PDA

View Full Version : your opinion about digital files



kelly
08-01-2009, 11:13 PM
hey all.
I'm preparing the digital files for the download that comes with the new Circulatory System album. I've had a few requests for either FLAC or WAV files as opposed to just MP3s. So I'd like some people to weigh in and let me know what you prefer...

jdrawmeasheep
08-02-2009, 12:09 AM
FLAC is fancy, sure, but keep the masses in mind! Most people don't even know what FLAC is and would probably have trouble converting it.

As for WAV, I still don't know what it even stands for.

seamantis
08-02-2009, 08:53 AM
MP3's for me however I think you should include FLAC files as an alternative. They seem to be quite popular but it would be nice to have a perfect rip of the record. Will this include the bonus disc?

Abel
08-02-2009, 11:12 AM
320kb/s MP3 and FLAC. I think everyone can agree that they don't want this album in a low bitrate. And the option of FLAC would definitely make people who know how to use it extremely happy.

Actually, I have nothing against WAV either. And WAV will play in everything (iTunes, WMP, etc.) without needing to convert. WAV files are huge though, but I seriously wouldn't mind downloading a gigantic file to be able to hear this album losslessly.

Basically, I'm saying give people multiple choices. Then everybody wins - I don't think anyone who voted for MP3 would argue against also releasing it losslessly. Thanks for asking us, Kelly.

I voted "other?" in place of "all."

Crazy Gnome
08-02-2009, 02:18 PM
i like MP3 the best. Everytime i get a FLAC file i just convert it to MP3. so theres really no point of having them on my computer

Dihnekis
08-02-2009, 02:51 PM
I think at least an option for the flac people would be nice. That way those who don't want it won't waste their space and your bandwidth, but people like me who like flac are happy too.

I already ordered the vinyl though, and will probably just do a flac rip of it so it doesn't really matter either way.

Mimi_Merlot
08-02-2009, 04:07 PM
I agree. although i prefer mp3 because i would convert it too mp3 anyway, there should be an option for flac as well.

Abel
08-02-2009, 04:10 PM
It gives people the option of choosing which bitrate they'd like. When you buy a CD you have the same option available, and the one thing I hate about digital downloads is that they usually give you a low bitrate file instead of the full sonic range of music.

DaJe
08-02-2009, 04:38 PM
MP3 would work fine with everyone, and provide compatibility, and I'm sure a lot of people would like it. I would say though, that both MP3 and FLAC should be offered. Those who don't care will just use MP3, and those who really want it can still get the FLAC. Don't bother with WAV, partly because the files are just too big. FLAC works just as well in place of it. I can say that I definitely know plenty of people who would prefer to get the FLAC version of it if they can. But doing just FLAC would probably end up being too selective, so then you can have MP3 as well for everyone who needs it.

rogersbowne
08-02-2009, 11:38 PM
FLAC is fancy, sure, but keep the masses in mind! Most people don't even know what FLAC is and would probably have trouble converting it.

As for WAV, I still don't know what it even stands for.

You know what's hard too, Math. Maybe we shouldn't bother teaching it schools. No reason for anyone to bother learning anything new. FLAC is lossless which is how you should want to hear music. Thanks

Birds...The silent killer
08-03-2009, 02:50 PM
You know what's hard too, Math. Maybe we shouldn't bother teaching it schools. No reason for anyone to bother learning anything new. FLAC is lossless which is how you should want to hear music. Thanks

I don't know 'bout you but i'll be listening to my vinyl at home and my digital files on my mp3 player. I'm gonna end up converting them if they are not in MP3 form. Plus, people are just going to get frustrated that they can't play his or her music. How do you suppose the masses are taught what to do with FLAC? There is a reason MP3 is the leading format. It's what people know.
FLAC is great but pretty much pointless to me. I have my vinyls for best quality and MP3 for convenience. If we can't get two options, then MP3 should be the format.

DaJe
08-03-2009, 03:03 PM
Well FLAC can be offered, and the people who know what they're doing who want it can simply convert it to MP3 if they need to. They can't convert from MP3 to FLAC if they want though, because it wouldn't sound the same. Of course, everyone knows MP3, and it's compatible with everyone, which is why MP3 should be an option. But I still think there should be a FLAC option alongside it. That's what other places seem to do, they offer both.

Julie
08-07-2009, 04:23 PM
You know what's hard too, Math. Maybe we shouldn't bother teaching it schools. No reason for anyone to bother learning anything new. FLAC is lossless which is how you should want to hear music. Thanks

I love FLAC. I'm probably going to crash my family's computer, because I download all of my albums with "Apple Lossless Encoder".

Move the Sky
08-08-2009, 03:24 AM
Circulatory System deserves no less than FLAC.

ufoinkushiro
08-16-2009, 02:30 PM
fuck digital files.

aaron!
08-16-2009, 02:48 PM
i agree....vinyl is where its at

Dihnekis
08-16-2009, 06:00 PM
I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the process, this album was mixed or edited on a digital device. If it is 100% analog, I'd be shocked. Really happy, but shocked.

What that means, is that the vinyl is going to sound pretty much as good as the cd, if not worse.

For example, all the of Montreal albums released recently are recorded/edited digitally, which means if you buy the vinyl version at best it was pressed from 24/96 copies of the files, giving it a tiny bit more resolution that is arguably unnoticeable. More likely, it is from the 16/44 files that are put on the cd, meaning there is pretty much no way a vinyl copy of any of of Montreal's newer albums are going to sound as good as the digital one. With the CD you are getting a pristine copy of the digital files, with the vinyl you are getting those same digital files pressed onto an ancient format with all of its shortcomings (and there are a great many).

Digital music pressed to vinyl sounds worse than digital music through a CD player. Analog music pressed to vinyl sounds better than any kind of digital music. But if any of the editing was done in a digital situation (in other words the tracks maybe were recorded on 8/16 track then bounced to DAT or imported into a computer for editing), you lose all the benefits of an entirely analog recording.

All of this said, I have a far better vinyl playback setup than I do digital playback setup, so I prefer vinyl in almost every situation, and that may be the case for others too. If I had a really nice CD player or Digital to Analog Converter, I'd probably prefer the CD version of most of the recent albums being issued on vinyl. Vinyl is just fucking cool though, and old pressings before any kind of digital music will always sound better than their recent CD/vinyl digital remaster/reissues.

I ordered the deluxe vinyl edition by the way. I'm just being realistic.

ufoinkushiro
08-16-2009, 07:29 PM
sure there are lots of tech explanations, of which i have sat down and studied too, i know all that stuff about bit rates and sample rates, i'm an electronic student anyway. but at the end of the day, vinyl just sounds great and is more fun than CD and computer files, im sure most will agree,

Abel
08-17-2009, 06:11 PM
Nobody's arguing against you here, the people getting digital files are the ones who ordered the vinyl.

ufoinkushiro
08-18-2009, 01:43 PM
i realise this, just thought i'd say like.

JohnanYoko
08-19-2009, 01:38 PM
Flac please.

nikthastik
08-22-2009, 07:18 AM
if i can't get a lossless download i'll probably purchase the cd as well as the deluxe vinyl version. overkill?, no just a huge fan who wants vinyl for home and lossless format for listening to in the car ect...

sic transit gloria
10-21-2009, 06:19 AM
Kelly, please offer the download in FLAC. Whatever server you're going to use to host the files will not have any trouble holding the larger FLAC files in a single ZIP archive. To offer the album only in lossy MP3 is incongruous with the attention to detail that went into the vinyl album (e.g. reprinting the cover, repressing the albums, etc.). Don't drop the ball now by only offering mp3s. Thanks.

damonin
11-03-2009, 01:36 AM
sure there are lots of tech explanations, of which i have sat down and studied too, i know all that stuff about bit rates and sample rates, i'm an electronic student anyway. but at the end of the day, vinyl just sounds great and is more fun than CD and computer files, im sure most will agree,

vinyl and cd both sound different because of the limitations that each have on the frequencies that they can produce. If a 24 bit version of the album was transferred to vinyl that it would sound different than the cd version which only is 16 bit. so there is still a reason to have vinyl around even if people are recording albums on computers...

Dihnekis
11-03-2009, 03:29 AM
If a 24 bit version of the album was transferred to vinyl that it would sound different than the cd version which only is 16 bit. so there is still a reason to have vinyl around even if people are recording albums on computers...

Yes, transferring a 24bit file to vinyl can potentially yield better results than a 16bit file. However, it is really unarguable that transferring that 24bit file to an analog format results in slight loss of fidelity (pops, clicks, crackle and distortion that occur on vinyl). So no matter what, those 24bit files played back on a high quality DAC are going to sound better than those same files played back on a good turntable.

Of course, there aren't 24bit files available for most albums, so getting the vinyl for its hopefully 24bit version of the files is a benefit. I just don't really think that 24bit to vinyl sounds much better than a 16bit CD played through a good DAC. Our ears pretty much can't hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44 (hell, they can't really tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC), and the new distortions and impurities that HAVE to result while pressing vinyl often result in distractions from the clean digital recording. An example is skeletal lamping... vinyl rip suggests 24/96 files were used for the pressing, but my ears prefer a FLAC rip of the cd to the actual vinyl.

Vinyl from an entirely analog lineage is better than anything digital though. Also, sometimes a digital album will actually sound really nice thanks to vinyl's distorting properties (more warmth).

damonin
11-03-2009, 09:10 AM
Yes, transferring a 24bit file to vinyl can potentially yield better results than a 16bit file. However, it is really unarguable that transferring that 24bit file to an analog format results in slight loss of fidelity (pops, clicks, crackle and distortion that occur on vinyl). So no matter what, those 24bit files played back on a high quality DAC are going to sound better than those same files played back on a good turntable.

Of course, there aren't 24bit files available for most albums, so getting the vinyl for its hopefully 24bit version of the files is a benefit. I just don't really think that 24bit to vinyl sounds much better than a 16bit CD played through a good DAC. Our ears pretty much can't hear the difference between 24/96 and 16/44 (hell, they can't really tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC), and the new distortions and impurities that HAVE to result while pressing vinyl often result in distractions from the clean digital recording. An example is skeletal lamping... vinyl rip suggests 24/96 files were used for the pressing, but my ears prefer a FLAC rip of the cd to the actual vinyl.

Vinyl from an entirely analog lineage is better than anything digital though. Also, sometimes a digital album will actually sound really nice thanks to vinyl's distorting properties (more warmth).

If you have high enough quality sound equipment it is a lot easier to notice the difference between file quality. Also if 45 rpm vinyl was used it would be of higher quality than the standard 33 rpm... But yes vinyl does have a distinct warmth that is nice to hear. Recently i noticed that the pixes reissue "minotaur" was released on DVD and bluray discs taking advantage of the higher bitrate formats. which makes me wish that DVD audio or maybe even a new format on blu-ray was adopted by the public. but alas the MP3 revolution has destroyed sound quality for the mainstream and no one really cares if their 50 cent song they downloaded off iTunes is only 128kbps...

Abel
11-04-2009, 07:45 AM
I think in some cases it's easy to tell the difference between 320kb/s and FLAC. Maybe it depends on how much is going on in the music or the natural timbre of the instruments and sounds. I've never been able to tell the difference with recordings of live shows, though, so I don't know why people prefer to share that stuff in FLAC all the time.

Also, speaking of DVD audio, the new 40th anniversary edition of In The Court of The Crimson King comes with a DVD:


DVD
5.1 Surround Sound mixes available in DTS 5.1. Mixed & produced by Steven Wilson.
24/48 High Resolution Stereo mixes.
24/48 High Resolution Stereo mixes of alternative takes from the original studio session.
24/48 High Resolution Stereo mixes of 2004 re-master, transferred of the original 1969 vinyl mix.
"21st Century Schizoid Man" - film from Hyde Park concert 5 July 1969.

damonin
11-04-2009, 09:18 AM
yeah i was reading about compression. audio artifacts are more apparent when there are large jumps from low to high volume and vice versa since with compression they are trying to limit the amount of frequency's present in the file. removing frequency's that we are less likely to notice being gone to create the illusion of a "full sound".

ufoinkushiro
11-04-2009, 09:21 AM
i've had another think about this and now i believe that both digital and analog have their own uses. i think neither is superior. i think it depends on what you want to do.

Dihnekis
11-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Strangely, I prefer my vinyl copy of Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots to the DVD-Audio 24/96 files, although the album itself was almost certainly recorded on digital equipment.

Pretty much counteracts everything i said above, but this is an exception.

damonin
11-04-2009, 06:48 PM
Strangely, I prefer my vinyl copy of Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots to the DVD-Audio 24/96 files, although the album itself was almost certainly recorded on digital equipment.

Pretty much counteracts everything i said above, but this is an exception.

yeah vinyl has a sort of warm sound to it so some people prefer that even if its not as high quality. it all depends on preference.

telboyD
11-05-2009, 07:19 AM
I WANT MY 24-BIT WAV.! Third disc too please (I already have the CD of Signal Morning so it wouldn't make any difference to have an already compressed format). I think that for the $55 CS have had off me I deserve it. Then I can compress the tracks to any format I like. And don't give me that 'files are too big' rubbish... I download three or four films and a couple of TV programmes a day and so a file around 1GB, split up into five or six zip/rar files, wouldn't make a shred of difference. I want quality and 320/flac just dont cut it. Where's the bottom end.? Gone/transparent.
Dihnekis - you may like vinyl but face the facts - the 24/96 files are how TFL intended it to sound as they were mixing/mastering. There's nothing wrong with digital recording now. It's hardly the same as it was fifteen years ago with the dawn of 192k recording and Pro-Tools HD. 'Tapes phases' are a bitch to do digitally though but I've worked out a good way to do it (even though John Leckie said it was impossible).
Love to all E6 devotees.

Dihnekis
11-05-2009, 07:39 AM
I WANT MY 24-BIT WAV.! Third disc too please (I already have the CD of Signal Morning so it wouldn't make any difference to have an already compressed format). I think that for the $55 CS have had off me I deserve it. Then I can compress the tracks to any format I like. And don't give me that 'files are too big' rubbish... I download three or four films and a couple of TV programmes a day and so a file around 1GB, split up into five or six zip/rar files, wouldn't make a shred of difference. I want quality and 320/flac just dont cut it. Where's the bottom end.? Gone/transparent.
Dihnekis - you may like vinyl but face the facts - the 24/96 files are how TFL intended it to sound as they were mixing/mastering. There's nothing wrong with digital recording now. It's hardly the same as it was fifteen years ago with the dawn of 192k recording and Pro-Tools HD. 'Tapes phases' are a bitch to do digitally though but I've worked out a good way to do it (even though John Leckie said it was impossible).
Love to all E6 devotees.

I actually prefer digital for the most part. 24/96 flac files would be ideal, but the bandwidth costs associated with that much data would surely be a pain for cloud i'm sure. FLAC=WAV, literally there is no difference.

damonin
11-05-2009, 03:46 PM
I actually prefer digital for the most part. 24/96 flac files would be ideal, but the bandwidth costs associated with that much data would surely be a pain for cloud i'm sure. FLAC=WAV, literally there is no difference.

there ISSS a difference man FLAC is still compressed a bit. .wav is pure PURE.

Abel
11-05-2009, 03:48 PM
Flac!=wav

damonin
11-05-2009, 04:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Lossless_Audio_Codec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.wav


they are different

Dihnekis
11-05-2009, 06:41 PM
no, they aren't different at all. that is like saying that putting a file inside of a rar or zip archive is a different file. a zip or rar retains the exact same information, you just have to use more processing power to make use of the file (hence extracting taking a few seconds).

if you have a flac file, you can translate it directly into a wav file with absolutely no loss in quality (hence lossless).

the only difference between the two are the compression algorithms... a wav file uses less processing power to playback, as your computer has to process less information to play the same data back... a flac file is more complex because of its file structure, allowing a smaller filesize while retaining all the same data.

Just like a .zip or .rar file, basically with flac you are trading CPU resources while playing back for hard drive space in storage. Which is a great trade off. Otherwise, no difference.

damonin
11-05-2009, 09:02 PM
no, they aren't different at all. that is like saying that putting a file inside of a rar or zip archive is a different file. a zip or rar retains the exact same information, you just have to use more processing power to make use of the file (hence extracting taking a few seconds).

if you have a flac file, you can translate it directly into a wav file with absolutely no loss in quality (hence lossless).

the only difference between the two are the compression algorithms... a wav file uses less processing power to playback, as your computer has to process less information to play the same data back... a flac file is more complex because of its file structure, allowing a smaller filesize while retaining all the same data.

Just like a .zip or .rar file, basically with flac you are trading CPU resources while playing back for hard drive space in storage. Which is a great trade off. Otherwise, no difference.

but that IS the difference. :)

telboyD
11-06-2009, 06:04 AM
Dihnekis - Flac, like mp3, is a compression algorithm - a codec, as it's known nowadays. A '.WAV' file is a pure, unadulterated 'wave file'. Seriously, I know what I'm talking about. Having a studio I create Wav files every time I record anything. Flac, Ape etc might be constantly referred to as 'lossless' but, really, they are. They're just not as squashed as ogg, wma or mp3.

Abel
11-06-2009, 06:40 AM
Yeah, I think a lot of people are confused by how FLAC is referred to as lossless, but it's not.

telboyD
11-06-2009, 09:16 AM
Abel - wouldn't you just love to hear the 24bit/96KHz masters.? Ooh... salivating at the thought. 'Outside Blasts' without the drop-down to 16bit. Oooh.! That's how all music should be heard.

Dihnekis
11-06-2009, 09:21 AM
What the fuck? Are you guys crazy?

Seriously... open up flac frontend. Take a wav file. Encode it in the flac format.

Now take that flac file, and put it in flac frontend. Click decode.

What do you get?

THE EXACT SAME WAV FILE YOU PUT IN AT THE BEGINNING. There is no loss of quality, or change at all in the actual data being sent to your stereo, at any time in the process, be it playback of the wav file or the flac file. Again, no change in the actual 1s and 0s your Digital to Analog Converter is receiving, the change is in the way your computer is able to communicate that data to your stereo.

Comparing flac to ogg vorbis or mp3 is stupid, and completely wrong. They are nothing alike. When you convert a wav file to mp3, and then convert that mp3 back to wav, YOU DO NOT GET AN IDENTICAL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FILE. There is a loss in quality, and the 2nd wav file is actually going to sound WORSE than the mp3 file, and obviously way worse than the wav. Hence "lossy".

All that flac is doing is taking that wav file, and making your computer see it in a way that takes up less actual hard drive space for the same amount of information, but requires your computer to do more work to access that information.

Working in a music studio doesn't really mean you can't be entirely wrong about this, sorry.


but that IS the difference. :)

correct

From the FLAC website:
What is FLAC?

FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that audio is compressed in FLAC without any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically for audio...

So if you believe that when you put a file in a zip archive, and then pull it out of the zip archive, you've somehow lost something... I guess you can still think there is a difference between flac and wav. I just think that is crazy.

Abel
11-06-2009, 09:02 PM
I admit defeat. I realize that I was misinformed and that simply looking up what FLAC just stands for would have persuaded me.

telboyD
11-29-2009, 06:54 PM
The point is will those of us who paid for the 'Deluxe' edition get a download code for all three albums worth or just the two.? I already have it on CD. I want the third album in a digital format too. $40+ should seal the deal imo.

EarthlyCitizen
11-30-2009, 12:39 AM
I remember someone official telling us that the bonus lp would come with a digital download. Can't remember where or when though but I'm pretty sure that's the deal.

Abel
03-23-2011, 12:03 PM
My opinion about digital files is that the Holiday Surprise 7" should be released as FLAC, for free.

soniclovenoize
03-23-2011, 12:39 PM
Are people still voting on this?

Abel
03-23-2011, 12:39 PM
Yeah, from time to time, haha.

soniclovenoize
03-23-2011, 12:48 PM
It keeps getting bumped with no posts... Yours is like the first, but it keeps showing up! :mad:

Abel
03-24-2011, 07:09 AM
Because people keep voting.

j_brodu
08-29-2011, 12:05 AM
I just entered in my vote.

Abel
09-07-2011, 12:26 PM
The importance of setting a close date on polls.

whilst3
09-07-2011, 05:00 PM
Man, if only we had a few moderators to close polls.

j_brodu
09-07-2011, 11:15 PM
The importance of setting a close date on polls. you're telling me that my vote doesn't influence what format my signal morning digital download will be in?

sic transit gloria
09-08-2011, 09:15 AM
Lots of misinformation in this thread. FLAC is lossless, but is not "the exact same thing as WAV." The difference is lossless compression. A FLAC file would save Cloud on bandwidth as compared to WAV files. When you decode the FLAC file, you get the WAV file. SHN was another lossless compression format that was in use before FLAC took over the "market."

Kelly, please give two options for the download material: 1. 320 kbps MP3 or 2. FLAC. The bandwidth considerations are minimal, because most people will just take the mp3s, and there aren't that many people that will be downloading this material anyway. What I want access to, especially, is the FLAC files for the remastered Black Foliage. I will love having the vinyl, but I would also like lossless digital files for my digital playback devices.

thedreamcomparison
09-08-2011, 09:32 AM
you're telling me that my vote doesn't influence what format my signal morning digital download will be in?

just laughed so hard

Abel
09-08-2011, 10:32 AM
sic, are you talking about OTC reissues? Because this isn't the place. Signal Morning downloads have come and gone.

j_brodu
09-08-2011, 04:54 PM
sic transit gloria:

And basically, so have the OTC reissues. Those are already on the market, and some people have already used their download code! And even if this wasn't the case and there was anything to decide, it wouldn't be Kelly's choice, since Cloud isn't reissuing the OTC vinyl, Chunklet is.

windsphere
09-10-2011, 04:13 PM
My choice is other and Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source. http://www.vorbis.com/

j_brodu
10-19-2011, 04:11 PM
My choice is other and Ogg Vorbis is a completely open, patent-free, professional audio encoding and streaming technology with all the benefits of Open Source. http://www.vorbis.com/I actually really like ogg but nobody uses it which detracts from its usefulness. But the whole psychoacoustic transparency idea really is genius.

Abel
11-18-2011, 06:57 AM
The importance of putting a close date on polls.

Abel
02-15-2012, 10:39 AM
The importance of putting an expiration date on drugs.

spiffy_kimbean
02-16-2012, 02:33 PM
http://r0.sgsr.us/imgs/250/hss252.gif