IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Back-up Copy~ WAV vs FLAC
Back-up Copy~ WAV vs FLAC
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 90
Guests cannot vote 
Porcus
post Aug 29 2012, 22:13
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 22:37) *
I try to stay out of these .flac discussions because it's like a Democrat showing up at the Republican Convention, but touting .flac for its compression is silly when you consider that storage is dirt cheap and virtually unlimited for anyone above the poverty level.


Rather, it's like an alien showing up among a bunch of not-so-respectful heathens, listening to their jokes and not realizing that what they are mocking are dogma that someone actually believes in. You just missed the entire 'but FLAC has lower bitrate!' argument for going uncompressed.


By the way, with .wav, I would need one more hard drive. And two more for backups. That's $300 in drives. When I started ripping, drives were half the size, and I could easily have needed a new PSU too. FLAC has likely saved me some $700-ish in drives (and offered tagging support as bonus) -- for free. Now go to the Republican convention and call it 'silly', and there's certainly going to be someone mumbling 'yeah, Communism ...'. (Or 'nothing but pure, simple Communism' if you happen to bump into Buford T. Justice.)


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 29 2012, 22:19
Post #27





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (db1989 @ Aug 29 2012, 13:42) *
lol someone said “Republican”

I think he called us a bunch of Republicans. We have some Libertarians who appear to believe in science around here. Does that count?

IBM + Microsoft = good idea

iTunes = crap

OK, whatever.

Does this imply that free and open source flac will somehow magically stop working in the future? laugh.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 29 2012, 22:19


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayess
post Aug 29 2012, 22:49
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 18-August 12
Member No.: 102432



LOL, these comments are exactly what I was talking about. I could have said it would be like Brady showing up at the NRA in his wheelchair and still got the same results.

Ford vs. Chevy. Windows vs. Linux. Etc. Etc. To each their own.

A more relevant question is does flac improve the sound of music over wav?

If you need compression and more tagging capabilities, have at it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Aug 29 2012, 23:13
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



If someone feels the need to abuse themselves with itunes then by all means use ALAC.. I don't have any axe to grind about ALAC since it's an open and royalty free codec.
If such a person ever wants to experience the freedom outside the Apple prison walls then they can freely transcode from ALAC to FLAC if they want to use devices that support the latter and not the former. All it costs is CPU time. There are plenty of free utilities to do the transcode.

I earn well above the poverty level and have several TB of storage capacity in my home. I still don't see a point in wasting space just for the sake of wasting space. Hard drives still cost money and I'd rather spend that extra $50 on my wife, or save it, than to buy an extra hard drive or to purchase a larger than necessary hard drive because I insist on saving my music in an uncompressed form. My piddly music collection is only about 100GB, but the 30-40GB or so I save using FLAC will allow me to use the extra space for other things. It allows me to use smaller external drives to backup my collection, or save money by paying for less storage on an internet rsync mirror, not to mention making the initial backup quicker.

Multiply that by a much larger collection of say 1TB, then the space savings become very significant at 300-400GB.

Also, my cable internet connection would be stressing it's upstream bandwidth limit to stream uncompressed PCM audio where the usual peak of 1.1-1.2Mbps for FLAC gives more headroom to handle network fluctuations. (not that I would stream in FLAC as even that is a shameful waste of bandwidth. I usually transcode on the fly to Vorbis -q2 for streaming)

QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 17:49) *
A more relevant question is does flac improve the sound of music over wav?


Nope. Nor does WAV improve the sound quality over FLAC.. Lossless is lossless.

This post has been edited by yourlord: Aug 29 2012, 23:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Aug 29 2012, 23:20
Post #30





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 14:49) *
A more relevant question is does flac improve the sound of music over wav?
The most relevant response is

DIE IN A FIRE


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Aug 29 2012, 23:30
Post #31





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 22:49) *
LOL, these comments are exactly what I was talking about. I could have said it would be like Brady showing up at the NRA in his wheelchair and still got the same results.
Would you like to actually respond to people’s replies to your post now, or do you just plan on continuing to do silly dances?

QUOTE
Ford vs. Chevy. Windows vs. Linux. Etc. Etc. To each their own.
If you’re saying this to shore up statements like the below, it’s even more irrelevant than your prior analogy; rudimentary aspects of data theory, like any other scientific fact, are not a matter of opinion.

QUOTE
A more relevant question is does flac improve the sound of music over wav?
Relevant to nothing. Perhaps you would benefit from some basic research about digital audio concepts and about the rules of this site. In case that helps, I’ll withhold for the moment my suggestion for what to do if it doesn’t.

This post has been edited by db1989: Aug 29 2012, 23:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 29 2012, 23:30
Post #32





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 14:49) *
To each their own.

Didn't know that an each had a their. Check my sig if you can't figure out what I'm trying to tell you.

Personally I like to base decisions on compelling reasons. I don't see one from you as to why someone should choose an uncompressed format over a compressed one. The latter is what the poll should have said, BTW. AIFF is no less valid than wave just as ALAC is no less valid than FLAC (or any other varieties).

PS: Feel free to latch on to my first paragraph in order to avoid the second one.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 29 2012, 23:39


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LimitBreaker15
post Aug 29 2012, 23:45
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 10-July 12
Member No.: 101300



I'll stick with FLAC. Less filesize with no audible and significant bytes difference, tagging support, detects error.

Thanks guys biggrin.gif really...

Follow up question! Is it alright if I just convert my already ripped cds from .wav to .flac? or is it any better to rip it directly to .flac? Just making sure lol

Feel free to close this after someone answers the last question~

This post has been edited by LimitBreaker15: Aug 29 2012, 23:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Aug 29 2012, 23:52
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



There is no difference from a quality perspective.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Aug 30 2012, 00:10
Post #35





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (LimitBreaker15 @ Aug 29 2012, 23:45) *
no audible and significant bytes difference
Unless Iím just being naÔvely literal in my interpretation of the written word, this suggests that we somehow havenít been clear enough in our answers. If so, I donít know how much more we can do! Audibility and significance do not enter into consideration at all. Decompressing a lossless format, which always occurs without active invocation during playback or transcoding, yields exactly the same audio. There is no chance of the result being audibly, inaudibly, significantly, insignificantly, or in any other way different.

QUOTE
Follow up question! Is it alright if I just convert my already ripped cds from .wav to .flac? or is it any better to rip it directly to .flac? Just making sure lol
For the same reason, it doesnít matter, and re-ripping/-converting would simply represent an unnecessary consumption of time.

Iím glad that youíve gotten the answers you were looking for, but they were already available in abundance elsewhere. I hope some future member with the same questions finds this thread or one of its many predecessors before backing people into assembling yet another, slightly different (ohmy.gif) copy of it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Satellite_6
post Aug 30 2012, 01:44
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 13-September 10
From: VA, USA
Member No.: 83831



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 16:37) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ Aug 29 2012, 15:31) *
Well, to those who insist that .wav is better because it is an uncompressed format ...

... shouldn't Microsoft's compressed folders feature for NTFS degrade the .wav much less than .zipping, since it is nowhere near the same efficiency? emot-science.gif


I try to stay out of these .flac discussions because it's like a Democrat showing up at the Republican Convention, but touting .flac for its compression is silly when you consider that storage is dirt cheap and virtually unlimited for anyone above the poverty level.

Until the big players adopt .flac it's still a fringe format.

Does Itunes (not that I would load that crap software on my system) play .flac file?


Hardly anyone uses WAV, so why would it mater that FLAC isn't supported everywhere? blink.gif


--------------------
People are silly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 30 2012, 02:46
Post #37





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Lossless is lossless is lossless is lossless.

Rip to wave then later convert wave to flac is no different than ripping to flac as far as the audio is concerned.

The difference is that if the waves do not have tag information and you want this information in your converted flacs then that information will have to be added later as a separate step. This may be very time-consuming process unless the information you want is contained in the paths and file names of the wave files (as was already said). In general when ripping to flac the files are also directly populated with tag information as part of the process.

QUOTE (db1989 @ Aug 29 2012, 16:10) *
I hope some future member with the same questions finds this thread or one of its many predecessors before backing people into assembling yet another, slightly different (ohmy.gif) copy of it.

Don't hold your breath.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 30 2012, 02:58


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayess
post Aug 30 2012, 04:26
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 18-August 12
Member No.: 102432



QUOTE (greynol @ Aug 29 2012, 17:30) *
QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 14:49) *
To each their own.

Didn't know that an each had a their. Check my sig if you can't figure out what I'm trying to tell you.

Personally I like to base decisions on compelling reasons. I don't see one from you as to why someone should choose an uncompressed format over a compressed one. The latter is what the poll should have said, BTW. AIFF is no less valid than wave just as ALAC is no less valid than FLAC (or any other varieties).

PS: Feel free to latch on to my first paragraph in order to avoid the second one.



Well, I said "to each their own" rather than "to each his own" because it's more inclusive. You do realize that some women also choose .wav over .flac, right?

Anyway, I have to break in the two new amps that I had arrive today. Do you think I should use .flac files to do that, or use .wav and contribute the saved processor power to SETI?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 30 2012, 05:08
Post #39





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Pronoun agreement is your OT lesson for the day. Each is singular. Their is plural. Proper English grammar dictates that you use the masculine "his" as the default when the subject of the gender is unknown. If you wish to be grammatically and politically correct the proper phrase is, "to each his or her own."

Regarding your other question, I will point out that the concept of breaking-in is largely an placebophile myth, though I suppose it extends beyond placebophiles whether they may be men or women. How you choose to spend the miniscule amount of processing power is your business.

Thank you for dodging the part where you provide a compelling reason why someone should use wave over flac. wink.gif

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 30 2012, 05:13


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Aug 30 2012, 06:11
Post #40





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3347
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



Haha, this is getting really off-topic, but singular they has a long history in English from as early as Shakespeare. Its acceptability is, at best, debatable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

This post has been edited by Canar: Aug 30 2012, 06:11


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 30 2012, 06:31
Post #41





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Well if Shakespeare said it...


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Aug 30 2012, 06:33
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Just let us keep the we.

Ė Porcus Rex


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 30 2012, 06:38
Post #43





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Don't you mean our?


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Light-Fire
post Aug 30 2012, 07:06
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 5-August 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 33645



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 14:18) *
.Wav is a Microsoft and IBM standard.

That's how I roll, listen, and archive...


Do you still use PC AT 286?!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Aug 30 2012, 07:39
Post #45





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1002
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



I don't really approve of how the OP asked a for opinions and some users started to bash WAV users. Wasn't it enough that the poll itself was nearly unanimously in favour of FLAC? It's puzzling to me why moderators leave a topic like this open, but when a different opinion comes up bash the poster to the ground. If you have pre-decided the outcome of the discussion, why not just tell the OP your "correct" opinion and close the topic? If you really don't want this kind of discussion, set-up a wiki page, have some stickies on the forum, and close this kind of discussion before it takes off.

So that my post will not only be meta-discussion: The most compelling argument in favor of WAV has not really been stated, the ubiquitous support in every audio player on every platform.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Aug 30 2012, 08:15


--------------------
Audiophiles live in constant fear of jitter.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Aug 30 2012, 08:16
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 30 2012, 05:26) *
Do you think I should use .flac files to do that, or use .wav and contribute the saved processor power to SETI?


Just for the record: I didn't made the actual math, but in the whole process you'll likely end up wasting more power, stricto sensu, to spin, write and read a drive while using wav than to feed your CPU decoding FLAC... wink.gif


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Aug 30 2012, 08:45
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Aug 30 2012, 08:39) *
The most compelling argument in favor of WAV has not really been stated, the ubiquitous support in every audio player on every platform.


Yep. There is/was a lot of players that .mp3 and .wav only (maybe also .wma lossy, but hardly lossless).

Now in case i would want to play .wav over my car stereo: Copying from FLAC (from my computer) to WAV is no slower than copying WAV to WAV, actually, as FLAC decodes faster than my hard drive reads. Not to mention, much faster than can be written to any USB 2-device.

BTW: .wav is a container format which can contain a few lossy codecs too, but I assume that ď.wav supportĒ in portable devices is largely limited to the good'ole PCM?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Aug 30 2012, 09:00
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (yourlord @ Aug 30 2012, 00:13) *
My piddly music collection is only about 100GB, but the 30-40GB or so I save using FLAC will allow me to use the extra space for other things. It allows me to use smaller external drives to backup my collection, or save money by paying for less storage on an internet rsync mirror, not to mention making the initial backup quicker.


I used to say that for collections in that order of magnitude, using lossless compression could mean that you got your entire collection on a portable player (in your case: the 80 gigabytes iPod available some years ago). Using lossless for portable use is maybe not well-justified, and using a portable (theft-prone) as your backup is maybe not advisable, but having that as an additional backup is certainly not stupid.

Well, nowadays 120 GB drives are given away, I guess.


(As for internet backup, you might consider AudioSafe by Spoon (the dBpoweramp / AccurateRip developer) -- it is supposed to be free-until-you-need-it.)


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Aug 30 2012, 13:36
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 1193
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (jayess @ Aug 29 2012, 21:37) *
Until the big players adopt .flac it's still a fringe format.


Hmmm, so Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha, Sony etc are not big enough for you?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Aug 30 2012, 14:02
Post #50





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Aug 29 2012, 23:39) *
why not just tell the OP your "correct" opinion and close the topic?

[...]

So that my post will not only be meta-discussion: The most compelling argument in favor of WAV has not really been stated, the ubiquitous support in every audio player on every platform.

If it had been closed then you would not have had the opportunity to present this reason.

I'll gladly field your moderation complaints via PM if you like, or alternatively you can create another topic. I don't feel obliged to engage in a serious discussion with you about it here, let alone attempt to seek your approval.

This post has been edited by greynol: Aug 30 2012, 14:10


--------------------
YOUR EYES CANNOT HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 10:10