it is open source right?So no need to ask questions, just fork it under a new name "flac2", make a nice page on what it can do and what is planned to do […] A nice hi-def picture of Josh holding a cigar with a title: "He knows audio" should also be considered
In seriousness, I wonder whether LithosZA is correct that there’s little point in supporting very high bit-depths and sampling rates. Josh already noted that the main utility (not necessarily use, thanks to the pyrite-ears community; rather, usefulness) of such parameters is in editing/engineering, and while I can conceive of a scenario in which one wants to backup a project without having its uncompressed files take up so much space, I wonder whether that really needs to be a concern or at least a priority. But then again, would it be relatively trivial to add it and keep everyone happy?
Main users of HD feature will be almost certainly home users
But it makes zero sense to use floats for archival. Even for backing up a project you're in the process of editing, under almost all circumstances, if you care enough about storage space to use compression and you're willing to wait for a FLAC encode/decode, you might as well also have the audio normalized and stored at 24 bits. You then just convert the 24-bit samples back to float when you load your backup. Nothing of value is lost.
So floating point support, ReplayGain support for 192kHz and higher recordings, etc. might be nifty, and those changes might make some people stop complaining, but it's hard to argue that these matter to hardly any use cases or that they should take priority.
But perhaps more importantly:[…]Making some people stop complaining can be very beneficial for marketing purposes. A lot of people simply think bigger number=better. Not just housewifes who can't use a computer, even many (influential) enthusiasts, people like Neil Young etc.So, might as well add 64 bit support while we're at it. Imagine the headlines!
I'm not sure I agree with what I think you're implying (that adding ridiculously high specs is some sort of deceiving).
I would disagree with promoting [high resolutions] with statements like "it improves the sound", but I wasn't suggesting doing that.
obviously float doesn't clip.
Quote from: smok3 on 01 September, 2012, 02:40:25 PMMain users of HD feature will be almost certainly home users*Sigh.* You couldn't tell he was joking about going around yelling "HD!"? So-called "HD audio" is of zero real value to home users.32-bit floats aren't "higher-definition" than 24-bit in any useful way. A 32-bit float has 24 bits of mantissa precision. Yes, that's one bit more than 24-bit
If you didn’t meant that the next maintainer(s) of FLAC should add support for higher resolutions in order to pacify those who wrongly believe that “bigger is better” in this context, you shouldn’t have chosen a configuration of words that says just that.
(here's a thread about its potential/theoretical usefulness, including a quoted post about how to bring 32bit float to its limits--I haven't tried that myself, don't know how valid it is)