Why’s FLAC ‘the’ lossless codec? Is it future-proof(able)? Comparisons, [TOS #6: was “Future proof lossless audio/codec” in General Audio] Options

[eahm]

I am trying to understand why is FLAC standardizing in the lossless world? Reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...chnical_details isn't True Audio more future proof? All these channels and huge range, isn't it the "best" option for the next "100 years"?

If one day everyone will start using FLAC, will there be a way to expand the number of channels available? For expample the "new new" 12.1 Surround System or whatever they will come up with.

Just some thoughts, don't want to get anyone upset, I use FLAC and I love it.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by eahm: Jun 23 2012, 18:03

[Dario]

Well, I don’t know what kind of albums you guys use to compare those compression ratios.

I listen mostly to neofolk, and the results I get are quite different than the ones you do. Here’s the compression for the album “Forlatt” by Vàli (if you’re into good acoustic music, you may want to check it out yourself):

reference libFLAC 1.2.1 20070917 with -8: 157.129.638 bytes
TAK 2.2.0 with -p4m: 128.642.073 bytes

do you know how much difference that is (tip: it’s over 20%)? If you don't believe me, I can upload the album so you can check it out yourself. I hope you wouldn’t mind.

This post has been edited by Dario: Jun 24 2012, 20:22

[Porcus]

Well, I don’t know what kind of albums you guys use to compare those compression ratios.

The tests linked to, disclose the test corpus. As they should.

Those figures of yours (wow ...) don't state uncompressed size. If you ripped from CD, then bitrate (per second) is probably a better figure to state, as the uncompressed is 1440. (If you didn't ... say, bought a 48 kHz file off Bandcamp, or something like that, then state uncompressed.)


For my own CD rips:
616 kb/s for those sorted by composer (classical/contemporary), and
925 kb/s for those sorted by performing artist (jazz/rock/metal ... mainly the latter) – that is 50% more music per time unit!



Records, average over a physical CD (only counting CD rips):

252 for an Edith Piaf compilation which was auto-tagged as Voice of the Sparrow, disc 2 (those things show up with various titles, this was purchased as a single CD, I don't have disc 1 nor 3). Luckily it didn't show up any CD with a long silence in there.

1345 for Merzbow: Venereology. Listen to it and understand why. WavPack x6 improves it five percent to 1275 (just to compare, it compresses my only DTS CD to 1251).

This post has been edited by Porcus: Jun 24 2012, 22:01

[db1989]

I listen mostly to neofolk, and the results I get are quite different than the ones you do. Here’s the compression for the album “Forlatt” by Vàli […] do you know how much difference that is (tip: it’s over 20%)?

Those figures of yours (wow ...) don't state uncompressed size. If you ripped from CD, then bitrate (per second) is probably a better figure to state, as the uncompressed is 1440.

1411 kbps, surely?

But yeah, it would be good to have more information, such as uncompressed size/bitrate and a sample. On which note:

If you don't believe me, I can upload the album so you can check it out yourself. I hope you wouldn’t mind.

Hydrogenaudio limits sharing of copyrighted material to samples for use in demonstration/identification, which can be a maximum of 30 seconds long, so please don’t link any full album or even song (at least not publicly).

This post has been edited by db1989: Jun 25 2012, 06:56