fmaxwell · 2003-06-24 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

And what about the ones who have permission to plug a line feed into an MD recorder direct from the desk?

I think they could require lossless recording, especially if the intention is then to encode it into lossy formats.

All MD recording is lossy. MD uses a compression algorithm called ATRAC. The MD disc has a capacity of 140MB. Without compression, it's 44.1khz/16 bit sampling would allow you to store 13 minutes of audio per disc.
Re:why lossless for live? by pyite69 · 2003-06-24 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

> who else would *complain* about the previous
> audio format on the Phish site.

People who have been using it for many years and
don't see a reason to switch would complain about
the new one. The old format didn't have ID3 tags,
and couldn't do 24 bit. Whether or not the Phish
folks will take advantage of this is another
question.

> The same people who insist that vinyl has higher
> fidelity than CD

Your other complaints are accurate but this one
is off. The question is whether it is worth it
to go through the pain to get a slightly better
sound.

> Audiophilia. It's a disease. Kill it before it
> spreads.

No doubt about that.
Re:why lossless for live? by fmaxwell · 2003-06-24 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not sure what you consider "scientifically valid" but I have done blind testing with my own equipment and I can hear a difference between 320kbps MP3s (yes encoded with lame, not that it matters) and WAVs.

How did you switch from one source to the other? What was your percent accuracy at identifying the MP3 over how many samples? How did you guarantee that the two sources were identically level-matched? It's a mystery to me if your alleged test was scientifically valid. As to claiming that it does not matter which encoder one uses, that simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge about audio compression. There are huge differences between encoders.

Another rationalization on your part because you don't want to believe that anyone else is better than you are in a perceptual sense. That anyone can distinguish differences that you cannot.

Yeah, that must be it. I'm sitting here in my glasses because I'm so perceptually gifted.

Now think about what you just said. If one of us wants to have a sense of superiority, which of us fits the bill better? I never claimed to have superior auditory perceptual ability, hearing, or equipment to yours. But you wasted no time in declaring your supposedly superior hearing and/or listening skills and in making aspersions about the (imagined) quality of my audio equipment. Thank you Captain Ego.

I'm not sure what you consider "high end", but most audiophiles are quite willing to admit that for a given product there are price points above which the law of diminishing returns starts to apply.

Why not admit that some products are simply fraudulently misrepresented and have no bearing on the quality of the music? Good examples would be AC line cords, speaker cables and interconnects that cost hundreds of dollars. Don't believe me? Then read what respected audio designer Frank Van Alstine has to say.

I suspect that you simply have poor audio equipment and don't want to spend any money on anything better and feel the need to rationalize this. The reason that you cannot hear a difference is because your cheap equipment masks the differences that would otherwise be quite obvious.

My speakers are VMPS Super Tower/Rs. Since you brought up the issue of cost, last time I checked (a few years back), they retailed for about $3600 per pair. My amp is a Hafler PRO2400 MOSFET amp. That was an amp sold to recording studios rather than home users. It replaced an Adcom GFA-555 and, despite having less power, has better sound.. My preamp is one that I designed and built using a BUF-03 class-A video buffer, huge toroidal power transformer, and low-dropout regulators. It's stunningly revealing and compares well with many high-end pre-amps.

I don't know (or care) if that's your definition of poor audio equipment. I do know that my speakers, which are still in production in a "Special Edition", received glowing reviews from respected reviewers like Anthony Cordesman (reviewer for Audio, The Absolute Sound, and The Audiophile Voice). My Hafler amp is proudly listed by top-tier recording studios as part of the equipment that they use. It suits my purposes fine.

Re:Better Yet by pe1rxq · 2003-06-23 22:06 · Score: 0, Insightful

GIF is not a compression format it is a graphics format that uses compression....

Jeroen

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/

This is a side effect of Web Designers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-23 22:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

more than anything else
Most 'artsy' firms optimise for IE not for standards.

WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.... by dspisak · 2003-06-23 22:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

....my eardrums are bleeding!

How many people could even tell the difference between a FLAC encoded live concert and a properly encoded 128-192kbs AAC/256kbs MP3 via LAME with the advice of r3mix.net/whatever the hell settings you ogg guys use for archival quality.

I mean, do I really need to hear a lossless version of your live concert? If anything, I bet it would make me notice any noise that might get subtly masked by the psycho-acoustic models used by MP3/AAC/Ogg. Stuff like dirty power in the recording equipment or mics, things of that nature.

Even with that said, how many of you will actually be listening to your FLAC encoded audio in a proper listening environment with a properly laid out, quality audio setup?

Nah, odds are you're just going to take your FLAC and then transcode it to MP3 or perhaps AAC if your an iPod owner or Ogg if your one of those wierdos who uses it (I think Ogg is a cool idea but honestly MP3 and AAC now are good enough for me and what I do)

And you'll do this why? Because how many portable and/or home stereo components play FLAC? I'd venture a guess of: none. But many units do play MP3, or WMA (ick, altho WM9 is nice), or recently AAC.

Of course I'm sure some of you will say: "But I run my computer audio to my outboard A/V reciever surround sound system via optical TOSlink out" For these people, this very small, limited audience market FLAC will be great, sure. I should know, I am one of those people. But even I can't tell the damn difference most of the times between the lossless and lossy audio codecs. Heck, I'm one of the people who finds the 128kbs AAC files from the Apple iTunes Music Store to be superior in quality to the old 192kbs VBR MP3s I made of the same CD track with LAME and the great advice from r3mix.net.

So, yeah I'm glad someone is doing this but I honestly think the market they are speaking to is so small and niche that its going to be lost in the statistical variance of the overall group.

Re:WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-23 22:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

FLAC gives you options. If you want your 192 mp3 then encode it. If you want your OGG go to town. If you're an audiofile you have an exact data copy. What else would you suggest? A lossy compressed copy that would piss off everyone who didn't like the format, the bitrate, or the encoding options?

Duh.

Really, it's nothing to go on a self-important rant about. It's pretty obvious if you use your brain.
Re:WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-06-23 22:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

How do you have an exact data copy of something which is sampled?
Re:WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.... by dspisak · 2003-06-23 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

The point I was trying to make (albeit rambling a bit) was that while lossless is a wonderful thing the percaentage of their audience who wants, no demands their music in a lossless format is probably a small one.

I'll probably check it out and see what I think about it, but as I have said I find the 128kbs AAC files from the Apple iTunes music store to be of good enough quality for me to consider it CD quality. I'm the first to admit I don't have golden ears! If you have them, great! If you don't then you're like me and stuck spending more time downloading something that is lost on you.

Personally, if they wanted to release these as 256kbs AAC files that would be real sweet. AAC is at least a standard that is well documented and I know I can find support for it in various pieces of software and some hardware.

Is my solution the best one? I don't know, but I think it represents a good comprimise. But thats just me I guess.
Re:WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.... by Chuck+Chunder · 2003-06-24 00:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The point I was trying to make (albeit rambling a bit) was that while lossless is a wonderful thing the percaentage of their audience who wants, no demands their music in a lossless format is probably a small one.
Which might be a valid point were they not introducing it due to customer requests.....

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:FLAC vs WinRAR by tangent3 · 2003-06-23 22:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Parent is probably a troll, but I'll bite.

On average, lossless compression can do 2:1 ratio, so that's 20-30MB out of 300MB worth of wav. I'd say 7-10% is rather impressive considering WinRAR recognizes audio formats and does optimisations on them. Try comparing against ZIP or something.

Furthermore does RAR allow you to stream the audio? Seek (sample-accurately)? Error resistant (a small error won't affect the whole stream)? Can you play the RARs in your favourite audio player? Well I guess Foobar2000 can , with it's zip/rar support but then it has to decompress the whole (10MB/minute) track before being able to play it, while it can play a FLAC directly from any point in time of the track.

Stop being so short-sighted by Mr.Ned · 2003-06-23 23:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Whenever an article like this is posted, when someone is going above and beyond a 128kbit mp3 to try and offer improved sound quality, a few individuals will always say that it's stupid because no one can really hear the difference and will go on to demean all those that say they can.

Any way you cut it, although Apple's iTunes store is a step in the right direction, you're buying an inferior product from that which you could purchase in a store. A lot of people spend a lot of time mastering and remastering audio to sound its best, and a lot of that work is just thrown out the window with an mp3. Not that this is a crime against humanity and that mp3s are bad, but I would rather not purchase for the same price a product that is by definition inferior.

Now, if I go buy a Phish concert, I can burn it to a CD and have as good a copy as I'm going to get. If I want to convert it to mp3 for my portable player, I can do that. If I want to convert it to a high-VBR ogg for my computer, I can do that. It's flexible. If I got the mp3, well, I'm stuck. I don't have those options.

Isn't consumer freedom good today?

Re:wide acceptence? no. by clonebarkins · 2003-06-24 01:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

as with "Ogg Vorbis" (that's the name, right?), the only place I've ever heard of FLAC is on Slashdot.

Well then you should try browsing the net a little! ;o)

Seriously, though, every new format (audio or otherwise) has to build a base of dedicated users before it gets widely recognized. When PNG first started, it wasn't the most well-known either (though being developed by an international standards organization helped a little ;o).

When people begin supporting newer (I would say better in this case, but I'll leave that up to you to decide) formats then you only have positives because then people can choose what they want. If you want to continue using formats you're comfortable with, that's fine.

basically, I'm saying "pfft" at your silly audio formats that nobody uses. :P

That's simply not true. Regardin Ogg Vorbis (which is a lossy format and so not comparable to FLAC anyway), if nobody used it then why does the newest version WinAmp support it natively? Not only that, but RealMedia has said they are going to support it as well. This is because they realize that people do use it, and that as the benefits of using an open standard (as opposed to mp3, which is proprietary) will reveal itself to more people in the future. FLAC is the same way -- Phish realized that 1) it is technically a better format than SHN (lossless and compresses smaller), and 2) more people are beginning to desire it.

There's really no good reason to say, "Well, not everybody's using it yet, so I'm not gonna either." What you should do instead is look at the merits of one format vs. another and then make a decision for yourself instead of relying on public opinion (which will screw you over every time).

--

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand

Re:Dude! by goober · 2003-06-24 01:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does it make my computer smell like Patchouli?

No, and this is in fact the best feature of LivePhish Downloads. I love the music but stopped going to Phish shows years ago because the crowds got too big/disgusting. Now I can go on tour again from the comfort of my own home.

21 of 377 comments (clear)