ability to stream it easier in Foobar and tag the music. All the
artwork is there for anyone to see what the original source was. We
Hubbers have been sharing lossy sacd conversions as flacs for years
now, so what's the difference? Also I don't think one should dismiss
a release simply because it's in dts vs dvd-a. Sure we all wish it
was released in dvd-audio format, but that doesn't mean it sounds bad
at all. It's probably the best its ever sounded. If we're just after
lossless releases, that would exclude all the analog and digital sacd
conversions, Quad transfers, etc. I've removed the disc from my hub
share.
On May 12, 4:12 pm, "Lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely great point and agreed - and that is what's great about the hub
> and it's members
> Thanks to you personally...:-))
> Lokks
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: surroundsound@googlegroups.com [mailto:surroundsound@googlegroups.com]
>
> On Behalf Of scolumbo
> Sent: 12 May 2011 23:58
> To: SurroundSound
> Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Chicago Transit Authority - Quad DVD release
> ...
>
> While I'm no fan of lossy formats and Rhino made the mistake of releasing
> CTA and other Quadio releases without a lossless version, this CTA is
> exceptional, probably the best DTS disc I've heard, no doubt helped by a
> very good remastering process used. You shouldn't deprive yourself of
> hearing this release if this is a favorite.
>
> That said, the point of correctly labeling lossy formats is valid and one
> the frustrating aspects of the hub is the amount of real crap that is
> shared, much of it not labeled correctly or the source is unknown.
> That's why I border on being obsessive about labeling and tagging
> everything.
>
> On May 12, 6:22 pm, "Lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > First of all the problem is not yours but CTA. They released a sub
> > standard
> > (lossy) Remaster which was stupid from a company selling to us guys -
> > who crave and buy quality - put it this way - I've never bothered to
> > buy or even download it - although I love the album, but it is stupidly
> lossy.
> > The issue is not to remove your files but make sure that in the
> > tagging you label them as from a lossy source - if you're not sure
> > about all the things you can do in tagging use Winamp - I've tagged
> > all my oddities with this even if you don't use it to play tracks.
> > And thanks for sharing so all know what we mean. :-)))
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: surroundsound@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:surroundsound@googlegroups.com]
>
> > On Behalf Of scolumbo
> > Sent: 12 May 2011 22:42
> > To: SurroundSound
> > Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: Chicago Transit Authority - Quad DVD
> > release ...
>
> > I believe my flac files of the CTA DTS are identical to the original.
> > Do you have reason to think the they are not? Is the process of
> > compressing and decompressing the files using the FLAC codec causing the
> anxiety?
>
> > I'll continue to use FLAC as my means of archiving my audio collection
> > whether they are CD's, DVD-A rips, or DVD-V rips since I know they are
> > identical. If the consensus of the hub is that they are not to be
> > shared, so be it, I'll remove them. Those that may have received flacs
> > of the CTA should just delete them.
>
> > On May 12, 5:25 pm, "Lokkerman" <phil.steep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> > > athttp://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
> > athttp://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 athttp://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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
No comments:
Post a Comment