Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17 |
flac. a good encoder gives you the ability to select your level of compression, so if you need to shrink files down a little you can always increase the compression level. I really don't want compression at all. With increasing storage space even on small devices like iPods, non-lossy files can be stored in reasonably large numbers. I don't think i need to have my entire music collection on a 1GB iPod at the sacrifice of compression. Honestly, with 2 terabyte drives at close to $100 a pop, to me, file size is becoming irrelevant True, but if i were to rip my files to WAV lets say, 60-100 MB per file is a bit too large. Flac is still kicking around? I just haven't heard much about it lately. Can flac files be played back on common players like iPods? I'm assuming they can with codec installation or even replacing the base player software to something else.
"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 375
devotee
|
devotee
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 375 |
I agree with Fred. 95% of my music is in Flac. The Sonos supports Flac (and other formats to, MP3, OGG, WAV, WMA etc..)
I use to favour APE but Flac is more supported and sounds excellent. I have very few MP3s and I look to replace them as soon as I can find a lossless version of it.
And like Fred says..disk space is cheap.
Acoustic Zen Adagio, Veritas center, Axiom EP500, QS8s, Anthem AVM20, MC20,Adcom GFA7400
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 375
devotee
|
devotee
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 375 |
Chess,
FLAC does compress the file size but not the bitrate, you still get maximum sound quality, just like the original WAV file, but in a smaller file. There is no downside to Flac compression.
Flac is very well supported, not sure about ipod cause I don't own one but most players I've seen do support Flac. Either natively with via a plug in.
Acoustic Zen Adagio, Veritas center, Axiom EP500, QS8s, Anthem AVM20, MC20,Adcom GFA7400
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17 |
I agree with Fred. 95% of my music is in Flac. The Sonos supports Flac (and other formats to, MP3, OGG, WAV, WMA etc..) Well this really is the key. If flac is widely enough supported for media players (iPod or other, Windows Media Player or Winamp or other common player), etc. then that's the way i will go. I've been eyeballing Sonos so it is nice to hear it supports the format.
"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
ALAC is also likely to stick around. Like it or not, Apple rules the market right now.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17 |
ALAC is also likely to stick around. Like it or not, Apple rules the market right now. Damn Apples.
"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466 |
I prefer free, and open codecs so they'll never go away, because no company can take the secrets with them. That said, ALAC has been reverse engineered well enough to encode and decode them with non-Apple software.
Still I keep all my file in .wav format on my hard drive (again, disk space is cheap), and then transcode to what ever I need for the player I'm using.
ALAC, FLAC, Monkey, WMA Pro, they all only get about 50% compression at best. Sure that means you can store twice as many songs, but it isn't like the 90% compression of MP3s where you'd get an order of magnitude more songs in the same amount of space. You can fit over 2000 CDs in .wav files on a terabyte drive. That should be enough for anyone.
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011 Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8 Sony PS4, surround backs -Chris
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
I believe I have 3500 on my 20 GB iPod. Not ALAC or WAV, of course.
EDIT: oh wait, you said 2000 albums. Nemmind...
Last edited by kcarlile; 10/12/09 06:27 PM.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,466 |
Assuming the average song is about 20 MB in an uncompressed wave, that would be 50,000 songs in 1 TB.
Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Marantz SR6011 Axiom M5HP, VP160HP, QS8 Sony PS4, surround backs -Chris
|
|
|
Re: I think I finally found the right solution
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,745 Likes: 17 |
I prefer free, and open codecs so they'll never go away, because no company can take the secrets with them. That said, ALAC has been reverse engineered well enough to encode and decode them with non-Apple software.
Still I keep all my file in .wav format on my hard drive (again, disk space is cheap), and then transcode to what ever I need for the player I'm using.
ALAC, FLAC, Monkey, WMA Pro, they all only get about 50% compression at best. Sure that means you can store twice as many songs, but it isn't like the 90% compression of MP3s where you'd get an order of magnitude more songs in the same amount of space. You can fit over 2000 CDs in .wav files on a terabyte drive. That should be enough for anyone. Yes and i agree. Space isn't so much an issue with large HD and smaller devices such as iPods will increase with storage capacity over time. That being said, to recode a 150 mb wav file vs its 50 mb flac equivalent is more time consuming (with an automated process one can run such batch files overnight i suppose but still, if both are equally lossless then why not just go with flac?). Is wav considered a more simple, standard? It has been around for a LONG time. So why use wav files then instead of flac which is an equally lossless format, but still producing smaller file sizes? I'm curious. Is it easier to recode wav than flac to other formats? (and by easier, more user friendly apps, no codec package installs, etc.)
"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,484
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
1,228
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|