FLAC Gets First Update In 6 Years

An anonymous reader writes "The Free Lossless Audio Codec, FLAC, loved by audiophiles for its lossless fidelity has been updated to version 1.3.0. FLAC is an audio format similar to MP3, but 'lossless', meaning that audio compressed in FLAC doesn't suffer any loss in quality. FLAC v1.3.0 is the first update in almost 6 years and it is also the first release from the new Xiph.Org maintainer team." Big new feature: ReplayGain works for sampling rates up to 192kHz so you can finally control the volume of your obsessively ripped LPs.

Comments

The only thing I'd ever buy

[cen1]

All the music I ever bough was FLAC, mostly thanks to services like Bandcamp. They require the artists to upload their song in lossless and from there they provide all the formats you'd ever want. That's how all music should be sold.. with no shitty codecs and DRM.

Re:No updates in 6 years?

[Kjella]

Unlike lossy compression where you're always looking for better ways to exploit the bits a lossless compression has a hard limit in that you can't compress it down to less information than it actually contains. FLAC is pretty much as good as it's going to get, you can compare it to for example PNG for lossless pictures that is unchanged for the last 9 years. Sane with ZIP, RAR, 7Z etc. they use many of the same underlying algorithms and change very slowly.

Re:I don't see the point

[jsdcnet]

Ten years ago, when hard drives were small and NAS systems for home use didn't really exist, I could see the point of all this ripping and converting. But now, with multi-terabyte HDs and the proliferation of NAS appliances, there is a limited need for this or any other 'compressed' music file format.

I'll give you one: metadata. WAV doesn't really support it in a standard way across applications. AIFF is a little better but it doesn't have a lot of traction on Windows. FLAC has a robust tagging scheme. Since converting to lossless is incredibly fast, and you typically save about 30% of the disk space, why not do it?

Re:I don't see the point

[Proteus]

But now, with multi-terabyte HDs and the proliferation of NAS appliances, there is a limited need for this or any other 'compressed' music file format.

Yep, because audio files are never:

1. Streamed over low-bandwidth data connections (e.g. cellular or crappy public APs)
2. Stored on small, portable devices with limited storage space, like Phones, solid-state media players, Chromebooks and tablets.
3. Backed up to remote locations where storage is more expensive

I can't imagine anyone having a need for those things. *eyeroll*

Re:Latest and greatest?

[TheGratefulNet]

good example of the stupidity of the music industry.

they put the best mix on the worst (physical, playback) medium, vinyl.

the cd (or file) which can have superior specs, they give the compressed loudness-war mix.

makes NO SENSE!

the music industry is fucked up. they just are.

Give me some FLAC

[zoid.com]

It's because FLAC rocks... There has been no need to update it. It's one of the huge open source/open spec success stories.

Re:FLAC superiority to MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

FLAC is also superior because it is future-proof. You can convert to any new format that comes along later, without any loss in quality.

Also, if you invest in good-quality gear you might want to actually play out all frequencies, even if you don't hear them. The barely audible subsonic rumble will create bodily sensations. Likewise for sound so high in frequency that you (barely) hear it.

If you play your music via $20 laptop speakers hooked to your el cheap Chinese sound card D/A then by all means, you can convert your music collection to 64 kbit mp3 and not hear the difference.