RE: [SurroundSound] Re: Chicago Transit Authority - Quad DVD release ...

But the point is FLAC should be unadulterated at source and not messed up
with lossy shit encoding in the first place hence why folks complain when
someone uses FLAC from a lossy source and why many programs exist to verify
the source; if you need tagging (from a lossy source) use Ogg.

-----Original Message-----
From: surroundsound@googlegroups.com [mailto:surroundsound@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of scolumbo
Sent: 12 May 2011 22:17
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Chicago Transit Authority - Quad DVD release
...

Nope, not missing the point. FLAC as a means of archival is becoming the de
facto standard and doesn't have to be used only for lossless wav files.

Having my audio files in FLAC format that allows tagging, imbedded artwork,
can be streamed using my Oppo (hardware decoded) or my HTPC using foobar,
and is roughly 40% smaller in size than the original file depending on the
amount of compression used without loss of quality, makes perfect sense.

On May 12, 4:43 pm, Chris Lueders <c16ch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 7:35 pm, scolumbo <sacolu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My understanding of the FLAC format is there is no transcoding being
> > done at all.  FLAC is a codec that uses a lossless algorithm to
> > compress a file and with the appropriate decoder is then
> > decompressed to an original identical copy of the audio data. If  
> > the file is a DTS
> > (lossy) file, compressing and decompressing the file should have no
> > affect on the quality of the original file. FLAC is a container
> > format that merely makes the file size smaller (losslessly), no
> > different than zipping a file would.  
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flac
>
> You're missing the point here. Of course the data is not changed, but
> you're passing off a lossy rip as lossless because FLAC is primarily a
> lossless codec (not a container in the sense that WAV is) and is thus
> traditionally used to losslessly archive CD format or better, not
> lossy sources. What you're suggesting is the same as if you would
> transcode an MP3 to WAV. Sure, WAV is just a container and may contain
> any kind of sound data. But does it make sense? No. Btw, dts is
> already inside a wav container most of the time, so just rename it to
> xy.dts.wav if you must.
>
> Besides, the space gain is little and you lose the ability to hardware
> decode the DTS stream AFAIK when you stream from FLAC to a receiver.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com To
unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound