Slashdot Mirror
Which Lossless Audio Codec, and Why?
deadsquid puts forth a worthy follow up question to last week's query on audio codecs: "I'm about to re-rip my entire CD collection for the fourth time. I don't want to do it again, so have decided to invest in a small(ish) array and use a lossless codec to create a reference set of my music. From the reference, I plan on transcoding to a variety of bitrates (depending on where the final product will end up) and whichever format of the week suits the device(s) the transcoded content will ultimately sit on. I don't particularly care about encoding time, but would like something that transcodes nicely to MP3, WMA, OGG, and other formats in a reasonable length of time. I would like to ensure that track metadata is maintained in the reference, and is easily transferable when transcoded. I also want something that's not proprietary to an individual's or small group's whims. I'm thinking FLAC, but was wondering if other people had better experiences with other codecs. If you were to use a lossless encoding format, which would you use, and why?"
too much time on his hands. or maybe the music will just sound better then.
in answer to the question though, flac is perfectly usable for that and will remain free and there will be tools that understand it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
i know.. seriously people. mp3 is going to be around for a very long long time. why are you even bothering with any other format? every single device plays mp3s (except for sony's piece of shit first try at a digital music player). every OS plays mp3s. they're more than good enough for all but the most anal retentive of audiophiles. if you're really overly concerned about quality even in that case, just use VBR mp3s.
- tristan
Almost certainly FLAC will be what most people recommend. And it very well may be the correct choice for your situation. But I'd also take into account longevity of the codec. The fact that FLAC is open source, patent-less, etc is only a buffer against obsolescence, not a guarantee. WAV's, for example, have been around forever and are so entrenched that you can be certain that support for them isn't going anywhere. FLAC, on the other hand, has only been around for about 4 or 5 years.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
Those people's music appreciation is hardly worth mentioning, let's face it.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
You know, I run a state-of-the-art cable conditioning service. All very high technology. I'd like to talk to you about the cables you use for your audiophile setup. With our SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY, we can make your music sound 50% better! Or something...
Ever hear the old joke "What's the mating call of a Sorority Girl? I'm SOOOOO drunk!" That's sort of like the mating call for an idiot who is easily parted with his money: "I'm an audiophile!"
Actually, your 128's will simultaneously sound better _and_ worse. The freq response will be better, clearer, but you also will be able to notice compression artifacts more. Enough so that when you switch to 192, you'll be able to hear much improvement, moreso than if you just went to 192 with the five dollar Sony headphones that came with your Discman.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
What the hell do you mean CODEC and LOSSLESS?
You guys make everything way too complex.
There are two methods for compressing data:
1) Lossless compression: Think zip/rar/sit/tar.gz etc. These output the source file bit for bit when decompressed.
2) Lossy compression: Think JPEG/MPEG/MP3 etc. These output with a lot of data stripped off, the best lossy compression attempts to remove as much as possible without affecting quality too much.
Just because something is compressed doesn't mean anything is lost.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum