FLAC is never needed for streaming. To clarify, there are two types of codecs - lossy and lossless. Lossless (like FLAC) preserves all source data (it can compress it, but it's still quite large in result).
Lossy codecs (Opus, Vorbis, AAC, MP3 etc.) compress data with unrecoverable loss. I.e. you can't reconstruct raw original waveform from the lossy file. However, they have what's called a transparency level. It means level of compression / bitrate at which there is no audible difference with the raw original (or lossless compression). I.e. listening to such lossy audio you won't notice any difference. The catch is, if you'll try to reencode that lossy audio into some other lossy codec - then quality will degrade, because you are using already incomplete information with another lossy compression. I.e. each lossy codec has its own tricks how to discard less noticeable parts and keep more noticeable ones. So even at transparency level, if you combine them, you'll get more and more loss.
I.e. the main benefit of FLAC is simply having the master original, which allows you to encode it to any codec with transparency level. There is never a need to use FLAC for streaming, since you can stream any lossy codec encoded above transparency, and it will already be smaller in size than FLAC.
If you want more in-depth reading on it, see https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
---------- Updated at 01:18 PM ----------
To put it in a bit more practical terms, here is a scenario which shows the value of FLAC.
1. I buy the soundtrack in FLAC.
2. I encode it to state of the art lossy codec Opus above transparency level (for example 140 Kbit/s bitrate), and then listen to it using those resulted Opus files on my portable player, handset and other computers.
3. In some future, new state of the art lossy codec XYZ comes out, which reduces size of the transparent lossy audio in comparison with Opus and reduces computational intensity of decoding.
4. I encode my library of FLACs in XYZ, and start using that instead of Opus for listening to music. This reduces storage size and increases battery life since new codec is more efficient.
.... 3 and 4 repeat....
During all that, audible quality stays the same and never degrades.
You get the idea. Without having lossless FLAC you'll be stuck with whatever lossy codec you got the first time if you want to keep the quality.
Last edited:
You're one of those guys who hacks the PS4 servers every year, aren't you? XD
I got about one third of that, and it was mostly just the articles ("a", "the", etc..).
You're one of those guys who hacks the PS4 servers every year, aren't you? XD
I got about one third of that, and it was mostly just the articles ("a", "the", etc..).
Nah, I don't care about PS4 servers, but I salute those adventurous hackers who enabled running Linux on PS4 ;D
About above, a simple analogy to understand it better. In the classic analog audio, you can have master tape, and copies. Each subsequent copy from the copy reduces quality, while master tape can be used to produce acceptable quality copies from it. Lossy codec applied to lossy codec is like a tape copy from the copy - it always reduces quality. FLAC on the other hand is like the master tape from which you can make good copies. You can always encode from FLAC (to lossy with transparency in digital case) preserving the quality sufficiently.
Last edited:
Yes @Gilrond-i-Virdan spot on
I don't favour streaming much and I was aware of this, jesting how having your stuff in your disks is a far superior option.
I don't favour streaming much and I was aware of this, jesting how having your stuff in your disks is a far superior option.
Currently the only way to get the extended OST and expansion OSTs losslessly (eg: FLAC) is to stream them on Tidal, and likely break the ToS if you want to download them for offline use permanently.
Honestly, if CDPR released either a CD versions or lossless versions I'd jump at the opportunity but being limited to MP3s on services like Google Play, while at virtually transparent bitrates, is not something I care for. Marcin Przybyłowicz even uploaded a WAV version of the HoS main theme on Soundcloud yet the only purchasable versions are MP3.
It's a real pity as the OSTs are wonderful, including the new Gwent OST which AFAIK hasn't been released separately.
Honestly, if CDPR released either a CD versions or lossless versions I'd jump at the opportunity but being limited to MP3s on services like Google Play, while at virtually transparent bitrates, is not something I care for. Marcin Przybyłowicz even uploaded a WAV version of the HoS main theme on Soundcloud yet the only purchasable versions are MP3.
It's a real pity as the OSTs are wonderful, including the new Gwent OST which AFAIK hasn't been released separately.
Last edited:
The sad thing is, i would really like to support them and purchase the soundtrack asap, because it's absolutely worth it, but till now i must use the versions someone else purchased (or rent... don't know...) and uploaded on youtube.
For me, this is actually annoying ( bad quality, lags ) and for CDPR no money. Loss on both ends.
For me, this is actually annoying ( bad quality, lags ) and for CDPR no money. Loss on both ends.
Last edited:
This music needs to be either bundled with all preorders, or to be sold as CD. I don't have Google-Music in my country (Germany), i boycott all things Apple, and Spotify always needs 5-7min to open their website...
At least Spotify can be digitally recorded, and once in MP3 form, it can be played anytime, anywhere, without relying on an internet connection.
At least Spotify can be digitally recorded, and once in MP3 form, it can be played anytime, anywhere, without relying on an internet connection.
Mostly all of this is correct, good work, except every persons ears are different. So one persons transparency level is another dog's breakfast. Yes I'm exaggerating, but generally better to encode at higher bitrate, if you have the space don't encode/ Don't throw away that flac track either. 140kbit encoding is generally fine, a good starting point for computer/portable. I encourage anyone who is encoding to to a/b comparisons with the flac version and try to do it on the best audio system you have. what sounds the same on a portable player may sound not as good as you expected on a good system.
Then we have the other end of the scale where cd bitrates don't cut it and 24/96 or 24/192 is wanted. To my ears, CD doesn't cut it, 24/192 is barely, if any better than 24/96. If any one is still with me, 320kbms is generally accepted to be inaudible to 24/96 in A/B tests. Or thereabouts depends on who said what on which day.
I don't have a storage problem so I don't encode. I want my flacs at 24/96 and I listen to it all on a hifi system. I'm surprised, reading this thread, that stores and subscription services have the chutzpa to sell, or rather rent, a crappy lossy track. Music publishers and internet outlets have been selling flacs for 15 years and quite often at 25/96 or higher resolution.
Should mention cd is 16bit/44.1khz
To get back to the topic and my point, High quality flac files have a big market.
@nfi42: 24/192 is not needed. See the link I posted above it goes into it in great detail.
24 bit depth can be useful if you plan audio processing. For simple reencoding - not useful really.
140 Kbps is somewhere above transparency level for Opus. See http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
See also http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Opus
Each lossy codec has its own transparency level (i.e. bitrate), because they use different compression algorithms. I.e. number alone is quite useless without saying what codec it's applied to.
24 bit depth can be useful if you plan audio processing. For simple reencoding - not useful really.
140 Kbps is somewhere above transparency level for Opus. See http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
See also http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Opus
Each lossy codec has its own transparency level (i.e. bitrate), because they use different compression algorithms. I.e. number alone is quite useless without saying what codec it's applied to.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with any of this. My point was that transparency level is different between individuals and that for a good hifi system, 24/96 is needed, and is readily available in other stores.
@nfi42: Transparency level is somewhat different between people, true. But not much. That's why giving some margin makes it good enough. For Opus, 140 Kbps is already above transparency level probably for all people.
Same here.. i simply don't want to use this shitty services...
