Rant: FLAC sucks!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bah, the multi quote button is your friend.
 
So which format is better, SACD or DVD-Audio and why?
 
With DVD Audio you can only get 192 kHz sample rate and even that only mono and stereo, more channels and you're limited to 96 kHz. With SA-CD you get more than 2800 kHz, a wider dynamic range (120 dB compared to 96) and a wider frequency range (up to 50 kHz).

DVD-Audio was released 2 years prior to SA-CD, the release of which subsequently made the sales figures of DVD-Audio plummet.

wiki ftw.
 
This thread makes me want to spend lots of money on audio equipment.
 
IceBone said:
With DVD Audio you can only get 192 kHz sample rate and even that only mono and stereo, more channels and you're limited to 96 kHz. With SA-CD you get more than 2800 kHz, a wider dynamic range (120 dB compared to 96) and a wider frequency range (up to 50 kHz).

DVD-Audio was released 2 years prior to SA-CD, the release of which subsequently made the sales figures of DVD-Audio plummet.

wiki ftw.
Click to expand...

SACD's wacky 2.8GHz sampling (the codec is called "Digital Stream Direct" aka DSD) uses 1-bit samples (it works completely differently than PCM which is how all other digital audio works). The problem is that all the equipment used to record and mix these SACDs is PCM-based, so the artists record and mix in the PCM domain and then the mix is transferred to DSD/SACD, defeating the purpose of DSD. Very few albums were made using Sony's DSD technology from start to finish as the equipment is expensive and proprietary and if the vast majority of the market is PCM you have to do a PCM transfer for CD anyway. Further, most audiophiles have combo players that play both DVD-A and SACD, and these players tend to convert DSD to PCM. My Pioneer combo player does this. I do have a stand-alone SACD player from Sony for comparison.

There have been a few titles released on both formats, and while different masters could explain the differences, people generally prefer the DVD-A version. Probably because if the album was recorded in the PCM domain it defeats the purpose of DSD so you undergo a possible PCM->DSD->PCM conversion. Most record companies chose one side or the other. A small number did both. A lot of them did neither. So really, as a fan of high res music you had to buy both, and combo players didn't come along until it was almost over.

Further, it's hard to say "only" 192kHz. Movies are mastered at 48kHz. The CDs you listen to are 44.1kHz. 96/24 seems to be adequate for presenting maximum quality, and in my high res collection I've only come across 3 192kHz titles (Sinatra and Count Basie at the sands, Carly Simon No Secrets, and Eagles Hotel California) and of course, the higher you get the improvement diminishes.

The 44.1kHz sampling rate on CD was a compromise to make more space available. 48kHz would have been preferred. 24-bit sampling helps. 48/24 is pretty good (and again that's how movie soundtracks are mastered). But going up to 96kHz helps on string instruments, piano, etc. with depth and timbre.

SACD had discs that were SACD on one side and CD on the other. DVD-A could play a limited version on the DVD-Video side and later also came out with dual sided discs called "Dual Disc".

SACD were meant to be played like a CD while DVD-A required you to turn on your TV to select menus and songs, like a DVD-V.

And of course, SACD was a Sony/Philips creation and thus the licensing was expensive; DVD-A was an extension of DVD and was created by the DVD forum. If they could have gotten DVD-A out at the same time DVD-V launched, and if the high-res audio could have been used in Video discs (it can't), IMO it would have won easily.

SACD and DVD-A both died because of their format war. It's not like you imply, that SACD came out and killed DVD-A. Just the opposite, DVD-A came out first and gained a little momentum, then SACD came out and confused everybody and killed all momentum for the entire high res audio market. Both formats failed. Our hope now is for Blu-Ray to take advantage of its high res audio which is just as good as DVD-A (192/24). But there haven't been many Blu-Ray music titles yet. Sadly IMO the industry already doubts the demand for better-than-CD audio and the format war burned everybody -- the artists, the producers, the record companies, the retail channel, and the consumer. Everybody loses in a format war.

Real life experience > wiki
 
Last edited:
I think formats like SACD and DVD-A are moot anyway. The future rather lies in high quiality audio streaming / downloads. Putting it on a silver disc was practical at the time, but the digital audio future needs no actual medium anymore.
 
the Interceptor said:
I think formats like SACD and DVD-A are moot anyway. The future rather lies in high quiality audio streaming / downloads. Putting it on a silver disc was practical at the time, but the digital audio future needs no actual medium anymore.
Click to expand...

The problem is with streaming and downloads we are going backwards in terms of quality, and not even just settling for our current flawed 44.1/16 status-quo but introducing massive psycho-acoustic compression and low bitrates. To even stay at the same quality level as CD we're talking about FLAC/ALAC lossless which is 500kbps. Most streaming radio is 32-128kbps MP3 or AAC lossy. A huge step backwards. Streaming and downloads are making the quality problem worse.

There are a few places experimenting with better-than-CD downloads (such as Chesky's hdtracks.com and 2L records) but they are a super-tiny niche. And of course the file sizes are huge. A single song in 5.1 96/24 FLAC is 250-300MB, so albums can weigh in at 1-2 GB. I can't see Apple footing that kind of bandwidth increase.

Blu-Ray music discs are our best hope, and the light is dim.

(And btw I am going through massive effort to rip all my high res music and short of about 6 SACDs I'm there; I believe in digital media over the physical disc. However, the mass market of downloads is going in the wrong direction.)
 
Last edited:
Of course, I'm talking about high quality downloads, not the usual 128 kbit MP3 stuff. I think this market will expand with ever growing HDD sizes and faster connections.
 
This thread also makes me want to actually pay for all of my music. It's a very odd feeling. I suppose I could pirate HQ versions of at least some of what I want, but I really think the market needs to be properly supported.
 
the Interceptor said:
Of course, I'm talking about high quality downloads, not the usual 128 kbit MP3 stuff. I think this market will expand with ever growing HDD sizes and faster connections.
Click to expand...

Do you know of any sources for any of this stuff other than the ones I listed?

Unfortunately I think high quality downloads are in even worse shape than high quality discs.

My read is that the record industry interprets MP3/iTunes sales as people not caring about quality.
 
smib said:
This thread also makes me want to actually pay for all of my music. It's a very odd feeling. I suppose I could pirate HQ versions of at least some of what I want, but I really think the market needs to be properly supported.
Click to expand...

That's one of the big ironies. There is demand for high-res and/or surround music that's no longer being met. People are actually making their own DVD-As and DTS CDs now based on old Quad LPs and 8 tracks, or doing their own 5.1 mix by hand. People are even using Guitar Hero isolation tracks to make their own 5.1 mixes. There is an underground in trading 96/24 vinyl rips.

There's a demand there that is being ignored. In my case I already have the DVD-A/SACDs I'm ripping so they got my money, but I would welcome the opportunity to buy all my music instead of lurking in the shadows.
 
janstett said:
Do you know of any sources for any of this stuff other than the ones I listed?

Unfortunately I think high quality downloads are in even worse shape than high quality discs.

My read is that the record industry interprets MP3/iTunes sales as people not caring about quality.
Click to expand...
From the top of my head, I can only add Linn to that list: http://www.linnrecords.com/

As for MP3 downloads, they've been in place for a much longer time, and they are aiming for the mass market, while the hq downloads such as from the sources above are for enthusiasts. And unlike SACD and DVD-A, I think they'll be accepted by them. But the trend has started just yet, so it's going to need some time for demand to grow and sources to develop.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for Linn, I didn't know about them. Always good to have another source for high quality stuff.
 
Wow thanks for all the replies guys. All this stuff is actually rather depressing, considering I currently don't have the funds to indulge my audiophile wants/desires. The most I can do ATM is to buy a good pair of $250 headphones. Plus I don't feel like hunting down every single high res version of every song/album I like. I just don't have the time. (business school FTL time wise) Maybe in the not-to-distant future I'll have the resources to become a bona fide audiophile.
 
Watisdis, a in the Surround group on Google there are a small number of us on "The Hub" doing peer to peer, it's private, it's free and it's a great source for high res and surround stuff. Ask "VF" for an invite, you have to show you are (or want to be) an audiophile in your response.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm freakin finally ready to start digitizing all of my dad's vinyls, and I'd like to know what you guys suggest for software to handle the task. What I'd ideally like to do is have a 96khz/24 .flac of each one, as well as 320kb/s VBR mp3s that have been cleaned up to reduce static and popping. If I'm lucky, this plus album art will fit on the 320GB drive I just bought.
 
That reminds me I need a new cartridge for my turntable. Darned p-mounts are limited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top