IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

32-bit support, Split from: "The Future of FLAC"
Brand
post Aug 31 2012, 22:21
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



QUOTE (yourlord @ Aug 31 2012, 21:26) *
32-bit support

QUOTE (sshd @ Aug 31 2012, 22:16) *
>2G support

Both of these are important.

I was glad to see that in audio editing/music making software FLAC gained a lot of support in the last couple of years. I'd say right now most support at least importing FLAC.
But 32bit float is used a lot in audio editing, so FLAC could definitely improve there.


EDIT:
Also, I remember reading once that FLAC is too loosely defined (compared to ALAC where the rules are more strict regarding number of channels etc.). Don't know much about that stuff myself, but if it's true it's worth looking into. Hardware/software manufacturers want a reliable standard to work with.
EDIT2: found it

This post has been edited by Brand: Aug 31 2012, 22:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Brand
post Sep 1 2012, 22:56
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



I'm not sure I agree with what I think you're implying (that adding ridiculously high specs is some sort of deceiving). Also FLAC already supports 32bit fixed point and 655350Hz sample rates, both of which are unnecessary by certain HA standards.
Anyway, the 64bit part was mostly a joke, although again, I don't see the harm in adding it. I would disagree with promoting it with statements like "it improves the sound", but I wasn't suggesting doing that.

However, I do believe 32bit float support would be useful, even if it's only used in certain niche cases and not for distribution. (But I should stop repeating myself now.)

This post has been edited by Brand: Sep 1 2012, 22:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Sep 1 2012, 23:11
Post #3





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



QUOTE (Brand @ Sep 1 2012, 22:56) *
I'm not sure I agree with what I think you're implying (that adding ridiculously high specs is some sort of deceiving).
You think wrongly, for I’m not implying anything. I meant exactly what I said (quite clearly, I had thought): The ability to use such resolutions should not be added for the sake of attempting to increase the format’s appeal to people who hold mistaken beliefs about their utility.

QUOTE
I would disagree with promoting [high resolutions] with statements like "it improves the sound", but I wasn't suggesting doing that.
You might not have stated that yourself, and I said neither that you said it nor that you believe it, but you did say that higher resolutions might help to assuage and appeal to those who do believe such myths. So, the two might become effectively equivalent, regardless of your intentions. The spread of falsehoods about higher resolutions is not likely to be decreased, as Hydrogenaudio desires, by their inclusion “for marketing purposes”. Rather, I can imagine gurus of woo interpreting it precisely the opposite way.

If you didn’t meant that the next maintainer(s) of FLAC should add support for higher resolutions in order to pacify those who wrongly believe that “bigger is better” in this context, you shouldn’t have chosen a configuration of words that says just that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


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 August 2014 - 06:46