Cyber7PUNK wrote:
AliJune wrote:
Your 2nd comment is rather misguided and I already addressed it in my original post. Compression has been used in recording longer than you and I have been alive, and whatever 'artifacts' mention (nevermind you could never point them out since we use $20,000 machines to compress the vocal tracks over the production cycle) are way easier to put up with, if even noticable, than the artists or the instruments original sound.
This is a fundamental error to confuse FLAC,MP3 (Data based) compression (lossles and lossy respecively) with Prodution (dynamic range) compression.
Dynamic range compression used in music production (typically used on vocals) is actually related to the amplitude(volume) of the overall sound by in its simplest terms is used to even out the amplitude(volume) of the overall sound, this is why it is known as dynamic range compression( the difference between louder and quiter parts).
This is an entirely different thing to Flac & mp3's in that Flac & mp3's use an algorythm to compress the Data in regard to its storage size.
the difference between the way flac & mp3's perform this type of compression is that mp3's omit certain relatively impercieved frequencies and other methods to reduce the file size (but a higher bitrate will give better results but bigger files).
flac compresses the file losslessly which means that when it is played back it is the same as the original recording as it has retained its integrity not using the technique of mp3.
There is no really valid reason to use flac over a .wav file as the process of decompressing the flac file into a linear audio stream (just like a wav) apart from just adds the unecessary extra processs of decompression.
Just use a wav file(linear uncompressed audio). simple
Couldn't have said it better...
Support
Corporate
Community
