[Jaythesail]

So I like to use 160 kbps mp3's on my portable player to save space. And I like to use FLAC because it is lossless, open source, and contains nothing unnecessary except the music. Why on earth would I want to make my music for my portable player huge, with no improvement, and compromise my ripped collection with extra stored information that isn't necessary...
 
I use media monkey to convert flac to mp3 on the fly when i load up stuff onto my portable player, it takes about 30 secs - 5 mins max depending on how much stuff I transfer...
 
I hope to god that the whole industry doesn't jump on this crap sounding 'innovation' and make it a standard everywhere.. though part of me can foresee that happening.. grrrr!

 

[TheKisho]

@darknessproz I haven't downloaded it as well, I don't have enough interest to track it down.  Plus I wouldn't know what I'd do with it.  I'd like to know from somebody who has see the code.  [Any comment notation]?  Is there even any code for this new upcoming standard?  I'm guessing it's going to be closed source (pay for a licence to accessing the code) [which won't stop people for reverse engineering it].  While I cannot program to safe my life I can often modify existing C and C-like code to do what I want with off and on success (I'm more of a scripter (I can learn scripting languages and write scripts from scratch)) [Sometimes I require help to iron out my mistakes (C)].  The majority of the code I see is well documented enough for me to figure out how to modify it, and I hope it's not a passing fad.  With more though on this subject, I can imagine the code for a codec would be far more abstract then the typical program, or plugin.  Have you any experience in programing codecs?  I'd enjoy some basic insight on the code of an audio codec and generally how it works.

 

[xnor]

I don't think anyone will devote his free time to reverse engineer something like this.
 
Kisho, you're right about codecs being less straightforward than scripting language samples. To get some basic insight, start by reading the flac documentation.

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

So I like to use 160 kbps mp3's on my portable player to save space. And I like to use FLAC because it is lossless, open source, and contains nothing unnecessary except the music. Why on earth would I want to make my music for my portable player huge, with no improvement, and compromise my ripped collection with extra stored information that isn't necessary...
 
I use media monkey to convert flac to mp3 on the fly when i load up stuff onto my portable player, it takes about 30 secs - 5 mins max depending on how much stuff I transfer...
 
I hope to god that the whole industry doesn't jump on this crap sounding 'innovation' and make it a standard everywhere.. though part of me can foresee that happening.. grrrr!

 
If they do, nothing will change for us.  MP3 players will continue to be able to use both types of mp3 files (but both will be played as lossy) [the old and the new mp3s].  You'll just keep doing what you always do.  As it stands now the kings of music sales iTunes Music Store, Amazon, and the other music services don't offer anything but lossy mp3s. [Is HDTracks or w/e mainstream? or Big]?  My hope is that you'll be able to extract the lossless data out and be able to convert it to FLAC.  That might be the only major change for us (a bigger source of lossless music (and more popular music)).  But that's probably a pipe dream (there will probably be a road bump that prevents extraction or DRM).  It won't be crap sounding, Lossless is Lossless [Yes the Lossy portion of the new mp3 will still be 'crap sounding'].
 
 
 
[size=medium]

Quote:

I don't think anyone will devote his free time to reverse engineer something like this.
 
Kisho, you're right about codecs being less straightforward than scripting language samples. To get some basic insight, start by reading the flac website.

 
If they keep it closed source somebody will.  But I guess you're right who needs more lossless music anyway, it's probably all Lady Gaga songs. ;D
 
Does the FLAC site explain is in basic or math terms or at least start basic and work it's way into more complex stuff, or does it assume you have some sort of basic codec operation knowledge before hand?
​

[/size]

 

[darknessproz]

I have no experience in audio codecs. My skillset is still pretty small, limited to python and a bit of c++. If it's close sourced, it will be a even bigger NO compared to FLAC. 
 
Quote:

@darknessproz I haven't downloaded it as well, I don't have enough interest to track it down.  Plus I wouldn't know what I'd do with it.  I'd like to know from somebody who has see the code.  [Any comment notation]?  Is there even any code for this new upcoming standard?  I'm guessing it's going to be closed source (pay for a licence to accessing the code) [which won't stop people for reverse engineering it].  While I cannot program to safe my life I can often modify existing C and C-like code to do what I want with off and on success (I'm more of a scripter (I can learn scripting languages and write scripts from scratch)) [Sometimes I require help to iron out my mistakes (C)].  The majority of the code I see is well documented enough for me to figure out how to modify it, and I hope it's not a passing fad.  With more though on this subject, I can imagine the code for a codec would be far more abstract then the typical program, or plugin.  Have you any experience in programing codecs?  I'd enjoy some basic insight on the code of an audio codec and generally how it works.

 

[mongolianfly]

This seems like a way to get the general public informed about lossless, and perhaps to keep people listening to .mp3 files rather than switch to FLAC as PMPs continue growing in storage space.

 

[TheKisho]

Quote:

This seems like a way to get the general public informed about lossless, and perhaps to keep people listening to .mp3 files rather than switch to FLAC as PMPs continue growing in storage space.

Are you hoping it's a gateway drug that leads to FLAC? I hope so but I see people stopping at this new format (the average user is to lazy and doesn't care).