Re: [ARSCLIST] FLAC

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for all the good tips. Here's the issue I run into -- WinXP systems, none clogged with 
junkware running in the background, IT skills enough to keep them running smoothly and unbloated. 
Many of these "group project" players are unstable. They either crash eventually when nothing else 
is running or they crash when other programs are in use. The standard issue MS WinMediaPlayer does 
not do this. iTunes, even though it is a bloated resource hog and the Quicktime player engine 
butchers WAV audio for some reason, does not crash the computer. Of course Soundforge doesn't crash 
the computer. I have used WinAmp and find it inferior as a player (sound quality), as a ripper 
(using the aptly-named LAME engine) and as a user interface, so why bloat up the computer with bad 
software? So, I guess for us mainstream users, when FLAC gets more mainstream (ie a stable plugin 
for WinMediaPlayer or iTunes) we'll dip our feet. For now, I do find Apple's lossless format very 
good on the iPod but I mostly rip at 256k MP3 to have maximum music per gigabyte. On headphones or 
in the car, that's good enough quality -- a lot better than cassettes used to be and heck of a lot 
more convenient.

By the way, this might be useful to some others. Given the way Quicktime butchers WAV (I read 
somewhere -- might be myth -- that the Windows version converts WAV to QT before playing it, in any 
case it makes WAV files sound awful on any computer I've tried it, variety of soundcards), I split 
my default apps for different formats. I actually have WinMediaPlayer as the default player for 
double-clicking any formats except Quicktime and the other proprietary Apple formats (which have to 
default to the QT player or iTunes) and WAV (which defaults to Soundforge on computers that have it, 
or WinMediaPlayer on the others). WinMediaPlayer opens quickly and plays the formats reliably 
(WinMedia, MP3, CD Audio, various video formats, and CD-quality WAV). iTunes is too bloated for me 
to use as the default -- takes a long time to open and then the sound quality isn't good for WAV 
anyway and not great for CD audio. There's a little app called Player that I use for CD playback on 
my Studio "recorder" DAW. It's very low-resource and simple and crash-proof, and it doesn't mangle 
the digital stream with software. I avoid the Real player like the plague and won't do Real 
streaming media.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Dix" <edix@xxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FLAC


> Hi Tom!
>
> There should be flac plugins for windows media player.
>
> You could also try the vlc player. This little program plays almost anything
>
> http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
>
> or winamp would play it as well
>
> Erik
>
>
>
>
> Tom Fine wrote:
> > One man's ears here, but I prefer the SACD audio reproduction on my mid-priced ($550 street 
> > price) Marantz universal DVD/CD/SACD player and even my low-priced ($150 street price) Toshiba 
> > universal player to ANY Sony SACD of any price I've heard. So no matter the price, it could have 
> > just been a bad SACD player.
> >
> > That said, I've heard 96/24 PCM and SACD audio of the same source and can't tell any difference 
> > so my ears might not be as gold-leafed as others'. I can tell the difference between CD of the 
> > same source and either hi-rez format, and the hi-rez does seem to have a nicer top end and bit 
> > more air and space around things, but not enough that I'd go replace my whole CD collection. 
> > Unfortunately the hybrid SACD/CD format never reached critical mass, so the next hope is that at 
> > least CD-quality digital downloads will one day be the dollar choice, as opposed to the complete 
> > ripoff of iTunes and Amazon lossy-compressed dollar downloads.
> >
> > Are there any Flac players for us non-geeks, something that works at least as well and is at 
> > least as fully featured as the Windows Media Player? Are there Flac add-ins for iTunes or are you 
> > stuck with Apple's proprietary but good lossless format in the iPod world?
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "carlstephen koto" <cskoto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 7:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FLAC
> >
> >
> > > I knew that FLAC was fast becoming the format of choice with younger  folks who were looking to 
> > > store their music in an uncompressed state.  But, I had very little experience with it before. I 
> > > was happily  surprised by the sound quality of the better downloads I've now  heard, and feel 
> > > that (at least in it's 24/96 form)the quality is  limited more often by the source recording 
> > > than the math.
> > >
> > > Regarding the difference in sound quality of the SACD's and the 24/96  downloads, to me, it 
> > > sounds akin to generational losses in the analog  domain. Why that is, I don't know for sure but 
> > > my guess is that there  are some areas of HiRez disc production that still need some ironing 
> > > out.
> > > Steve Koto
> > > On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Jim Sam wrote:
> > >
> > > > I believe Trent Reznor was selling no-DRM FLAC files in the release  of Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts 
> > > > release and the Saul Williams record he  produced.  He also gave away 96/24 files for free on 
> > > > his latest NIN  album.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > At 12:33 PM 6/8/2008, you wrote:
> > > > > I am intrigued to find that at least one website (http:// www.hdtracks.com)
> > > > > is selling CD-quality music tracks, with FLAC as a format option,  and no
> > > > > DRM. I'm curious whether anyone else is using FLAC commercially.  This is
> > > > > obviously only a case or two, but would this not bode well for the  future
> > > > > of the format?
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt Snyder
> > > > > Music Archivist
> > > > > Wilson Processing Project
> > > > > The New York Public Library