Developers of the MP3 Have Officially Killed It

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't see myself switching to flac, but I do worry about all my preferred file formats becoming obsolete.

One of the benefits of FLAC is, specifically, being lossless. You can convert from FLAC to APE to ALAC and back again and still have bit-perfect copies. You can convert to whatever someone comes up with five, ten, twenty five, a hundred years from now and still have bit-perfect copies. You can convert FLAC to any format supported by any digital player ever made or will ever will be made. It's perfect future-proofing.

[FizzyWater]

Given that formats come and go, why would it be safe to assume that FLAC itself is future-proof?

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Given that formats come and go, why would it be safe to assume that FLAC itself is future-proof?

I'm not sure I understand the question so let me ask this: why do you think it isn't?

[tubemonkey]

No FLAC in my life. My ears are very happy with MP3

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Doesn't the Sansa Clip play FLAC files?

Yes it does, but I hate them.
I like mp3.

(My sansa clip is a "zip" which has Rockbox on it.)

I once played a song on the cd itself, followed by its rip of the mp3, and I cannot tell the difference, so my mp3s are satisfactory to me. No need to change.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I'm not sure I understand the question so let me ask this: why do you think it isn't?

I'm not sure I know how to say it differently....if the purpose of burning to FLAC first is because other formats like MP3 might become obsolete, why would there be an assumption that eventually FLAC would still be readable?

It was more of a curiosity question than trying to say FLAC is better or MP3 is better. I understand the concept that it's better to go from lossless when creating new copies in different versions. I was just trying to say that just because you pick a loss format FLAC, there's no more guarantee that it will survive than MP3 will.

[chrisridd]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Bit-perfect pre-gap and post-gap between tracks.

Yes, that's true.

Originally Posted by ratinox

C.f. MicroSparc, Inc. vs. Amtype Corp. for why you might not want to be admitting that in public.

I'm not sure that's relevant? I still own the CDs, and could still rip them if I wanted.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

Given that formats come and go, why would it be safe to assume that FLAC itself is future-proof?

FLAC is open source and it's lossless. So if you need to, you can convert from FLAC to some other format if need be. It's a very good source format and it's not going anyplace.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Yes it does, but I hate them.
I like mp3.

(My sansa clip is a "zip" which has Rockbox on it.)

I once played a song on the cd itself, followed by its rip of the mp3, and I cannot tell the difference, so my mp3s are satisfactory to me. No need to change.

How can you hate FLAC? So what you are saying is you hate the sound of the CD you bought. That's just silly.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

How can you hate FLAC? So what you are saying is you hate the sound of the CD you bought. That's just silly.

At the time, the rip made the whole album one entire file. I wanted to listen to only one song. But the rip of mp3 separated it into songs in numbered order on the album. Easier to find what I wanted to put on my play list.

Maybe it was just what was used for the rip at the time? I dunno, was years ago.

But as for mp3 vs flac vs the cd itself.... no I did not notice the difference between the rip of a song and the song itself from the unripped cd. I don't know what "loss" I am supposed to be noticing. (a microsecond of content? When I'm vegging out and hearing a song or a concerto, or what have you, I don't listen critically) I figure if I don't notice the difference, then I apparently am not one of the majority demanding for something "better".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

At the time, the rip made the whole album one entire file. I wanted to listen to only one song. But the rip of mp3 separated it into songs in numbered order on the album. Easier to find what I wanted to put on my play list.

It's the settings in the program you used to rip the CD to FLAC that are incorrect. You can easily RIP as tracks to FLAC.

[Apache]

If my hearing was better I might want to listen to FLAC. With my hearing loss, I can not tell the difference between a song played as an MP3 or a FLAC file.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Apache

If my hearing was better I might want to listen to FLAC. With my hearing loss, I can not tell the difference between a song played as an MP3 or a FLAC file.
Apache

My experience is that, once you get to a bitrate of around 200kbs or higher, nobody can tell the difference. I rip my classical music CDs as 320k MP3s, and I can't tell the difference between those MP3s and the original CDs, even on my pretty decent HiFi system.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My experience is that, once you get to a bitrate of around 200kbs or higher, nobody can tell the difference. I rip my classical music CDs as 320k MP3s, and I can't tell the difference between those MP3s and the original CDs, even on my pretty decent HiFi system.

Some of us can't tell the difference at WMA 32kbps.
(One rock concert too many. But Cindy Lauper nailed it.)

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I'm not sure I know how to say it differently....if the purpose of burning to FLAC first is because other formats like MP3 might become obsolete, why would there be an assumption that eventually FLAC would still be readable?

It's not because MP3 might become obsolete. It's because FLAC is lossless. Because it is lossless it can be used to precisely replicate the original source. And because FLAC (and MP3 for that matter) is software it cannot be made obsolete by manufacturers ceasing to manufacture media and players. It will only be obsolete when nobody uses it.