7 ms·
probably not as FLAC is basically only useful for archival purposes for streaming you are better off with an optimised lossy codec
by shawabawa3 2y ago
probably not as FLAC is basically only useful for archival purposes
for streaming you are better off with an optimised lossy codec
- timcobb 2y agowhy is that?
- shawabawa3 2y agothe human ear just isn't good enough at processing sound to need lossless codecs a modern audio codec at 320kbps bitrate is more than good enough. Lossless is useful for recompressing stuff when new codecs come out or for different purposes without introducing artefacts, not really for listening (in before angry audiophiles attack me)
- arp242 2y ago> a modern audio codec at 320kbps bitrate is more than good enough. MP3 V0 should already be, and is typically smaller. That said, it does depend on the quality of the encoder; back in the day a lot of MP3 encoders were not very good, even at high quality settings. These days LAME is the de-facto standard and it's pretty good, but maybe some others aren't(?)
- elabajaba 2y agoHell, modern audio codecs (opus and AAC, but not the ffmpeg opus/AAC encoders) are transparent at ~160-192k. MP3 is a legacy codec these days, and generally needs ~30% more bitrate for similar quality.
- givinguflac 2y agoThe human ear is absolutely good enough to hear the difference. However the vast majority of the population has not had listening training. I’ve done double blind tests repeatedly and provided it’s not on crap audio gear I can absolutely tell the difference, as can most of my golden ears trained acquaintances.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoThis conflicts with every published double blind study that was not in a context that had the word "audiophile" in its name. When you say you "can absolutely tell the difference", what score are you getting that proves you are doing better than guessing? And with what type of lossy encoding?
- hackingonempty 2y agoPeople who make such claims either repeat the tests until they get one with a perfect score or otherwise don't count every trial, do a poor job of conversion so there is clipping or other artifacts that break blinding, compare different sources like the standard version that accompanies the "high rez" version on an SACD but may be from a different mastering, don't level match, don't actually do a real double blind test, don't do enough trials, or are just lying.
- givinguflac 2y agoI’ve done multiple online tests and always scored at least in the 70s. Using foobar and my own cds or hi res downloads I’ve done encoding of the same exact wav file to flac, mp3, and ogg. Flac wins. Using monitor speakers (Mackie MR5’s) and a high end DAC it was not at all difficult for me. I truly appreciate you calling me a liar though; really adds to the conversation.
- BoingBoomTschak 2y ago> Mackie MR5 Don't want to sound snarky, but these are only "decent" (the succeeding MRx24 add an actually designed waveguide) and you'll never hear the sound of a DAC unless it's very badly implemented or has SNR troubles that show with ultra sensitive IEMs. Anyone who has read enough of the research in the matter will tell you that the codec itself is an improbable culprit. The way it's encoded and the test setup usually are "at fault" in this situation.
- 2y ago
- timrichard 2y agoPossibly, depending on the listener. But why would I bother recompressing when the various media players in the house can deal with the FLAC files just fine? On a typical home wifi network, a track probably transfers in about a second.
- shawabawa3 2y agoright but I was talking about in the context of low latency streaming, where the costs of sending FLAC over <insert modern audio codec here> are considerably higher (in terms of latency, bandwidth etc)
- iamacyborg 2y agoI can understand why a big streaming provider might want to use a lossy codec from a bandwidth cost perspective but what about in the context of streaming in your own network (eg through Roon or similar)?
- masklinn 2y agoWhy would you transcode to FLAC when streaming? And transcode from what?
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoOff the top of my head, let's say the file you want to stream is Ogg Opus, but the device you're streaming to only supports FLAC and MP3. You could transcode to MP3 and get all the artifacts that come with a double lossy encode, or you could transcode to FLAC which doesn't buy you any bandwidth savings but it does avoid double lossy artifacts.
- jprjr_ 2y agoChained Ogg FLAC works really well as an intermediary/internal streaming format. In my case - I have an internet radio station available in a few different codec/bitrate combinations. I generate a chained Ogg FLAC stream so I have in-band metadata with lossless audio. The stream gets piped into a process that will encode the lossy versions, update metadata the correct way per-stream (like there's HLS with timed ID3, there's Icecast with chained Ogg Opus, Icecast with AAC + Shoutcast-style metadata).
- bojanvidanovic 2y agoOut of curiosity, can you provide a link to your station? I have created a website for listening lossless internet radio stations: https://audiophile.fm https://audiophile.fm
- jprjr_ 2y agoWell, I only use FLAC internally - none of the public streams are FLAC
- Night_Thastus 2y agoAudio files are tiny, itty bitty things - even uncompressed. If you have the ability to use a lossless file at 0 extra cost...why not? Massive streaming services like Spotify don't obviously, the economics are way different.
- she46BiOmUerPVj 2y agoI have a flac collection that I was streaming, and I ended up writing some software to encode the entire library to opus because when you are driving around you never know how good your bandwidth will be. Since moving to opus I never have my music cut off anymore. Even with the nice stereo in my car I don't notice any quality problems. There are definitely reasons to not stream wav or flac around all the time.
- givinguflac 2y agoWhy re-encode to a crap codec when you could just use plex with adaptive bitrate streaming?
- aeroevan 2y agoI doubt whatever plex would do could beat opus (unless it's already transcoding to opus)
- pimeys 2y agoIf you decide to stream with a lower bitrate in Plexamp, it transcodes to Opus. You should not encode the files, just use Plex or Jellyfin and choose a lower bitrate when playing with your phone. Jellyfin uses AAC and Plexamp uses Opus.
- amlib 2y agoCould you elaborate on Opus being a crap codec? AFAIK it's a state of the art lossy codec for high quality sound/music (and some other applications)
- theandrewbailey 2y ago> for streaming you are better off with an optimised lossy codec If you are Spotify, that probably makes sense. But if you are someone with a homelab, you probably have enough bandwidth and then some, so streaming FLAC to a home theater (your own or your friend's) makes sense.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoIt is what (originally) SlimDevices (now Logitech Media Server) does, for example.
- epcoa 2y agoThe major streaming platforms except Spotify offer lossless streaming as an upgrade or benefit（Apple Music) for years and even Spotify the hold out is releasing “Super Premium” soon. Opinion aside, lossless streaming is a big deal.
- TacticalCoder 2y ago[dead]