QUOTE(jcoalson @ May 5 2008, 21:41) 
there was but it's stalled right now. the only major new thing slated is rf64/wave64 support.
Thnx for the reply
Full Version: Future of flac? Flac 2.0?
Thnx for the reply
QUOTE
One problem would be that you would have to wait a couple of seconds before the songs starts, and that would only get even worse when you want to listen to an album from start to the end.
You'd think that current media players would compensate for that by now.
Usability could be improved upon. I can create FLAC files but can't enjoy them easily.
Tools are out of date, there should be a flawless directshow decoder by now, and WMP support should be forced or hacked. WMP Tag Support Extender doesn't provide year or track length, I can't update tags from within WMP or MCE, and I can't seek.
Tools are out of date, there should be a flawless directshow decoder by now, and WMP support should be forced or hacked. WMP Tag Support Extender doesn't provide year or track length, I can't update tags from within WMP or MCE, and I can't seek.
QUOTE(73ChargerFan @ Jun 7 2008, 11:39)
Usability could be improved upon. I can create FLAC files but can't enjoy them easily.
Tools are out of date, there should be a flawless directshow decoder by now, and WMP support should be forced or hacked. WMP Tag Support Extender doesn't provide year or track length, I can't update tags from within WMP or MCE, and I can't seek.
that's pretty wmp-centric (though not sure what you mean by "out of date"). wmp is a closed-source, proprietary monstrosity (just ask the flac directshow filter guy how hard it was to get even the current one working). there's not much anyone but microsoft can do about that.Tools are out of date, there should be a flawless directshow decoder by now, and WMP support should be forced or hacked. WMP Tag Support Extender doesn't provide year or track length, I can't update tags from within WMP or MCE, and I can't seek.
outside of wmp and itunes things are much better.
QUOTE(jcoalson @ Jun 7 2008, 22:11)
QUOTE(73ChargerFan @ Jun 7 2008, 11:39)
Usability could be improved upon. I can create FLAC files but can't enjoy them easily.
Tools are out of date, there should be a flawless directshow decoder by now, and WMP support should be forced or hacked. WMP Tag Support Extender doesn't provide year or track length, I can't update tags from within WMP or MCE, and I can't seek.
that's pretty wmp-centric (though not sure what you mean by "out of date"). wmp is a closed-source, proprietary monstrosity (just ask the flac directshow filter guy how hard it was to get even the current one working). there's not much anyone but microsoft can do about that.Tools are out of date, there should be a flawless directshow decoder by now, and WMP support should be forced or hacked. WMP Tag Support Extender doesn't provide year or track length, I can't update tags from within WMP or MCE, and I can't seek.
outside of wmp and itunes things are much better.
Yeah, if you're stuck on Windows, just use foobar2000 instead - it's a much better audio player than either WMP or iTunes. Of course, Amarok 2 is coming to Windows (and Mac) soon, so it won't matter what OS you're using then
QUOTE
that's pretty wmp-centric (though not sure what you mean by "out of date"). wmp is a closed-source, proprietary monstrosity (just ask the flac directshow filter guy how hard it was to get even the current one working). there's not much anyone but microsoft can do about that.outside of wmp and itunes things are much better
That's why I hate Microsoft. That's why I hate proprietary software.
ok, let's just do the ha FLAC online drm-free super store, who else do you think will take this chalenge? Do you people have at least minimal scenario of how to actually do that? (approaching the labels, performers maybe?)
They 'should' only DRM lossy. DRM lossless is well.. is this lossless ?? What's the point like lossless archiving has to be pure IMO. Lossless has the tech geek appeal therefore I don't see the need to DRM there. Lossy is easy for a lot of people with less technical aptitude so could be seen as a bigger threat.
what 'they should' is irrelevant, come up with a lossless audio store scenario or the future will be mr. Jobs...
QUOTE(srunni @ Jun 7 2008, 22:47)
just use foobar2000 instead - it's a much better audio player than ...
I use foobar2000. IMHO, it is the most powerful, and definitely the most complicated program I use on a regular basis. I cannot train my family to use it.
MCE2005 is the heart of my entertainment system, and my 5 year old and wife can play videos and music very easily on it, and with its remote control. I haven't found anything I like better or that is easier to use, except perhaps VistaMCE.
I've got a thousand or so CDs to rip, and am hopeful that FLAC will be more compatible by then. Or perhaps a better theater / dvr / music player app will arrive.
QUOTE(shadowking @ Jun 8 2008, 11:29)
They 'should' only DRM lossy. DRM lossless is well.. is this lossless ?? What's the point like lossless archiving has to be pure IMO. Lossless has the tech geek appeal therefore I don't see the need to DRM there. Lossy is easy for a lot of people with less technical aptitude so could be seen as a bigger threat.
Wouldn't any sort of DRM on a loss-less file be kind of pointless? As removing the DRM would be trivial, just a simple cause of capturing the raw-PCM output from the sound card.
One of the reasons why DRM is quite effective is because burning it to a CD/capturing the PCM data and then re-encoding it introduces artefacts.
Regards, Freddie.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.