IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Looking for a FLAC web player
Kohlrabi
post Feb 2 2012, 08:39
Post #26





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 953
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



QUOTE (moytramoytra @ Feb 2 2012, 04:24) *
mp3hd might be a good alternative. It is a lossless encoding format back compatible to mp3 decoding,

So, you will still have to shove the whole lossless stream to the end-user, but he might just be able to hear the lossy MP3 decode if his decoder can't handle mp3HD? That is the worst of both worlds. You could, of course, easily strip the lossless data from the stream (since it is stored in ID3v2 tags sick.gif) to get rid of it when you serve the files, but that only helps if your main shortcoming is storage space (so you cannot save both a FLAC and MP3 encode at the same time) and not bandwidth. And this only holds true if the mp3HD encoder is efficient enough to beat FLAC(CL)+LAME encodes at high compression rates. And, of course, remember that the codec is unable to handle large input streams.

As a sidenote, mp3HD has been discussed at HA some years ago.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Feb 2 2012, 09:10


--------------------
Audiophiles live in constant fear of jitter.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Feb 2 2012, 12:23
Post #27


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1709
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



how about "Please install quicktime" and use ALAC? (i did not actually test, just a thought)
p.s. there is ALAC decoder/encoder also in ffmpeg.

edit: and add an alternative js web decoder, something to test:
http://badassjs.com/post/14463682242/intro...udio-decoder-in
Maybe somebody is up to the task to port flac decoder to js?

----------------

scenarios:
- user has ie and quicktime (everything ok)
- user has ie - offer download link + suggest a software that can decode alac and/or suggest "Please install quicktime"
- user has chrome/firefox (if there is no quicktime then offer js decoder)

(this is all progressive download, not streaming)

This post has been edited by smok3: Feb 2 2012, 13:14


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Mar 8 2012, 00:20
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



Time for me to jump in.

I'm not here to say someone can't stream FLAC across the net, but I'll at least give my reasons why it shouldn't be done.

It's been proven, beyond any reasonable argument, that any modern lossy codec at a moderate bitrate (~200Kbps), and even mp3 at somewhat higher rates, is completely transparent to all of humanity in all but the most marginal cases.

Many people have touched on the fact that while your server may have unimaginable gobs of bandwidth at it's disposal, it's not a guarantee your user will.
FLAC files can range in bitrate from roughly 500Kbps to well over 1Mbps. For web based audio, that represents upwards of a potential 500% increase in bandwidth usage for demonstrably no benefit.

Now, try to remember that this isn't YOUR internet.. It's OUR internet.. That excess bandwidth needed to stream FLAC is essentially total waste, and it's wasting not just your bandwidth and the bandwidth of your user, but the bandwidth and capacity of every router, every fiber link, etc, that ferry's your data across the network.

Having said that, I LOVE FLAC.. Virtually every album I own is stored in FLAC format on my network. When I play them on my local workstations I play the FLAC directly over my network. But that's on MY network, using equipment that I wholly own. I'm not piping that through anyone else's network, essentially wasting their and everyone else's bandwidth.

FLAC is meant for storage and local area playback; not streaming over a shared resource like the internet.

I use subsonic (www.subsonic.org) to access and stream my library over the net. I have it configured to transcode FLAC files to 160Kbps mp3 for use in the flash player, or to quality 2 vorbis to stream to a local media player such as VLC.

To date nobody that uses it has complained about the sound quality.



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Mar 8 2012, 00:39
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Not that 'everyone else is worse than me!' is a good argument, but ... what difference does the streaming of lossless audio count, compared to all the high-def porn movie content transfered world webwide?


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Mar 8 2012, 01:09
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



QUOTE (Porcus @ Mar 7 2012, 19:39) *
Not that 'everyone else is worse than me!' is a good argument, but ... what difference does the streaming of lossless audio count, compared to all the high-def porn movie content transfered world webwide?


In defense of the porn, it's at least VERY compressed.

Uncompressed 1920x1080 24-bit color video at 30fps is roughly 1.5Gbps.. If over one intermediate hop it was crossing a not atypical 10Gbps fiber, you by yourself would consume 15% of the capacity of that link. If 6 people were streaming that feed, that link would be nearly saturated. if one other person tried to start watching, then we'd have contention, lag, etc, and pretty much anyone else trying to post a tweet or something would have a bad time doing it.

There are ways to mitigate the issue, but the point is those methods shouldn't be caused because 6 or 7 people have it in their head that lossy compression is unacceptable and therefore deem it acceptable to waste a finite resource (internet bandwidth) that we all share.

Just because some people waste bandwidth, doesn't excuse us for doing the same. Obviously, you are not compelled to conserve internet bandwidth, but if we all waste it pointlessly we'll all have to deal with the congestion that will occur.

Streaming FLAC for a one time listening session is a pointless waste.. Transferring a copy of a FLAC file for permanent storage and use on a client isn't. That's all I'm saying..


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brand
post Mar 8 2012, 10:44
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 312
Joined: 27-November 09
Member No.: 75355



I don't understand the need for people to repeatedly post in this thread complaining about OPs decision to stream in lossless.
It's his money, let him do what he wants with it. Nobody is forcing other people to visit OPs site, either.

And if some unknown site streaming a few files at ~700kb is a significant problem for the internet as a whole, then we should perhaps approach this from another angle.. if there was a "danger" that some other (big) websites would begin streaming in lossless it would perhaps be worth discussing. But I don't see this happening any time soon, for obvious reasons.
Although I would definitely like to see cheap bandwidth being so widespread that it would actually allow that to happen. Eventually demand for high bitrate content can also push towards improvements in the internet infrastructure..

This post has been edited by Brand: Mar 8 2012, 10:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Mar 8 2012, 17:10
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



QUOTE (Brand @ Mar 8 2012, 05:44) *
I don't understand the need for people to repeatedly post in this thread complaining about OPs decision to stream in lossless.
It's his money, let him do what he wants with it. Nobody is forcing other people to visit OPs site, either.


I'm not complaining. I'm just giving reasons why doing so is suboptimal from the perspective of internet resources.

Yes, it's his money, but he's using a shared resource when he sends that across the internet. One guy doing this isn't going to be a problem. A large number of people doing it will be.

I'm coming from the point of view that all he's doing is streaming the audio to whoever to be listened to while it's being transferred, for a one time use. If he's transferring the file to them to keep and reuse, then it's not a waste since there is a reason for them to store and reuse a lossless copy. But sending a FLAC for Jimmy down the block to listen to on his $10 computer speakers one time and forget it is a complete waste of resources.

You'll also note that I gave a solution in my 1st response in that I use Subsonic as my web based media streaming system. It will allow him to store FLAC files on the server and Subsonic will transcode them to whatever he likes, on the fly, when someone requests to listen to it. It solves his issue in that he doesn't have to waste his time transcoding everything manually.. He can drop his FLAC files in his repository and then when someone selects to listen to it, Subsonic will transcode it for them while they stream it. It even gives them a download link so if they decide they want a copy they can download the original FLAC version.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Mar 8 2012, 20:50
Post #33


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1709
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



(for me) INTRAnet is very interesting as well and serving/storing just one file on a server is just easy (and easy browser based solution for playback is also very interesting), also no on-the-fly transcoding means that the server can use less electricity and our rain forest will live longer.

p.s. also in case of intranet: it is interesting to be able to preview the file and download it, so if it is the same file then it is already cached and download will just do a local disk copy - which is very fast btw.

p.s.2. Nothing beats porn of course.

This post has been edited by smok3: Mar 8 2012, 20:58


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enverex
post Apr 19 2012, 10:29
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 26-December 03
Member No.: 10718



There are other reasons for wanting to use Lossless. For example one is what I am currently working on:

I've written a web-based music player to let me listen to my music collection to wherever I am. Sure, if I'm not at home then I'll need to transcode the audio track I want to listen to to something more bandwidth friendly (it converts the file on the fly to OGG or AAC, whichever the browser supports) but if I'm at home on the same network then having to wait for the track to transcode (admittedly only ~3 seconds, but that's still more than 0 seconds) and losing quality in doing so is a waste as I'm certainly not going to run into any bandwidth issues on my own network.

Just thought I'd throw a real world situation in as an example.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lnostdal
post Sep 16 2012, 23:46
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 18-December 11
Member No.: 95867



QUOTE (Siegmar @ Dec 16 2009, 15:44) *
I'm looking for a web player (flash ?) I can embbed in my html pages in order to allow site visitors to play FLAC audio file.
(juste need a start/stop/pause button and a progression bar).

I've found several tool on the web. Either as Java or as Flash but only for mp3 files ..... nothing for FLAC files crying.gif


https://github.com/ofmlabs/flac.js

..there ya' go. Perhaps all the useless people commenting will go away now.

edit: Demo: http://labs.official.fm/codecs/flac/

This post has been edited by lnostdal: Sep 16 2012, 23:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Enverex
post Sep 16 2012, 23:57
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 26-December 03
Member No.: 10718



QUOTE (lnostdal @ Sep 16 2012, 14:46) *
QUOTE (Siegmar @ Dec 16 2009, 15:44) *
I'm looking for a web player (flash ?) I can embbed in my html pages in order to allow site visitors to play FLAC audio file.
(juste need a start/stop/pause button and a progression bar).

I've found several tool on the web. Either as Java or as Flash but only for mp3 files ..... nothing for FLAC files crying.gif


https://github.com/ofmlabs/flac.js

..there ya' go. Perhaps all the useless people commenting will go away now.

edit: Demo: http://labs.official.fm/codecs/flac/


That'll work in a very custom setup, but it's a shame that when browsers support OGG natively, that they don't also support FLAC. If they did, you could just throw the track at a HTML5 audio element and it would work. Far less hassle.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex654
post Dec 31 2012, 01:34
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 31-December 12
Member No.: 105494



QUOTE (yourlord @ Mar 8 2012, 03:09) *
QUOTE (Porcus @ Mar 7 2012, 19:39) *
Not that 'everyone else is worse than me!' is a good argument, but ... what difference does the streaming of lossless audio count, compared to all the high-def porn movie content transfered world webwide?


In defense of the porn, it's at least VERY compressed.

Uncompressed 1920x1080 24-bit color video at 30fps is roughly 1.5Gbps.. If over one intermediate hop it was crossing a not atypical 10Gbps fiber, you by yourself would consume 15% of the capacity of that link. If 6 people were streaming that feed, that link would be nearly saturated. if one other person tried to start watching, then we'd have contention, lag, etc, and pretty much anyone else trying to post a tweet or something would have a bad time doing it.

There are ways to mitigate the issue, but the point is those methods shouldn't be caused because 6 or 7 people have it in their head that lossy compression is unacceptable and therefore deem it acceptable to waste a finite resource (internet bandwidth) that we all share.

Just because some people waste bandwidth, doesn't excuse us for doing the same. Obviously, you are not compelled to conserve internet bandwidth, but if we all waste it pointlessly we'll all have to deal with the congestion that will occur.

Streaming FLAC for a one time listening session is a pointless waste.. Transferring a copy of a FLAC file for permanent storage and use on a client isn't. That's all I'm saying..


I woudn't argee with that. Imagine you have a 4 min song in FLAC. That's 30 Mb if the bitrate is around 1 Mbps. The visitor of the OP's website is a musician, so he really needs that track in FLAC (he might later save it from the browser cache).

Now compare with the online video poscast (or broadcast) from any TV channel website (not porn, well). That's about 1 Mbps on maximum quality, even if the content is not in HD resolution (1080p). And people watch this for 1-2 hours a day sometimes! So, man, what are you talking about? =) We are alive, and the bandwidth is sufficient by now for that, as I can see. Moreover - I somewhere heard, that more than 80 percent of data transferred via the internet is mail spam. Cannot believe in that, but if it's true, we should probably be fighting this - and not FLAC streaming =)

P.S. I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rick.hughes
post Dec 31 2012, 12:35
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40679



QUOTE (Alex654 @ Dec 30 2012, 19:34) *
... I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).

Have you read this
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Dec 31 2012, 14:28
Post #39





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1469
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



For what it's worth, sites that I've downloaded FLAC files from often also have lossy available, and it wouldn't be hard to automate making them.

You could just put it on your users to set up their browser to send flac streams to a capable player, and have the built in flash player as a fallback position.

IMO, embedded flash players are a royal pain since it's not supported on a lot of tablets etc and it looks like Adobe will have no more Linux releases. So, please have a stream URL available for when your web page player doesn't work.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
evan
post Dec 31 2012, 14:29
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 28-May 06
Member No.: 31267



QUOTE (rick.hughes @ Dec 31 2012, 13:35) *
QUOTE (Alex654 @ Dec 30 2012, 19:34) *
... I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).

Have you read this


I admit, I sometimes visit these forums just to find the next victim falling into this trap! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alex654
post Nov 18 2013, 10:45
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 31-December 12
Member No.: 105494



QUOTE (rick.hughes @ Dec 31 2012, 14:35) *
QUOTE (Alex654 @ Dec 30 2012, 19:34) *
... I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).

Have you read this


No, sorry, now I have read. But I think it is not the case, really.

Visualizer in Winamp proves my feelings. When I listen to MP3, even on 320 Kbps, high frequences are cut and sound badly. And it is shown on the visualizer panel.

I also saw some interesting research of one russian enthusiast, made several years ago. He compared the most popular audio codecs, both lossy and lossless. He encoded the same track with different bitrates and in different modes (where available), and built the spectrums. He used 2 sources - the third-party audio editor and his own utility (the reason was in fact not to check if the result is correct, but the built-in visualizer produced obviously incorrect spectrums with one or two formats - as I remember, the low frequencies were totally missed). So here we can't say it is "the product of imagination". It is clear from the output that MP3 is not the best choice, mp3PRO and AAC are much better. Also it is obvious from that comparison that lossless codecs give the very similar result, and lossy are far away from them in terms of "similarity" to the original spectrum (of PCM WAV). By the way, the images can be compared not only by eye, but also in some graphic editor.

Some commentors wrote "it is a waste of time to write about spectrums without taking into account the psycho-acoustic model and without real listening". But OK, I listen to MP3 and FLAC and I see the difference. Why? Because MP3s are cut about 18 kHz even on 320 kbps, and FLACS have 20 kHz and even more (which is shown in that pictures). Any MP3 encoder does it. And it doesn't only cut, it does some kind of "smoothing" on the top, which is probably necessary, but sounds awful. So, maybe my integrated card is very good compared to others integrated cards, maybe headphones are not as bad too. But the fact is what I mentioned.

By the way, there are a lot of factors that change our subjective feelings. Equalizer settings, the player (yes, Winamp has some options changing the sound, one is even enabled by default), even the volume level.
Now I open the FLAC, and my equalizer is set to increase the high frequencies a little. In case of MP3 (the same track of course), unfortunately, some high freq data is lost, and the other is a bit, well, distrorted. Of course FLAC is better biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Alex654: Nov 18 2013, 10:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Nov 18 2013, 15:54
Post #42





Group: Developer
Posts: 3208
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (Alex654 @ Nov 18 2013, 13:45) *
Visualizer in Winamp proves my feelings.
QUOTE (Alex654 @ Nov 18 2013, 13:45) *
It is clear from the output that MP3 is not the best choice, mp3PRO and AAC are much better.
QUOTE (Alex654 @ Nov 18 2013, 13:45) *
Also it is obvious from that comparison that lossless codecs give the very similar result

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LithosZA
post Nov 18 2013, 16:28
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 26-February 11
Member No.: 88525



QUOTE
It is clear from the output that MP3 is not the best choice, mp3PRO and AAC are much better

Are you saying that SBR butchered mp3PRO music sounds better than normal MP3?

QUOTE
And it doesn't only cut, it does some kind of "smoothing" on the top, which is probably necessary, but sounds awful

Prove the 'sounds awful'. I don't believe you smile.gif

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Nov 18 2013, 17:27
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: 22-March 09
Member No.: 68263



QUOTE (Alex654 @ Nov 18 2013, 10:45) *
Because MP3s are cut about 18 kHz even on 320 kbps, and FLACS have 20 kHz and even more (which is shown in that pictures).

Yeah, but most people above 20 years of age don't hear anything above 18kHz anyway, very few can hear up to 20kHz. You really shouldn't be judging graphs, because we don't listen with our eyes.


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post Nov 19 2013, 12:19
Post #45





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



QUOTE (ktf @ Nov 18 2013, 17:27) *
QUOTE (Alex654 @ Nov 18 2013, 10:45) *
Because MP3s are cut about 18 kHz even on 320 kbps, and FLACS have 20 kHz and even more (which is shown in that pictures).

Yeah, but most people above 20 years of age don't hear anything above 18kHz anyway, very few can hear up to 20kHz. You really shouldn't be judging graphs, because we don't listen with our eyes.

And, which is the reason why MP3 as well as other perceptual codecs cut very high frequency contents still retaining transparency, even if a young individual with very good ears could hear a single 20 kHz tone, he/she surely couldn't be able to perceive it when masked by lower tones, an in any real musical track.


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
XiaNYdE
post Jan 3 2014, 08:30
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 53578



Sorry to jump on an old topic but this is something i had been wondering and arguments of it being pointless are lost on me i have read all the posts had a laugh (especially the age ones, i am 43yo and often prove to friends in blind tests .mp3 is noticeable, that is just me however, each to their own)

I don't want to stream .flac to the web but i do want to stream it to a browser, i use a media solution that has a built in WebUI (awesome for today's portable devices) unfortunately it transcodes the .flacs coming from my server to .mp3 i am trying to find a way a browser can handle .flac so as i can possibly make a plug-in that allows for the .flac to stream and not transcode.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Jan 3 2014, 11:08
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 303
Joined: 22-March 09
Member No.: 68263



I know of a javascript implementation called FLAC.js or Audiocogs. Looks like that is what you need. http://audiocogs.org/


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 18th April 2014 - 02:41