Lossless converting a CD to FLAC. But that CD was recorded at 44hkz sampling rate, which gives you a maximum frequency of 22khz. You have lost audio above 22khz. Children can theoretically hear frequencies higher than this, but typically adults cannot.
FLAC doesn’t cut anything out though. Whatever input you use, FLAC compresses losslessly. You can use 96kHz 24bit recordings and the resulting FLAC file can be decompressed back into a bit-perfect copy of the original.
In the OP, the messages in red are correct. FLAC is like a ZIP file designed to be more effective at compressing audio files. And just like a ZIP file, you can reconstitute the original file exactly. There’s no data lost in compression.
Yes if you’re transcoding a CD to FLAC it’s lossless. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the process of digitally recording the audio in the first place.
Nevermind the fact that nobody seems to have paid any attention to the original joke which is that the boomers who can afford high end stuff can’t even hear the difference.
I dont think you understand the difference between a lossless file format/encoding algorithm and “losless” recording/storing of signals. If anyone ever speaks of a lossless encoding algorith theyy mean that avter encoding and decoding the input and output will be the same e.g nithing was lost. Why would the recording have annything to do with the lossyness of the encoding algorithm? If the music was made digitally there would be no loss in any sense since the output of your daw or midi file etc is already digital. Btw in general you just cant record any arbitrary analog signal but you can record a lot of it. You will also never in no media be able to store the exact signal. There is always noise always some variation. Even if you store your signal analog there is only so much variance of the magnetic field in a tape and only so many atoms of height difference in the groove of your vynil. The thought of lossless recording is just dumb if you think about it because you change the signal by measuring it annyway so what even is the “original” signal?
You said FLAC limits files to 20 kHz. Walk me through how the page you linked to supports anything like that claim.
Because I checked that same page, before pointing out: FLAC encoding doesn’t even understand sample rates. It just sees a block of samples. Integer values go in - the same integer values come out. It’s not called “lossless” because people think it sounds neat.
FLAC still cuts out part of the signal. It’s limited to 20khz.
That was worded poorly, and as it was worded is incorrect. I have no idea where I got google from other than I copied it from the first google search result and didn’t think about it. That’s what you get when you make a lazy ass comment from your phone. All my audio is at least 16/44 What I should have said was:
At 20khz FLAC still cuts out part of the audio.
Or just left that first line out entirely and only had the actual joke so people wouldn’t latch onto nitpicky shit:
Even 20khz typically well above the limit of an adults hearing, especially someone old enough with enough money and equipment to be considered an audiophile.
FLAC is totally lossless. You can rip a CD to 44kHz WAV, compress it to FLAC, and then decompress it and get a bit-perfect copy of the original WAV.
Lossless converting a CD to FLAC. But that CD was recorded at 44hkz sampling rate, which gives you a maximum frequency of 22khz. You have lost audio above 22khz. Children can theoretically hear frequencies higher than this, but typically adults cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem#%3A~%3Atext=If+the+essential%2CNyquist+interval.
FLAC doesn’t cut anything out though. Whatever input you use, FLAC compresses losslessly. You can use 96kHz 24bit recordings and the resulting FLAC file can be decompressed back into a bit-perfect copy of the original.
In the OP, the messages in red are correct. FLAC is like a ZIP file designed to be more effective at compressing audio files. And just like a ZIP file, you can reconstitute the original file exactly. There’s no data lost in compression.
Yes if you’re transcoding a CD to FLAC it’s lossless. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the process of digitally recording the audio in the first place.
Nevermind the fact that nobody seems to have paid any attention to the original joke which is that the boomers who can afford high end stuff can’t even hear the difference.
You began this by saying
Recording from analog to digital is lossy, in the same way as previously described about images. But this has nothing to do with FLAC.
That’s the entire yoke.
I dont think you understand the difference between a lossless file format/encoding algorithm and “losless” recording/storing of signals. If anyone ever speaks of a lossless encoding algorith theyy mean that avter encoding and decoding the input and output will be the same e.g nithing was lost. Why would the recording have annything to do with the lossyness of the encoding algorithm? If the music was made digitally there would be no loss in any sense since the output of your daw or midi file etc is already digital. Btw in general you just cant record any arbitrary analog signal but you can record a lot of it. You will also never in no media be able to store the exact signal. There is always noise always some variation. Even if you store your signal analog there is only so much variance of the magnetic field in a tape and only so many atoms of height difference in the groove of your vynil. The thought of lossless recording is just dumb if you think about it because you change the signal by measuring it annyway so what even is the “original” signal?
FLAC encoding has no concept of sample rate. It only encodes a stream of samples.
https://xiph.org/flac/faq.html#general__samples
Pictured: not what you were talking about.
Stop grasping for a way to avoid saying “oops.”
Pictured: doing everything in your power to avoid the yoke so you can akshually and look cool.
You said FLAC limits files to 20 kHz. Walk me through how the page you linked to supports anything like that claim.
Because I checked that same page, before pointing out: FLAC encoding doesn’t even understand sample rates. It just sees a block of samples. Integer values go in - the same integer values come out. It’s not called “lossless” because people think it sounds neat.
That was worded poorly, and as it was worded is incorrect. I have no idea where I got google from other than I copied it from the first google search result and didn’t think about it. That’s what you get when you make a lazy ass comment from your phone. All my audio is at least 16/44 What I should have said was:
Or just left that first line out entirely and only had the actual joke so people wouldn’t latch onto nitpicky shit: