Thirty years from now there will be little reason to compress files as small as those used for audio. Network speeds and storage device capacity will dwarf what currently exists. It would be like bothering to compress an 80k spreadsheet today.
Quote from: krafty on 25 June, 2012, 07:34:54 PMI think FLAC is popular because it was on the internet scene first.There once was a lossless codec called shorten.
I think FLAC is popular because it was on the internet scene first.
One could argue that "WMA" and "AAC" are just as easy to pronounce as "MP3" and that "Ogg" is actually easier (completely ignoring the fact that the lossy codec is actually called "Vorbis," of course.)
However, FLAC does not sound nice to anyone cognisant of WWII; the phrase 'taking the flak' (originally meaning being shot at) is still in use.
there is areas like
Records, average over a physical CD (only counting CD rips): 252 for an Edith Piaf compilation which was auto-tagged as Voice of the Sparrow, disc 2 (those things show up with various titles, this was purchased as a single CD, I don't have disc 1 nor 3). Luckily it didn't show up any CD with a long silence in there.
1345 for Merzbow: Venereology. Listen to it and understand why. WavPack x6 improves it five percent to 1275 (just to compare, it compresses my only DTS CD to 1251).
And seriously, regarding FLAC’s popularity—private torrent trackers have to be mentioned. They’re literally the biggest source of FLAC (that’s the only format they, or at least the trackers that ‘matter’, are allowing) files that is currently available (be it legally or illegally). You just can’t ignore that.
Wavpack […] found its way into the .zip format.
The format war was over before bittorrent was even invented.
Quote from: Soap on 02 July, 2012, 11:04:16 AMThe format war was over before bittorrent was even invented.BitTorrent was actually released 19 days before FLAC.
I'm amazed nobody has mentioned that FLAC's dominance was caused by joining xiph.org.
flac was winning (if not standard) years before xiph took it.
I am trying to understand why is FLAC standardizing in the lossless world? Reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...chnical_details isn't True Audio more future proof? All these channels and huge range, isn't it the "best" option for the next "100 years"?If one day everyone will start using FLAC, will there be a way to expand the number of channels available? For expample the "new new" 12.1 Surround System or whatever they will come up with.Just some thoughts, don't want to get anyone upset, I use FLAC and I love it.Thanks.