Why do people love FLAC files so much?

Why are people so OBSESSED with FLAC files on this site? I mean really???... Whenever someone shares something it always has to be in flac, and whenever it's in mp3, people have a god damn heart attack over it. Why? the increase in quality is so minute on a flac plus each file takes up 5 times as much space as an mp3 file, not to mention more audio players play mp3's. So why? I never understood the big deal and advantage over FLACs. So what if it is lossless?

This belongs in Personal, not 'Queen - Serious Discussion'

And you sir probably don't have good enough ears to tell the difference - either that, or you lack good quality headphones to do an A:B comparison (128kbps vs lossless) with.

Well 128 kbs vs FLAC is a huge difference! That's easily noticable!

What about anything from 192 kbs and up? I can't notice too much difference.

An mp3 is a digital version of what something used to sound like, as quality is irreversibly lost.

FLAC, on the other hand, preserves all of the quality.  When music is being transferred from old tapes, it's best to preserve what little is there instead of making it even worse by cutting higher frequencies and adding digital artifacts to the sound.

But when most people these days listen to music from a 1" speaker, they'll never hear the difference.  Not all ears are created equal, I guess..

But FLAC takes up so much room. Plus it takes much longer to download FLAC files.

And I hear the difference, just don't think it's that big of a deal to take up five times as much space. Thanks. I always been wondering about this and you guys answered my question.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]jamster1111 wrote: [/QUOTENAME] But FLAC takes up so much room. Plus it takes much longer to download FLAC files. [/QUOTE]

You do know 1TB-2TB hard drives can be had for well under $99, right?

jamster1111 wrote:

"And I hear the difference, just don't think it's that big of a deal to take up five times as much space."

Then wait for it to pop up on youtube.  Problem solved..

Sir GH wrote: jamster1111 wrote:

"And I hear the difference, just don't think it's that big of a deal to take up five times as much space."

Then wait for it to pop up on youtube.  Problem solved..

=============
That's when I come in! LOL

Thank goodness the days of the deaf wielding their ways on the enlightened are over.

We've hit a point where technology allows us to perfectly replicate what's on an old tape and send it around the world in minutes, and some people complain about the download speed of something they did zero work to create.  Unreal, really..

Sorry to be a jerk... but complaining about quality never ceases to amaze me.  It'd be like the McDonalds crowd going to a fancy restaurant and complaining to the staff that their food takes too long to cook.

Sir GH wrote: Thank goodness the days of the deaf wielding their ways on the enlightened are over.

We've hit a point where technology allows us to perfectly replicate what's on an old tape and send it around the world in minutes, and some people complain about the download speed of something they did zero work to create.  Unreal, really..

Sorry to be a jerk... but complaining about quality never ceases to amaze me.  It'd be like the McDonalds crowd going to a fancy restaurant and complaining to the staff that their food takes too long to cook.
It's an accurate analogy though,

MP3/McDonalds: Quicker service, more simple, inferior
FLAC/High Class Restaurant: Slower service, richer sound, superior

It's a perfect analogy, Bob.

Another thing about the lossy formats is the re-compression artifacts. I can think of several ways of going wrong with that. E.g. A downloads a concert in mp3, then records it into CD for B, then B rips the CD and, for space reasons, converts the audio back to mp3, then sends the files to C, who uploads them to YouTube.

"The horror! The horror!"

jamster1111 wrote: But FLAC takes up so much room. Plus it takes much longer to download FLAC files.

=====================

Buy a Terrabyte of memory for 50 dollars and you done.

Indeed...

HDD sizes grow at a staggering pace, and it won't be long untill you can't get your harddrive filled even if you wanted to.

I know a lot of files (especially movies) will also get bigger, but music will not as they had reached their limit the second compact discs were able to be read on a PC. They are converted to uncompressed WAVE files enableing your pc to read the info and send it to your speakers. (probably not exacly like this, but you get the picture)

in short... Disc Space is no longer an arguement.

jamster1111 wrote: But FLAC takes up so much room. Plus it takes much longer to download FLAC files.
---------------------------------------

Good God. We live in 2011, not 2001.
MP3 was created back in the old days of 14k modems, so that music files could be downloaded over a few hours (!) rather than a few days.
We have Broadband now (and have had for at least 5 years), so there's absolutely NO NEED for MP3 anymore!
Sure, If you listen through an ipod, you'll notice no difference, but I listen to music through a hi-fi seperates system that cost me £600 back in 1991, and believe me, I CAN tell the difference between a concert encoded to mp3 and the original lossless source.

Thank GOD for FLAC!