Audio snobs rejoice: Windows 10 will have system-wide FLAC support

[Chiefcrowe]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2852...ws-10-will-have-system-wide-flac-support.html

 

[escrow4]

WMP is rubbish. MS should just buy out Foobar and use that as the default . . . . . been using Foobar for years with the default ultra ugly screen and one or 2 other interface mods browsing via directory. Works beautifully. 45MB in use for a 140GB library. Mmmmm.

 

[Cerb]

Huh. I can honestly say I've never been bothered by lack of any OS-wide audio codec support in Windows. Nice gesture by Microsoft, though.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[inf1nity]

So does FLAC really make a difference over MP3 or is it just placebo?

I personally don't find it any better, but then I also have low end hardware(Realtek onboard sound and 2.1 speakers)

 

[Cerb]

You have to ask if it's placebo, so of course it makes a difference: using lossless, that is not necessary. 1TB can hold over 2,000 average-length CDs, and still over 1,000 full-length ones; plus CD resolution audio is only about 150KBps.

And, if you can't hear a difference, you haven't listened to enough. Well-encoded lossy is usually indistinguishable, but not always. Lossless always is indistinguishable, being the same data.

 

[HeXen]

If my car doesn't support FLAC then it's useless to me since all my music listening happens there. If it did, it would still be useless because a car is the worst audio environment and I probably wouldn't hear a difference worth noting anyway.

 

[DigDog]

windows needs more than flac support - it needs a proper audio-per-source control system. its ridiculous that it doesnt have one yet.

 

[chucky2]

Too bad they didn't do this when it might have mattered...

 

[probedb2]

So does FLAC really make a difference over MP3 or is it just placebo?

I personally don't find it any better, but then I also have low end hardware(Realtek onboard sound and 2.1 speakers)

Most people are unlikely to hear any difference between a properly encoded MP3 (say using LAME) and the source. FLAC is very useful for archiving as obviously there's no data loss from ripping your CD/Blu-Ray audio etc.

Plus these days space is so cheap that I'd use FLAC anyway. My car is the only thing that can't play FLAC, however my headunit is ancient and I need a new one and some support FLAC these days

 

[Anubis]

good

next up built in BR support - this needs to happen

 

[master_shake_]

good

next up built in BR support - this needs to happen

nope MS would have to pay the licensing fees and they have NEVER done that.

remember the classic xbox? no dvd support unless you bought a dongle.

 

[fleshconsumed]

You have to ask if it's placebo, so of course it makes a difference: using lossless, that is not necessary. 1TB can hold over 2,000 average-length CDs, and still over 1,000 full-length ones; plus CD resolution audio is only about 150KBps.

And, if you can't hear a difference, you haven't listened to enough. Well-encoded lossy is usually indistinguishable, but not always. Lossless always is indistinguishable, being the same data.

I use lossless because why not? Hard drives are cheap and even with all my music collection I'm nowhere near enough filling my hard drive.

That said, my primary music rig is Asus Xonar Essence STX + PPAv2 amp (yes, old, but it works well) + HD650, and I don't think I could distinguish between 320kbps encode and lossless. I definitely hear the difference at 128 and 192kbps, but starting from 256kbps the difference begins to disappear. I'm not sure if I could distinguish 256 and lossless. If I A/B'd, maybe, but not if I was just casually listening. And that's with properly driven HD650, most people won't have than kind of gear so they won't hear the difference no matter how much they listen.

 

[Cerb]

At such high bitrates, it's more finding samples the codec just hates. FI, the thunder in The Fall of the House of Usher, from Takes of Mystery and Imagination, never sounds right, lossy. For something a bit newer and hotter, Garbage's It's All Over But The Crying gets loses it's layering, and become smushed. Most will be indistinguishable at high bitrates, especially if recorded and mastered well (search Youtube for Bob Katz on the loudness wars, part 3, for a neat nulling comparison of low bitrates, showing what goes on).

 

[tential]

Probably would have helped more people if they gave the xbone/360 FLAC support instead.

Yup agreed. I can use 3rd party programs in Windows and chances are I won't use windows programs to play these programs anyway.

But Xbone/360? They always seem to gimp their console in ridiculous ways.

 

[dagamer34]

nope MS would have to pay the licensing fees and they have NEVER done that.

remember the classic xbox? no dvd support unless you bought a dongle.

Yeah...

1) Too many hoops to jump through.
2) Blu-ray still hasn't outsold DVD.
3) Most computers these days aren't even sold with optical drives, much less Blu-ray drives.
4) Microsoft would rather you purchase an Xbox One anyway.
5) Streaming exists, and is good enough for most people.

It's not happening.