6 ms·
If you deeply care about music and are an audiophile you do. I was on what.cd before it closed are really appreciated being able to get flac rips of original re
by mruts 7y ago
If you deeply care about music and are an audiophile you do. I was on what.cd before it closed are really appreciated being able to get flac rips of original release vinyl, sometimes dating back 60-70 years.
Example first pressings I have in flac: velvet underground, the doors, led zeppelin, etc
- TylerE 7y agoEh, you can stream Flac from Tidal and their catalog is basically as big as Spotify.
- mruts 7y agoSpotify’s collection is nowhere close to what what.cd used to have before it got shutdown.
- crtasm 7y agoI've heard there are multiple successors e.g. https://interviewfor.red/en/index.html https://interviewfor.red/en/index.html
- turrini 7y agoSometimes these streams aren't available due to contract changes
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- handedness 7y agoWhich is often audibly watermarked: https://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark https://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermar...
- mustacheemperor 7y agoLike Spotify, is their catalog often arbitrarily populated with whatever the most recent remaster is, or some other random release? There is value to having a lossless rip of a specific pressing of a given album. Especially with the case of albums that were mangled with limiters etc during their "remasters."
- whenchamenia 7y agoThe number of albums I cannot find un-remastered is infuriating. I want the version I remember, not this years overcompressed mixing style squashing the dynamics while the singer autotunes out those 'bad notes'.
- xvector 7y ago> If you deeply care about music and are an audiophile you do FLAC has no benefit over traditional 16/24 encoded content. https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell.
- sneak 7y ago.Zip also has no benefit over .exe, .dmg none over .app. It’s just a codec. It makes it smaller. Unless you mean “lossy” by “traditional”, in which case, yes, lossless codecs have a lot of benefit over lossy ones. A perfect example is when sampling or beatmixing; if the final product will be played on youtube or streamed on digital radio or compressed lossily in any form, you will have incurred two lossy compression steps if your source material is lossy. This is akin to subsequent generations of dubbing analog media; the quality degrades quickly with each generation.
- bscphil 7y ago>FLAC has no benefit over traditional 16/24 encoded content. You seem to have misunderstood FLAC with the sample rate / bit depth of a file. The vast majority of FLAC files are regular old 16 bit 44.1 kHz, and nobody is claiming that 24 bit 192 kHz (or whatever) files are better. FLAC is a codec: simply a way to take all the audio on a CD and have it preserved indefinitely, without "generational" loss (where a mp3 is encoded from another mp3, and so on).
- xvector 7y agoYou're totally right. Complete brain blank. I don't know what I was thinking - think I subconsciously mixed my frustration over Tidal's 192/24 marketing with the concept of FLAC.
- mo5 7y agowill be a flac version of a track sound better than a mp3 that was converted from a m4a ? or am I just missing the whole point of FLAC.
- 7y ago
- soulofmischief 7y agoHave you not been able to gain access to what's successors?
- mruts 7y agoI do, but on what.cd I had 2TB of upload buffer. I'm in the process of building up my ratio with a seedbox on redacted.ch.
- soulofmischief 7y agoGlad to hear it. There's still a lot to be done catching RED up to what's former glory so it won't be hard. Happy sailing.