I'm looking for a web player (flash ?) I can embbed in my html pages in order to allow site visitors to play FLAC audio file.
(juste need a start/stop/pause button and a progression bar).
I've found several tool on the web. Either as Java or as Flash but only for mp3 files ..... nothing for FLAC files
Why on earth would you have them play as flac rather than mp3?
I'm not sure if they have the solution, but both Ampache (http://ampache.org/) and Sockso (http://sockso.pu-gh.com/) support FLAC. Perhaps they both just re-encode everything to MP3 and feed it to the included web player or they added support client-wise. Another direction to search would be jFLAC (http://jflac.sourceforge.net/) which probably allows to implement a player but only as a rather "big" java application.
Thanks for the quick answer
At a first sight :
-Sockso looks like an application for pc's/windows machine.
-jFlac seems to need several developpment to be implemented (unfortunatly I'm not a web developper).
Maybe a solution can be on the Ampache way ... altought it's look like a B52 used for kiling a bee. I'll investigate to extract only the player part of the software
@pdq: because I produce my music in FLAC format ... not mp3.
@pdq: because I produce my music in FLAC format ... not mp3.
He's questioning you because flac files are quite large compared to mp3. Your ordinary visitor isn't going to care or notice that your streamed files are lossless. The whole point of lossy encoding (mp3 et al.) is to deliver content that is (a) more or less perceptually transparent vs. the original and (b) a fraction of the size.
You're free to do whatever you want, but hosting/streaming flac files is a huge waste in storage and bandwidth.
It's not really the point of my original question but ok :
- Im a musician but I produce music for limited audience wich consist mainly of other musicians/friends.
- By default I produce in flac format.
- Building "final files" using the daw is a time consuming operation, and I don't want to spend more time behind the pc than behind my instruments by having to perform multiple generation or conversions.
- Space/bandwitch is no more an issue neither from an hosting point of view (100GB space/1TB bw for less than 5€/month) nor from a user point of view.
It's why I'm looking for a small applet like http://www.flashmp3player.org/ (http://www.flashmp3player.org/) but for FLAC files instead of mp3
Couldn't your server convert on-the-fly to a high bitrate lossy format?
- Building "final files" using the daw is a time consuming operation, and I don't want to spend more time behind the pc than behind my instruments by having to perform multiple generation or conversions.
Not at all. I assume you already have the flacs created/mastered, say you have 10 or 20 tracks you want to stream. Just load them into a converter application (foobar is recommended), pick the appropriate conversion settings for your lossy/mp3 files, and go. 1 click and it's done in less than 10 minutes.
- Space/bandwitch is no more an issue neither from an hosting point of view (100GB space/1TB bw for less than 5€/month) nor from a user point of view.
So everyone visiting the site will have the bandwidth to stream flac bitrates (~500kbps and higher)?
I record nearly a session a day .... so I don't want to get into such anoying conversion process at the end of every night ^^
If there is no solution for flac streaming I will investigate streaming wav files. But I'm very disapointed a such "simple" fonctionnality seems to doesn't exist for a such popular format
(Don't want to unleash a troll here but, from my point of view, mp3 is not an acceptable option for music)
I hate to reiterate it, but maybe someone else besides Remedial Sound has to mention it:
streaming audio in a lossless format is completely pointless, since you can achieve transparency with modern codecs with a fraction of the bitrate of lossless encoding, resulting in:
1. reduced bandwidth usage on your end (money saving)
2. reduced bandwidth usage on the listeners end (money saving/prevents stuttering on bad connections)
3. saved space
4. available software for streaming
all of this for the same perceived audio quality. You can and should of course save the records in some lossless format, and maybe send the files to interested listeners on request.
http://www.stigc.dk/projects/JavaTunes/ (http://www.stigc.dk/projects/JavaTunes/)
There is a flash player for WavPack (http://www.wavpack.com/flash/wavpack.htm) based on haXe, so I would be surprised if there was not one for FLAC also.
(Don't want to unleash a troll here but, from my point of view, mp3 is not an acceptable option for music)
From my point of view it appears that you're the one being a troll.
Did you conduct any proper double-blind tests before arriving at such a conclusion or are you just blowing smoke?
If you haven't conducted any proper double-blind tests then please refrain from making such inflammatory comments which violate the rules of this forum to which you agreed to follow upon registering.
I'm sorry but the point is not mp3, bucketsound or whatever. The point is : looking for a streaming tool for flac file.
It's also the reason why I've had post under the flac section ... and not elsewhere !
But ok : bye !
I'm sorry but the point is not mp3, bucketsound or whatever. The point is : looking for a streaming tool for flac file.
It's also the reason why I've had post under the flac section ... and not elsewhere !
But ok : bye !
If you are creating FLAC files from raw PCM or whatever you record in, there is no reason you can't encode to MP3 at the same time. Streaming FLAC is retarded: why can't you understand this?
I have a relatively fast connection yet my FLAC library sometimes stutters even with an 8 second buffer when I'm on my client computer.
The time it takes to encode to MP3 is probably a fraction of the time it takes to upload FLAC to your host anyway. Actually, I give up, this is so incredibly stupid I don't think I'll be able to convince a nut.
I'm looking for a web player (flash ?) I can embbed in my html pages in order to allow site visitors to play FLAC audio file.
(juste need a start/stop/pause button and a progression bar).
I've found several tool on the web. Either as Java or as Flash but only for mp3 files ..... nothing for FLAC files
Hey guys - new poster here. I'm also a musician looking for a way to set up FLAC files online for others to review/audition.
From the little bit I've seen, I think a browser/web-based player might be too much to ask right now. I think the best option - particularly the small/limited audience is to "encourage" them to put a media player on their machine and listen that way. I've found (so far) two free/open-source/cross-platform players that handle FLAC "out of the box" - VLC Media Player and Songbird. There may be others, so don't flame me if I've missed something along the way.
One additional wrinkle - I've found that VLC handles multi-channel (i.e. surround) FLAC files pretty well, but Songbird doesn't seem to map to the audio card endpoints correctly (although it seems to recognize the multi-channel file just fine). I don't think that's a knock, per se, since I get a feeling the overt surround support from them is further down their development roadmap.
My experiments this week will be with pushing FLAC files to my web server and then trying to play back the URL directly through VLC media player - both by directly calling the .flac files and through a playlist. My web server doesn't "officially" support streaming but the progressive download is sufficient to stream some pretty hefty H.264 encoded video files so I feel like it's worth a shot. I don't know if there's a way to set a streaming bit on a FLAC file so that the player will *know* how much it should cache before trying to play the file - but then again, that's what the experiment is for.
Anyway, I hope this helps to steer the discussion in a productive direction.
For cross-platform, I'd recommend wxMusik.
http://musik.berlios.de/?id=home (http://musik.berlios.de/?id=home)
Glad I've found this thread, because I've meant to write a tutorial for my Lossless Audio Web (http://tr.im/applaws), the inspiration and core code for which I give full credit to revolunet (http://vlc.revolunet.com/), and of course muchos kudos to Josh Coalson for FLAC. While this post is not the tutorial I have in mind, what I would suggest is visiting the Lossless Audio Web page using Firefox, so you can look at the source code. Better yet, visit with Google Chrome and study how the thing works in detail.
In my son's Shadows of Evil (http://www.archive.org/details/b.c.2008-03-09.flac16) album page on the Internet Archive you will see the player in action, as well as all of its necessary components, all of which you can download and use to build your own: External Library Loader, Simple Slider, VLC controls and VLC object JavaScript files, Thumbs.db file, image files (idle2.gif, increase_bg.gif, increase_knob.gif, info.png, moins.gif, options.png, player_next.png, player_pause.png, player_play.png, player_prev.png, player_stop.png, plus.gif, slider_bg.gif, sound.png, sound_mute.png, uri.png), and the advanced.html file. Obviously, you'll need to modify the advanced.html file to your liking, but if the default FLAC song "They Come at Night" is your cup o' joe, cool!
Lastly, if you want to use the HTML iframe as I have done on the
Shadows of Evil download page, once you modify the advanced.html file to your liking (presuming you give credit to revolunet as required), simply
modify and place the following code on your Web page:
<html>
<body>
<iframe src ="http://your.website.address/advanced.html" width="100%" height="300">
<p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p>
</iframe>
</body>
</html>
To get an idea just how portable this little app is (and whether you can stomach the iframe, for the Style Gods haved deemed it evil), visit W3 Schools' "Tryit Editor" (http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml_iframe), substitute http://www.archive.org/download/b.c.2008-0...6/advanced.html (http://www.archive.org/download/b.c.2008-03-09.flac16/advanced.html) for /default.asp and hit the "Edit and Click Me" button, adjust the scroll bars in the "Your Result" frame and hit "launch VLC with all these options," and enjoy some badass Metal, baby!
@pdq: because I produce my music in FLAC format ... not mp3.
You're free to do whatever you want, but hosting/streaming flac files is a huge waste in storage and bandwidth.
Since when was retaining fidelity a huge waste?
--
That's right... I did it.
Siegmar
There are some examples of internet radio stations streaming FLAC
Maybe they are willing to tell what they use as a server
http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/about/techn...vices/flac.html (http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/about/technology_services/flac.html)
http://www.cesnet.cz/doc/techzpravy/2010/hq-sound-streaming/ (http://www.cesnet.cz/doc/techzpravy/2010/hq-sound-streaming/)
Roseval, did you look at the dates?
OP left years ago.
Streaming FLAC doesn't make much sense anyway.
But your links are interesting since they are doing it.
@pdq: because I produce my music in FLAC format ... not mp3.
You're free to do whatever you want, but hosting/streaming flac files is a huge waste in storage and bandwidth.
Since when was retaining fidelity a huge waste?
--
That's right... I did it.
My sentiments exactly, _Slipstream -- btw, isn't it baffling how my previous post precisely outlined
how to make a FLAC web player, but was completely lost on everyone? Things that make you say, "Hmmmmmmmm."
Ok, admittedly, it would help if I were to provide working links: http://tinyurl.com/applaw (http://tinyurl.com/applaw) should (at least it worked earlier today).
For those of you exasperatedly crying, "For God's sake, Samizdat, just spit it out," here's a most-boiled-down
how-to (http://www.archive.org/details/BlasphemousCreation) (though not necessarily a tutorial -- that I've yet to (re)write, because there are trade-offs between the increased
security of this newer version and the
capability of the older).
Found this thread looking for a web based Flac player. I was hoping for something HTML5 or Flash based.
I gotta say I'm in shock at the huge amount of icky snottyness found here from these kids. Wow. I registered at the site just to get this out of my system -- oh, and to say thanks to the guys who actually did responded with useful content.
mp3hd (http://www.google.co.id/search?q=mp3hd) might be a good alternative. It is a lossless encoding format back compatible to mp3 decoding, i.e. all mp3 players will play it. And it can be bit-identically converted back to FLAC. You may automate conversion of FLAC->mp3HD. There are free tools for encoding this format: http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/mp3HD-tools.php (http://www.all4mp3.com/tools/mp3HD-tools.php). Right now all4mp3 website is down for some reason, so attaching the latest tools (downloaded yesterday): HydrogenAudio_77033_mp3HD_Toolkit_for_Windows_2010-02-02.zip (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14766976/share/HydrogenAudio_77033_mp3HD_Toolkit_for_Windows_2010-02-02.zip)
mp3hd (http://www.google.co.id/search?q=mp3hd) might be a good alternative. It is a lossless encoding format back compatible to mp3 decoding,
So, you will still have to shove the whole lossless stream to the end-user, but he might just be able to hear the lossy MP3 decode if his decoder can't handle mp3HD? That is the worst of both worlds. You could, of course, easily strip the lossless data from the stream (since it is stored in ID3v2 tags (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=70548&view=findpost&p=622681) ) to get rid of it when you serve the files, but that only helps if your main shortcoming is storage space (so you cannot save both a FLAC and MP3 encode at the same time) and not bandwidth. And this only holds true if the mp3HD encoder is efficient enough to beat FLAC(CL (http://www.cuetools.net/wiki/FLACCL))+LAME encodes at high compression rates. And, of course, remember that the codec is unable to handle large input streams (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=70548&view=findpost&p=622681).
As a sidenote, mp3HD has been discussed at HA some years ago (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70548).
how about "Please install quicktime" and use ALAC? (i did not actually test, just a thought)
p.s. there is ALAC decoder/encoder also in ffmpeg.
edit: and add an alternative js web decoder, something to test:
http://badassjs.com/post/14463682242/intro...udio-decoder-in (http://badassjs.com/post/14463682242/introducing-alac-js-an-apple-lossless-audio-decoder-in)
Maybe somebody is up to the task to port flac decoder to js?
----------------
scenarios:
- user has ie and quicktime (everything ok)
- user has ie - offer download link + suggest a software that can decode alac and/or suggest "Please install quicktime"
- user has chrome/firefox (if there is no quicktime then offer js decoder)
(this is all progressive download, not streaming)
Time for me to jump in.
I'm not here to say someone can't stream FLAC across the net, but I'll at least give my reasons why it shouldn't be done.
It's been proven, beyond any reasonable argument, that any modern lossy codec at a moderate bitrate (~200Kbps), and even mp3 at somewhat higher rates, is completely transparent to all of humanity in all but the most marginal cases.
Many people have touched on the fact that while your server may have unimaginable gobs of bandwidth at it's disposal, it's not a guarantee your user will.
FLAC files can range in bitrate from roughly 500Kbps to well over 1Mbps. For web based audio, that represents upwards of a potential 500% increase in bandwidth usage for demonstrably no benefit.
Now, try to remember that this isn't YOUR internet.. It's OUR internet.. That excess bandwidth needed to stream FLAC is essentially total waste, and it's wasting not just your bandwidth and the bandwidth of your user, but the bandwidth and capacity of every router, every fiber link, etc, that ferry's your data across the network.
Having said that, I LOVE FLAC.. Virtually every album I own is stored in FLAC format on my network. When I play them on my local workstations I play the FLAC directly over my network. But that's on MY network, using equipment that I wholly own. I'm not piping that through anyone else's network, essentially wasting their and everyone else's bandwidth.
FLAC is meant for storage and local area playback; not streaming over a shared resource like the internet.
I use subsonic (www.subsonic.org) to access and stream my library over the net. I have it configured to transcode FLAC files to 160Kbps mp3 for use in the flash player, or to quality 2 vorbis to stream to a local media player such as VLC.
To date nobody that uses it has complained about the sound quality.
Not that 'everyone else is worse than me!' is a good argument, but ... what difference does the streaming of lossless audio count, compared to all the high-def porn movie content transfered world webwide?
Not that 'everyone else is worse than me!' is a good argument, but ... what difference does the streaming of lossless audio count, compared to all the high-def porn movie content transfered world webwide?
In defense of the porn, it's at least VERY compressed.
Uncompressed 1920x1080 24-bit color video at 30fps is roughly 1.5Gbps.. If over one intermediate hop it was crossing a not atypical 10Gbps fiber, you by yourself would consume 15% of the capacity of that link. If 6 people were streaming that feed, that link would be nearly saturated. if one other person tried to start watching, then we'd have contention, lag, etc, and pretty much anyone else trying to post a tweet or something would have a bad time doing it.
There are ways to mitigate the issue, but the point is those methods shouldn't be caused because 6 or 7 people have it in their head that lossy compression is unacceptable and therefore deem it acceptable to waste a finite resource (internet bandwidth) that we all share.
Just because some people waste bandwidth, doesn't excuse us for doing the same. Obviously, you are not compelled to conserve internet bandwidth, but if we all waste it pointlessly we'll all have to deal with the congestion that will occur.
Streaming FLAC for a one time listening session is a pointless waste.. Transferring a copy of a FLAC file for permanent storage and use on a client isn't. That's all I'm saying..
I don't understand the need for people to repeatedly post in this thread complaining about OPs decision to stream in lossless.
It's his money, let him do what he wants with it. Nobody is forcing other people to visit OPs site, either.
And if some unknown site streaming a few files at ~700kb is a significant problem for the internet as a whole, then we should perhaps approach this from another angle.. if there was a "danger" that some other (big) websites would begin streaming in lossless it would perhaps be worth discussing. But I don't see this happening any time soon, for obvious reasons.
Although I would definitely like to see cheap bandwidth being so widespread that it would actually allow that to happen. Eventually demand for high bitrate content can also push towards improvements in the internet infrastructure..
I don't understand the need for people to repeatedly post in this thread complaining about OPs decision to stream in lossless.
It's his money, let him do what he wants with it. Nobody is forcing other people to visit OPs site, either.
I'm not complaining. I'm just giving reasons why doing so is suboptimal from the perspective of internet resources.
Yes, it's his money, but he's using a shared resource when he sends that across the internet. One guy doing this isn't going to be a problem. A large number of people doing it will be.
I'm coming from the point of view that all he's doing is streaming the audio to whoever to be listened to while it's being transferred, for a one time use. If he's transferring the file to them to keep and reuse, then it's not a waste since there is a reason for them to store and reuse a lossless copy. But sending a FLAC for Jimmy down the block to listen to on his $10 computer speakers one time and forget it is a complete waste of resources.
You'll also note that I gave a solution in my 1st response in that I use Subsonic as my web based media streaming system. It will allow him to store FLAC files on the server and Subsonic will transcode them to whatever he likes, on the fly, when someone requests to listen to it. It solves his issue in that he doesn't have to waste his time transcoding everything manually.. He can drop his FLAC files in his repository and then when someone selects to listen to it, Subsonic will transcode it for them while they stream it. It even gives them a download link so if they decide they want a copy they can download the original FLAC version.
(for me) INTRAnet is very interesting as well and serving/storing just one file on a server is just easy (and easy browser based solution for playback is also very interesting), also no on-the-fly transcoding means that the server can use less electricity and our rain forest will live longer.
p.s. also in case of intranet: it is interesting to be able to preview the file and download it, so if it is the same file then it is already cached and download will just do a local disk copy - which is very fast btw.
p.s.2. Nothing beats porn of course.
There are other reasons for wanting to use Lossless. For example one is what I am currently working on:
I've written a web-based music player to let me listen to my music collection to wherever I am. Sure, if I'm not at home then I'll need to transcode the audio track I want to listen to to something more bandwidth friendly (it converts the file on the fly to OGG or AAC, whichever the browser supports) but if I'm at home on the same network then having to wait for the track to transcode (admittedly only ~3 seconds, but that's still more than 0 seconds) and losing quality in doing so is a waste as I'm certainly not going to run into any bandwidth issues on my own network.
Just thought I'd throw a real world situation in as an example.
I'm looking for a web player (flash ?) I can embbed in my html pages in order to allow site visitors to play FLAC audio file.
(juste need a start/stop/pause button and a progression bar).
I've found several tool on the web. Either as Java or as Flash but only for mp3 files ..... nothing for FLAC files
https://github.com/ofmlabs/flac.js (https://github.com/ofmlabs/flac.js)
..there ya' go. Perhaps all the useless people commenting will go away now.
edit: Demo: http://labs.official.fm/codecs/flac/ (http://labs.official.fm/codecs/flac/)
I'm looking for a web player (flash ?) I can embbed in my html pages in order to allow site visitors to play FLAC audio file.
(juste need a start/stop/pause button and a progression bar).
I've found several tool on the web. Either as Java or as Flash but only for mp3 files ..... nothing for FLAC files
https://github.com/ofmlabs/flac.js (https://github.com/ofmlabs/flac.js)
..there ya' go. Perhaps all the useless people commenting will go away now.
edit: Demo: http://labs.official.fm/codecs/flac/ (http://labs.official.fm/codecs/flac/)
That'll work in a very custom setup, but it's a shame that when browsers support OGG natively, that they don't also support FLAC. If they did, you could just throw the track at a HTML5 audio element and it would work. Far less hassle.
Not that 'everyone else is worse than me!' is a good argument, but ... what difference does the streaming of lossless audio count, compared to all the high-def porn movie content transfered world webwide?
In defense of the porn, it's at least VERY compressed.
Uncompressed 1920x1080 24-bit color video at 30fps is roughly 1.5Gbps.. If over one intermediate hop it was crossing a not atypical 10Gbps fiber, you by yourself would consume 15% of the capacity of that link. If 6 people were streaming that feed, that link would be nearly saturated. if one other person tried to start watching, then we'd have contention, lag, etc, and pretty much anyone else trying to post a tweet or something would have a bad time doing it.
There are ways to mitigate the issue, but the point is those methods shouldn't be caused because 6 or 7 people have it in their head that lossy compression is unacceptable and therefore deem it acceptable to waste a finite resource (internet bandwidth) that we all share.
Just because some people waste bandwidth, doesn't excuse us for doing the same. Obviously, you are not compelled to conserve internet bandwidth, but if we all waste it pointlessly we'll all have to deal with the congestion that will occur.
Streaming FLAC for a one time listening session is a pointless waste.. Transferring a copy of a FLAC file for permanent storage and use on a client isn't. That's all I'm saying..
I woudn't argee with that. Imagine you have a 4 min song in FLAC. That's 30 Mb if the bitrate is around 1 Mbps. The visitor of the OP's website is a musician, so he really needs that track in FLAC (he might later save it from the browser cache).
Now compare with the online video poscast (or broadcast) from any TV channel website (not porn, well). That's about 1 Mbps on maximum quality, even if the content is not in HD resolution (1080p). And people watch this for 1-2 hours a day sometimes! So, man, what are you talking about? =) We are alive, and the bandwidth is sufficient by now for that, as I can see. Moreover - I somewhere heard, that more than 80 percent of data transferred via the internet is mail spam. Cannot believe in that, but if it's true, we should probably be fighting this - and not FLAC streaming =)
P.S. I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).
... I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).
Have you read this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481)
For what it's worth, sites that I've downloaded FLAC files from often also have lossy available, and it wouldn't be hard to automate making them.
You could just put it on your users to set up their browser to send flac streams to a capable player, and have the built in flash player as a fallback position.
IMO, embedded flash players are a royal pain since it's not supported on a lot of tablets etc and it looks like Adobe will have no more Linux releases. So, please have a stream URL available for when your web page player doesn't work.
... I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).
Have you read this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481)
I admit, I sometimes visit these forums just to find the next victim falling into this trap!
... I tried FLAC yesterday and it's really awesome)) Significantly better than 320 kbps MP3 even on my integrated soundcard and not very expensive headphones. It's not a blind test - but I can see more high frequencies even on Winamp visualiser. I suppose if I'd tried it on some more serious acoustic system, it would be really CD quality (and I've never listened to CDs on high end acoustics, but what I hear now in 937 kbps FLAC is great even with headphones).
Have you read this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3974#entry149481)
No, sorry, now I have read. But I think it is not the case, really.
Visualizer in Winamp proves my feelings. When I listen to MP3, even on 320 Kbps, high frequences are cut and sound badly. And it is shown on the visualizer panel.
I also saw some interesting research of one russian enthusiast, made several years ago. He compared the most popular audio codecs, both lossy and lossless. He encoded the same track with different bitrates and in different modes (where available), and built the spectrums. He used 2 sources - the third-party audio editor and his own utility (the reason was in fact not to check if the result is correct, but the built-in visualizer produced obviously incorrect spectrums with one or two formats - as I remember, the low frequencies were totally missed). So here we can't say it is "the product of imagination". It is clear from the output that MP3 is not the best choice, mp3PRO and AAC are much better. Also it is obvious from that comparison that lossless codecs give the very similar result, and lossy are far away from them in terms of "similarity" to the original spectrum (of PCM WAV). By the way, the images can be compared not only by eye, but also in some graphic editor.
Some commentors wrote "it is a waste of time to write about spectrums without taking into account the psycho-acoustic model and without real listening". But OK, I listen to MP3 and FLAC and I see the difference. Why? Because MP3s are cut about 18 kHz even on 320 kbps, and FLACS have 20 kHz and even more (which is shown in that pictures). Any MP3 encoder does it. And it doesn't only cut, it does some kind of "smoothing" on the top, which is probably necessary, but sounds awful. So, maybe my integrated card is very good compared to others integrated cards, maybe headphones are not as bad too. But the fact is what I mentioned.
By the way, there are a lot of factors that change our subjective feelings. Equalizer settings, the player (yes, Winamp has some options changing the sound, one is even enabled by default), even the volume level.
Now I open the FLAC, and my equalizer is set to increase the high frequencies a little. In case of MP3 (the same track of course), unfortunately, some high freq data is lost, and the other is a bit, well, distrorted. Of course FLAC is better
Visualizer in Winamp proves my feelings.
It is clear from the output that MP3 is not the best choice, mp3PRO and AAC are much better.
Also it is obvious from that comparison that lossless codecs give the very similar result
(http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/2/73/542/73542157_cat_FACEPALM2.jpg)
It is clear from the output that MP3 is not the best choice, mp3PRO and AAC are much better
Are you saying that SBR butchered mp3PRO music sounds better than normal MP3?
And it doesn't only cut, it does some kind of "smoothing" on the top, which is probably necessary, but sounds awful
Prove the 'sounds awful'. I don't believe you
Because MP3s are cut about 18 kHz even on 320 kbps, and FLACS have 20 kHz and even more (which is shown in that pictures).
Yeah, but most people above 20 years of age don't hear anything above 18kHz anyway, very few can hear up to 20kHz. You really shouldn't be judging graphs, because
we don't listen with our eyes.
Because MP3s are cut about 18 kHz even on 320 kbps, and FLACS have 20 kHz and even more (which is shown in that pictures).
Yeah, but most people above 20 years of age don't hear anything above 18kHz anyway, very few can hear up to 20kHz. You really shouldn't be judging graphs, because we don't listen with our eyes.
And, which is the reason why MP3 as well as other perceptual codecs cut very high frequency contents still retaining transparency, even if a young individual with very good ears could hear a single 20 kHz tone, he/she surely couldn't be able to perceive it when masked by lower tones, an in any real musical track.
Sorry to jump on an old topic but this is something i had been wondering and arguments of it being pointless are lost on me i have read all the posts had a laugh (especially the age ones, i am 43yo and often prove to friends in blind tests .mp3 is noticeable, that is just me however, each to their own)
I don't want to stream .flac to the web but i do want to stream it to a browser, i use a media solution that has a built in WebUI (awesome for today's portable devices) unfortunately it transcodes the .flacs coming from my server to .mp3 i am trying to find a way a browser can handle .flac so as i can possibly make a plug-in that allows for the .flac to stream and not transcode.
I know of a javascript implementation called FLAC.js or Audiocogs. Looks like that is what you need. http://audiocogs.org/ (http://audiocogs.org/)
Hi all!
my first post here, after finding precisely this thread about Flac file players. An interesting read, and I personally side with those who hear a difference in the quality of flac files compared to lossless files. Also, considering the amount of bandwidth used to watch videos, I don't see why posting Flac files should even be an issue.
Personally, for my own website (linuxaudio.com) I have decided to not utilize any embedded player, but rather to put in the html page both the flac and ogg files. This way, depending on the visitor's browser, the file played will either be flac or high-quality ogg. (or neither, perhaps, if you're a Mac user!)
On the Midori browser, the flac file is available. On Firefox and Chromium, ogg. (I haven't tested other browsers yet.)
So this is one solution one might consider, at least till all browsers finally recognize flac files.
brian
I personally side with those who hear a difference in the quality of flac files compared to lossless files.
Huh?
I'm sorry but the point is not mp3, bucketsound or whatever. The point is : looking for a streaming tool for flac file.
It's also the reason why I've had post under the flac section ... and not elsewhere !
But ok : bye !
If you are creating FLAC files from raw PCM or whatever you record in, there is no reason you can't encode to MP3 at the same time. Streaming FLAC is retarded: why can't you understand this?
I have a relatively fast connection yet my FLAC library sometimes stutters even with an 8 second buffer when I'm on my client computer.
The time it takes to encode to MP3 is probably a fraction of the time it takes to upload FLAC to your host anyway. Actually, I give up, this is so incredibly stupid I don't think I'll be able to convince a nut.
I come to you from the futuristic year of... gasp.... 2017!
Here in 2017 we've kinda given up the illusion that mp3 files are acceptable, and have developed tools for better compressing lossless music online. Just wait another 10 years, and everyone will be streaming lossless audio. It just makes more sense.
I come to you from the futuristic year of... gasp.... 2017!
Here in 2017 we've kinda given up the illusion that mp3 files are acceptable, and have developed tools for better compressing lossless music online. Just wait another 10 years, and everyone will be streaming lossless audio. It just makes more sense.
You sure of that? Because for a lot of reasons, technology changes and so do the ways that people consume entertainment. 10 years is quite a damn long time. Quite the bold prediction there and you say everyone will be streaming lossless audio, huh? The people who still buy physical media, the pirates who will never pay for anything, the people who still pay for downloads, those that still listen to the radio will all be streaming it lossless in it's entirety in 10 years?
I don't see myself streaming lossless media in 10 years outside of my radio hobby, but maybe myself buying files of it for the first time instead of CDs?
Maybe we'll see the digital radio transition finally happen around the world or we'll still be using old ancient as it gets analog technologies? Maybe everyone will have 4K TVs, too? Maybe 8K will be a thing?
Any other bold predictions you care to make?
Have you ever factored in the digital divide, the broadband divide and 3rd world countries when it comes to how entertainment is consumed? Don't forget aging populations who may not be too trusting of newer technologies as well and might prefer the older ones.
Your argument is super flawed. We'll see how things go in the next 10 years but until then shut up.
my first post here, after finding precisely this thread about Flac file players. An interesting read, and I personally side with those who hear a difference in the quality of flac files compared to lossless files.
Looks like you've mastered the art of destroying your own credibility in one post.\
FLAC files are lossless files.
Wanna try that again? ;-)
Here in 2017 we've kinda given up the illusion that mp3 files are acceptable, and have developed tools for better compressing lossless music online. Just wait another 10 years, and everyone will be streaming lossless audio. It just makes more sense.
So who would this "we" be?
You and your other multiple personalities?
Most of the Placebophiles?
;-)
This TOS8 violation plus thread necromancy is the kind of post HA doesn't need. I also really think moderators should be checking the logged IP addresses to see whether some of these "new users" are actually forum regulars violating TOS12 (no second accounts/sockpuppetry) and trying to troll the rest of us.
Arnie, based on how you took the bait here as well as your reply to the dead-since-2014 thread "Vinyl is equivalent to which digital bit-depth and sampling rate?" you also need to note the date on things before responding to them. Digging up graves so you can argue with the dead is not a worthy endeavor.
Time Warner Cable user, first time on this forum with that IP address. Nobody else has used the same entire Class B range since 2014, when it was last used by many users. Apparently, we don't see that much TWC action any more.
Google yields nothing useful for that IP address, just a bunch of indexing sites that list every possible IP address, but no specific records for this one.
Sorry, sockpuppet hunting isn't exactly easy.
Well, that fairly well settles that; thanks for checking.
Actual new users do tend for some reason to be disproportionately likely to thread necro; presumably they've happened on something via google search and felt like signing up just to respond to it without noticing how old it was. I kinda wish the forum gave people a "the most recent post in the thread you are replying to is X years Y months old. Generally it's suggested to begin a new conversation if an old one has died out. Are you sure you want to reply to this?" type warning.
It does. A nice red
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
... right over the text entry box, both on the Quick Reply and on the main reply page.
Hello,Aimp and Foobar is both good FLAC Players
It does. A nice red (warning) right over the text entry box, both on the Quick Reply and on the main reply page.
whelp, I didn't realize that because I've never tried my hand at necromancy. Can't do a lot better than that. The supply of human stupidity once more proves to be inexhaustible. If people are going to electrocute themselves by using their hair dryer in the tub there's only so much you can do other than absolve yourself of liability.
There is at least one flac player http://audiocogs.org/codecs/flac/ based on js and ffmpeg.
Today in 2022, with webassembly, it should be relatively feasable to implement an embedded flac played, given the many libraries and readers. For that, stack overflow should be a good starting point for the developer. On the back end side, Ffmpeg is useful also (ie., beside codecs) for creating streaming and radio servers.
All comments about "do not use lossless" are off-topic; its is not in the scope of the OP. Even mp3 128kbps drops harmonics and dynamic, and therefore is not satisfaying for high quality streaming.
Today in 2022, with webassembly, it should be relatively feasable to implement an embedded flac played, given the many libraries and readers. For that, stack overflow should be a good starting point for the developer.
libFLAC has been compiled to WASM, so no need for anyone to DIY it: https://www.npmjs.com/package/libflacjs/v/5.4.0
https://www.npmjs.com/package/libflacjs/v/5.4.0
I read "5.4.0" and thought "ah, using the updated WavP (https://www.wavpack.com/changelog.txt)...
oh wait a second".
I need to take a break from this.
There is at least one flac player http://audiocogs.org/codecs/flac/ based on js and ffmpeg.
Today in 2022, with webassembly, it should be relatively feasable to implement an embedded flac played, given the many libraries and readers. For that, stack overflow should be a good starting point for the developer. On the back end side, Ffmpeg is useful also (ie., beside codecs) for creating streaming and radio servers.
All comments about "do not use lossless" are off-topic; its is not in the scope of the OP. Even mp3 128kbps drops harmonics and dynamic, and therefore is not satisfaying for high quality streaming.
Another one: Wimpy Player, a javascript HTML5 audio player & video player that's easy to set up, design, configure and customize.
https://www.wimpyplayer.com/
Today in 2022, with webassembly, it should be relatively feasable to implement an embedded flac played, given the many libraries and readers. For that, stack overflow should be a good starting point for the developer.
libFLAC has been compiled to WASM, so no need for anyone to DIY it: https://www.npmjs.com/package/libflacjs/v/5.4.0
Just perfectly neat !
MOD Edit: removed duplicate quote and text