Hi folks! Due to the fact that more and more users increasingly use MP3 < 320kbps as their source for encoding music, and publish it as flac files, I suggest that something is done in the flac encoder to possible avoid this. My idea is kinda easy/stupid, but might work; Implement a function that use a FFT to check if the input has frequencies > 16kHz, and informs the user that the file would not be encoded unless a -force parameter is specified (or at least ask the user if he or she want to do this :) ) Hopefully, this will reduce the number of files released on the internet, re-encoded from a lossy file format. Unfortunately, many users avoid using flac, because they think the encoder is lossy due to the poor sound on some files released. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, J?rgen Vigdal jorgen at anion.no Phone: +47 91320132 jorgenvigdal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20110107/4a2cc448/attachment.htm
Its really sad to hear thats happening but even more sad is the fact that flac is becoming a very common format for music on the interweb whilst at the same time the development has ceased. I've found some severe issues with OggFLAC that essentially make it a useless format for streaming, no one cared. -David Listener of many flacs On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, J?rgen Vigdal <jorgen at anion.no> wrote:> Hi folks! > Due to the fact that more and more users increasingly use MP3 < 320kbps as > their source for encoding music, and publish it as flac files, I suggest > that something is done in the flac encoder to possible avoid this. > My idea is kinda easy/stupid, but might work; > Implement a function that use a FFT to check if the input has frequencies > > 16kHz, and informs the user that the file would not be encoded unless a > -force parameter is specified (or at least ask the user if he or she want to > do this :) ) > Hopefully, this will reduce the number of files released on the internet, > re-encoded from a lossy file format. Unfortunately, many users avoid using > flac, because they think the encoder is lossy due to the poor sound on some > files released. > Thanks in advance. > Sincerely, > J?rgen Vigdal > jorgen at anion.no > Phone: +47 91320132 > jorgenvigdal.com > _______________________________________________ > Flac-dev mailing list > Flac-dev at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev > >
Yes, that was even more sad. Do you know if any of the developers wishes to continue the project? - J?rgen. On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:56 PM, David Richards wrote:> Its really sad to hear thats happening but even more sad is the fact > that flac is becoming a very common format for music on the interweb > whilst at the same time the development has ceased. I've found some > severe issues with OggFLAC that essentially make it a useless format > for streaming, no one cared. > > -David > Listener of many flacs > > > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, J?rgen Vigdal <jorgen at anion.no> wrote: >> Hi folks! >> Due to the fact that more and more users increasingly use MP3 < 320kbps as >> their source for encoding music, and publish it as flac files, I suggest >> that something is done in the flac encoder to possible avoid this. >> My idea is kinda easy/stupid, but might work; >> Implement a function that use a FFT to check if the input has frequencies > >> 16kHz, and informs the user that the file would not be encoded unless a >> -force parameter is specified (or at least ask the user if he or she want to >> do this :) ) >> Hopefully, this will reduce the number of files released on the internet, >> re-encoded from a lossy file format. Unfortunately, many users avoid using >> flac, because they think the encoder is lossy due to the poor sound on some >> files released. >> Thanks in advance. >> Sincerely, >> J?rgen Vigdal >> jorgen at anion.no >> Phone: +47 91320132 >> jorgenvigdal.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Flac-dev mailing list >> Flac-dev at xiph.org >> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev >> >>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:56 PM, David Richards <rawdod at gmail.com> wrote:> Its really sad to hear thats happening but even more sad is the fact > that flac is becoming a very common format for music on the interweb > whilst at the same time the development has ceased. I've found some > severe issues with OggFLAC that essentially make it a useless format > for streaming, no one cared.could have fooled slimdevices/logitech, which sends FLAC to all their boxes.
I like this idea. I've been looking for an open source project to get my feet wet with. I'd love to work on the FLAC library, but I don't know jack s**t about compression algorithms, and I've never worked on a large project before. If someone would help guide me in the right direction, I'd love to do some of that code. - Brian Waters PS, whats the deal with the codebase being frozen? On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, J?rgen Vigdal <jorgen at anion.no> wrote:> Hi folks! > Due to the fact that more and more users increasingly use MP3 < 320kbps as > their source for encoding music, and publish it as flac files, I suggest > that something is done in the flac encoder to possible avoid this. > My idea is kinda easy/stupid, but might work; > Implement a function that use a FFT to check if the input has frequencies > > 16kHz, and informs the user that the file would not be encoded unless a > -force parameter is specified (or at least ask the user if he or she want to > do this :) ) > Hopefully, this will reduce the number of files released on the internet, > re-encoded from a lossy file format. Unfortunately, many users avoid using > flac, because they think the encoder is lossy due to the poor sound on some > files released. > Thanks in advance. > Sincerely, > J?rgen Vigdal > jorgen at anion.no > Phone: +47 91320132 > jorgenvigdal.com > _______________________________________________ > Flac-dev mailing list > Flac-dev at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev > >
First of all, I am not aware of any official source of FLAC files that provide MP3 sourced data. I meticulously check the music I purchase, especially when it is 24/48 or 24/96 material, because this is new technology, and sometimes people get it wrong. However, you should be aware that many modern producers use software to create their music, and when the software stores sound clips in MP3 format, what you end up with is music that sometimes looks like MP3. I recently purchased a second release of an old download from an artist who has his material re-mastered. Since he made such a big deal about the re-mastering, I took a close look at the quality. For some reason, the second track looked like an MP3 source, but I'm sure it just has to do with the software that was used to create the music originally. In other words, if you try to shut down the FLAC encoder based on an FFT, you might have a lot of false triggers! I purchase a great deal of music, exclusively in FLAC format. I purchase from LINN Records, Bleep.com, Warp Records, and also directly from artists like Nine Inch Nails who provide FLAC files. I have never seen anyone provide MP3 quality. For that matter, OggFLAC seems to be a format that has never been used. Ever. I have simply never come across a legitimate source of music for purchasing which used the OggFLAC format. I have seen FLAC come and go and come back again. Various online record labels started out with FLAC for bandwidth reasons. Then they seemed to switch over to WAV as bandwidth became less of an issue, and I assume that their customers were confused by FLAC because of the lack of support in iTunes and other highly popular players. Meanwhile, hardware such as the Sound Devices 700 Series, the Squeezebox, and many other professional products has started with FLAC and stuck with it. The sites who switched to WAV are now bringing back FLAC, but none of them have ever used OggFLAC. Finally, I think that people who are not embedded firmware developers do not understand why the FLAC sources have stopped changing. What we have here is a rare case of a professional set of sources which do not have bugs, and which represents a solid standard that does not need changing. People are selling hardware devices in droves, and they cannot afford to change their firmware every time some random change happens in the FLAC source. It's actually way better that FLAC is not changing. Even when Apple came out with ALAC, their version of FLAC, I noticed that they could not consistently beat FLAC on coding speed and file size. Some audio turns out smaller with ALAC, other audio turns out smaller with FLAC. Overall, the average performance is identical. Apple hired some of the most amazing geniuses of physics to design ALAC, and if they can't beat the performance of FLAC in all situations, then what makes you think there is any reason to make a single change to the FLAC sources? While I'm writing, I also want to respond to the question about how to change FLAC so that all of the third party tools pick up the change. Well, I don't think that is possible. Many tools run the command-line flac utility behind the scenes. Others use the FLAC library directly. The problem is that both of them often run with out of date versions of the FLAC code, so no matter which way they incorporate the official FLAC sources, you cannot make them update to your anti-MP3 version. On that last note, I want to encourage you to experiment and have fun trying to create an MP3 detector that could warn users about quality issues. However, I believe it is extremely unlikely that you would ever be successful in getting your code into the official FLAC sources. This kind of change has nothing to do with the official FLAC format, and thus I doubt there would be any professional interest in changing things just for the sake of change or "newness." Brian Willoughby Sound Consultinf On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:56, David Richards wrote:> Its really sad to hear thats happening but even more sad is the fact > that flac is becoming a very common format for music on the interweb > whilst at the same time the development has ceased. I've found some > severe issues with OggFLAC that essentially make it a useless format > for streaming, no one cared. > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM, J?rgen Vigdal <jorgen at anion.no> wrote: >> Due to the fact that more and more users increasingly use MP3 < >> 320kbps as >> their source for encoding music, and publish it as flac files, I >> suggest >> that something is done in the flac encoder to possible avoid this. >> My idea is kinda easy/stupid, but might work; >> Implement a function that use a FFT to check if the input has >> frequencies > >> 16kHz, and informs the user that the file would not be encoded >> unless a >> -force parameter is specified (or at least ask the user if he or >> she want to >> do this :) ) >> Hopefully, this will reduce the number of files released on the >> internet, >> re-encoded from a lossy file format. Unfortunately, many users >> avoid using >> flac, because they think the encoder is lossy due to the poor >> sound on some >> files released. > >
> whilst at the same time the development has ceased. I've found some > severe issues with OggFLAC that essentially make it a useless format > for streaming, no one cared.Yes, this is sad. cdparanoia, which could be considered a strong opensource meatspace partner to FLAC (along with cdda2wav) is also effectively dead. All three living on only in the ports trees of various operating systems. Minor bugs and doc fixes are always needed. What's worse is, when the heat turns up on dead projects, instead of just stepping up or handing off in a competitive/proposal/worthy yet time limited process, the authors emit some sort of lame 'Hey yeah, new release coming' message in an attempt to maintain ownership, which of course goes nowhere. It's really just a disservice to themselves and the community. Sad indeed. Have people forgotten what opensource is all about? There are plenty of people capable of doing these two. Certainly ripping. Fork I say. I love these projects, and their authors. So not as an affront to prior authors, but for betterment of the projects, always. And in regards to 'piracy'... I think it's safe to clearly and plainly say that the idea of a band/artist/whatever making their bread on CD sales is long dead. Not only did the labels never care to pay them properly (among other things, including going pop), but the digital revolution simply won't tolerate that model. Album production and sales, whether physical or digital, are merely required promotional spinoffs now. I say give that $10 you *might* have spent on used copy directly to the band via paypal and pirate away. Losslessly of course :) The only thing that will save CD is the band being the rightsholder (elminating the traditional labels) and distribution companies (who do only distribution) to a diverse range of retailers for a flat per unit fee just like any other category of distributed merchandise, groceries, shoes, tools, whatever.