Hi everybody.

SL 2.0 is announced and with all the information and videos from NAMM it seems like we STILL have to wait for FLAC support.

So why this thread?

Well, in the "Codecs!" thread there discussions on lots of formats. Some are fully included (mp3, aac, alac), some are included (ogg vorbis without album art support) and some are not.

The most requested audio format seems to be FLAC
flac.sourceforge.net
en.wikipedia.org

The thing is that we don't have numbers. So we can keep discussing in other threads but this one should only be a voting one.
No discussion, no comments - just results.

Every user is invited to take ONE vote by writing just +1 / -1
So at the end we should be able just to count the yes- and no votes and see...

Ill take the first vote:

+1

Seriously, how many times do we have to have the same thread started by the same people?

Great!

1. I never started such a thread.
2. I couldn't find a thread like this
3. The ones about codecs are all screwed up (like this one is now too)

Well done, sir.

A poll doesn't matter. Serato knows we all want FLAC support. It's not like anyone is going to vote "no" to FLAC support.

Hmm... No

See?

It's definitely not all. And there are like thousands of people who only know MP3. And most of them even don't know or hear a difference between 128 and 320kbps.

I want to know - or better: want the Serato guys to know - how many people are actually requesting FLAC support. If it's a lot or "always the same guys".

For me it's starting to be a deal breaker. Because on one hand I want to stay with SL. I'm currently owning an SL-1 and I will switch to SL-3 in the near future if FLAC support comes in one of the sooner releases. But on the other hand there are already DVS'es out there supporting this codec. And some of those are actually pretty good.

Lot's of people argue with ALAC which is already implemented. But that doesn't work out for b/c I already have two hardware players filled with FLAC that don't even support ALAC. And having to use two different lossless codecs makes no sense b/c I then can go with WAV... but wasting space is not an option for me.

I think we can ignore this thread in eather way. The posts made already screwed it up if we look at my "rules" from the first post.

The first rule of forum posts is there are no rules. (Well, except for the ones made by the forum administrators.)

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

would like it. hope it will eventually come.

+1 pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1) Google this sentence "why apple doesn't support flac"
2) Read a few of the posts / articles on the first page returned
3) Realize that Serato is just like those other companies mentioned and does not need the headache of supporting an open sourced format
4) Know that Serato fully supports the Apple Quicktime playback system
5) Try to live with the fact that FLAC is probably never going to be supported by Serato.

1) Forget 1-5) above
2) Realize there are some people whose only mission is to bash something instead of respecting others suggestions.

Realize that some people like to deal in facts instead of standing in the corner like a little schoolgirl hoping and wishing for something to happen. Something that has more problems implementing vs the benefits gained.

Start coming up with some compelling reasons as to why Serato should start implementing FLAC support, at a cost to them, when there are just as good, if not better, solutions out there for free. Oh, and all the other things I mentioned in items 1-5 that you so readily threw away.

Until then you guys have a thread that means absolutely nothing.

You really want reasons?
What about...
s-u-p-p-o-r-t f-o-r F-L-A-C a-u-d-i-o f-i-l-e-s
?!
According to your theory Serato shouldn't have implemented other codecs either.
Lossy = MP3
Lossless = WAV
But they did. Now we have support for
Lossy = MP3, Ogg Vorbis, AAC
Lossless = WAV, AIFF, ALAC

And here is a good reason: Because people (customers!) requested it.
Just as like other features that a DVS doesn't need - but that we are thankful for.

And BTW: I read your points. I always read to have something to argue.
The only thing I have trouble with here is the language since English isn't my native language and I have never been in a country where this is the case. All you read here is 25% crap I learned from school and 75% out of the internet, movies, sitcoms and like two books. What I want to say is: I have some things to argue on but I'm not capable as much as I'd need to do so.

Well... let's get back to your points...

1) I don't care about Apple because they do lot's of shit but people keep buying their (sometimes really good) products. And if I search for your "apple...bla...support...bla...flac" I always find people praising Apple like there is a rule or something that everything Apple does MUST be right.
What I liked about the results I got was the fact that it's always like... "why Apple doesn't support Vorbis/FLAC".
Good one - we already have Vorbis (which sadly still stays cliche because MP3 rules them all). But we see again: Apple IS NOT Serato!

2) To see that we have different oppinions about implementing FLAC support? Damn, you might not believe how happy I am about that. I mean it would be great if every SL user would request FLAC support. But it's totally OK that this is not the case. But please stop to bash others. If you don't want (or maybe just don't see) anything like this in the future just make your point with a "-1" and everything will be fine.
I'm OK with being "the little schoolgirl in the corner" as long it wasn't for nothing at all.

3) They already support an open format (which is under the roof of Xiph.org too) and everything seems fine. And if you look at the history of FLAC and it's widely support on hard-/software on one hand, and it's position as the most used and requested lossless codec on the other, I don't think Serato will have so much of an headache from supporting that particulary open source format.

4) I know. But what about other hardware I already have? For the last time: I have T-H-R-E-E players here which support FLAC (and no ALAC):
- Sandisk Sansa Fuze (portable and in car)
- Trekstor Vibez (home stereo)
- Nokia N86 (not native but with software player for Symbian OS).
Don't have to mention laptops, desktop PC and HTPC I think.

5) I would have to live with that (or a competitor software) if I had any response from Serato according FLAC support.
The last thing we heard was that the guys are working on it and that it could be avaible in the future.

I don't know what to take out of those comments. But we know that Serato doesn't talk much about it's development. And just before 1.9.x was released people were still requesting a sampler. Now 2.0 is anounced and people were just asking for more decks, smart crates, and built-in fx. Serato almost said nothing about these features - they just implemented them when they were ready to do so.
So just let me sit in my corner and hope... and let's see what happens in the near future.
From my pov there is a 50/50 chance that I will still hope for FLAC for some time, or you will see me getting my long requested feature

...and me being happy as a pig in shit

Serkan, sorry that you think I am bashing you, wasn't at all. Just pointing out reasons why I think this won't happen anytime soon and then asking you (or others) to articulate your points in words other than "Because I want it"

Time will tell if / when Serato thinks this is a good addition to add to ScratchLive, despite all of its drawbacks.

However, as Serkan has already pointed out, the foundation of your argument for not supporting FLAC (because it's an open standard that they do not control) is fundamentally flawed, because Serato already supports Ogg Vorbis. Ogg is also an open standard, from the same organization that handles FLAC.

And personally, I think there is probably even less music out there in Ogg format than there is in FLAC format... So I am bewildered that Serato implemented support for Ogg.

I'd love to see Serato support FLAC, but don't have my hopes up for it anytime soon.

CAW, that really wasn't my sole foundation. My foundation is more that there is a fee for it on the developers side, it is opensourced (and therefore uncontrolled), it offers nothing that Apple Lossless and others don't already offer, and that in a much better way, and it adds another format where it is absolutely not needed.

And all I have said in return is show me a list (like I did) as to WHY it should be offered. Does ANYONE have ANY compelling reasons why it should be offered other than "I want it?"

I don't get why you guys are already having this discussion. Because the videos and info on the net does not mention FLAC? Seems like you know more than I do, because I have not seen any detailed release notes yet.

Come on, you don't have the slightest idea about what 2.0 will do other than "The bridge", a couple more decks, customizable view and artwork scrolling. I guess there will be a little bit more to it than those few things. Remember, ALAC did not have much mentioning either, all attention went to the sampler, but it was there anyway. So who knows, maybe 2.0 DOES have FLAC.

So try to hold your pee in for just a couple of days until 2.0 beta releases and you have confirmation on the presence/absence of FLAC. And then continue your quest if not implemented.

(man, can you imagine how stupid this new thread will look if they implemented FLAC anyway :oD )

Me too
Hands up for FLAC!!!!

+1

(Really trying Traktor nowadays just because of FLAC)

Same here. Installed Traktor Pro Demo and it handles FLAC flawlessly.

@ Evil_banana:

OK, I expected something different when I saw your nick ;)
I'm hoping for FLAC support in 2.x too. But I don't see it happen. Otherwise it would've been mentioned in any way.
Still hoping though^^

@ VJ Justin Allen:

It is as simply as it is.
I mean: Yeah, the main reason is that I want it. What better reason can it be?
It creeps me out to have my digital music seperated in FLAC and MP3 and it would be just great if I could have only one folder where FLAC and MP3 could be side by side.

I would just drop all the MP3 copies of my FLAC files, that I only need for limited DJ software. (Of course I ripped the CDs and Vinyls into a lossless format ... Why should I not use it then?).

this is totally untrue. all open source projects are controlled.



how so?



yes it does - you don't have to use itunes.

You do not have to use iTunes to encode/use Apple Lossless files! They can be encoded with free software such as Max, and added directly to crates.

The only reason I don't particularly support the idea of SSL supporting FLAC is that I personally would rather have them spend the R&D/debugging effort on other things. Such as the long-talked-about high-quality Pitch-n-Time-based Key Lock...and of course all the cool stuff going into SSL 2.0.

It's easy for *certain* other companies to support tons of different audio formats, since they obviously have lower expectations for stability and bug-free operation.

I feel like a lot of (most?) people don't grasp exactly how much effort goes into debugging/testing/regression of professional-level software.

A fair number of people also completely lose all grip on logic when the word "Apple" enters into anything, but that's a subject probably more suitable to a forum for mental-health professionals.

And by the way, since some obviously missed it, the Serato developers also *did* comment, more than once, in that other long thread about "Codecs". Including a fairly recent comment about adding new formats being very significant in terms of stability.

"Load all Messages" when viewing that thread, and you'll find those posts.

still the only way to make 'proper' alac files appears to be itunes.....

to be honest all its going to do is make my life alot easier, (the sound quality is the same after all) which is why this is in features and suggestions and I'm supporting it :)

just ignore it if you think 'its never going to happen'.

just a small side-note: there are non-itunes alac encoders out there

Yes I think I mentioned that already.

Apparently some people prefer to wallow in their own misinformation.

where did you get the idea i thought that? I can read :)

there are non-itunes 'reverse engineered' alac encoders, as I'm pretty sure that apple has never released the spec for the codec. if you want the guaranteed apple alac codec you have to use itunes. please correct me if im wrong. maybe i can learn something new :)

Any app that uses the Quicktime/Core Audio APIs should be able to write ALAC files that are "Apple compliant" since they're using the OS to do it, just like iTunes does.

Correct, besides, same thing goes for flac, right? if you want guaranteerd flac codec you go to flac.sourceforge.net just as well, but it's definitely not the only flac codec out there that does a great job.

omg this is sooo stupid....have any of you tryed to dj with wav files....depending on how big the files are it puts more strain on your system...now consider two big files loaded at the same time....triggering multiple cue points...looping....now a third and fourth deck...and FXs and you'll prob want the fucking thing to suck u off at the same time too ...lol...if u want to have your "sound quality" ....go back to vinyl. i'd rather have a good mp3 at 320kbps and my computers processors and memory focused on he task at hand....besides a majority of night clubs are built first then with the money left over they slap a shyte PA system on their fancy leather covered walls....so as long as us dj are buying and or burning good quality mp3s....and not playing shit @ 96kbps files with the gain cranked....no one wil even notice...especially if they're drunk...soooo in closing for u audiophiles out there yearning for FLAC to make its way in to serato......hmmmmmmmmmmm.....how do i put this....in a way ......as to not offend anybody????????

GO FLAC YOURSELF :P

And stop asking for this feature to make its way into serato . and let the programmers deal with bigger and better things. LIKE>>>> routing the built in audio fx from ableton live back into serato...like the beat repeater....filters...ping pong delays....things of that nature. VST support. full shortcut customization....10 cue points per track....customizable GUI backgrounds....second monitor support (possibly like a bluetooth connected iPad touch navigated library) ... linking two sl-1 boxes together/ or sl-3 and sl-1 for multiple deck use. #JUSTSAYIN Sam Gribben and Dave George HIRE ME !! i have some nutty ideas!!!! I'd totally move to NZ to help progress the development of the what i believe is one of the most influential products of the last 20 years in the dj world!!!! i believe in serato.

:oD lol

But I do not agree with you. First of all, the difference in file-size is faaaaar from immense, if your 320Kbps mp3 is 10Mb, then the alac/flac version is 20 mb (and wave would be 40 mb). Let's say you have fucking huge files, 12 minute Carl Cox version waves that are a 100Mb (and that's extreme), and you have 4 decks loading these big files... you still only total up to 400Mb. Which is only 10 percent of my OLD macbook's RAM, and I'm talking worst case scenario here. Usually it will be 20Mb alacs on 2 decks, which is 40Mb... I think my system can handle that, actually it does because I already use alac.

Also, I think the flac-alac decoding algoritm is less CPU-loading than MP3 because no estimationsand interpolations are being made... "this is the result, and nothing else"

And as for quality... yes it does matter. Not just for playback, but also for all those effects you really want to have. If you're going to do some processing on audio that is only an estimation of what the source used to be, than your effect-result is going to be an estimation as well of what it is supposed to be.
If you use an exact replication of the audio, then the processing of effects will be a lot better too.
And on a decent club-system you WILL hear the difference.


So yes, I think lossless formats are worth it. I'm not talking about flac in particular since I started using alac with 1.9.2, just lossless. :o)

I can understand why people get so upset about a suggestion.

Calm yourself down man, no point in popping a vain over someone else’s suggestion.

if you don’t like it move on the next thread until you find something you feel positive about and support that. No one wants to her your moaning, try and have a positive outlook on things and if you cant then move on its as simple as that.

Its a new year, time for a new you............

In other words, you don't want anyone disagreeing with YOUR opinion to post here.

There is a political convention happening in Nashville this weekend that seems right up your alley.

All i'm saying is be more positave.

hi,
since serato has problems with implementing flac, is there a posibility to get a converter implemented in the program. something that would work in offline mode. the thing is that, and apparently i'm not the only one here, i have loads of music in flac format. just going in another program and converting would cost me just too much time.
is it possible ? is it a good idea even for other formats (because of course flac is not the only format)
anyways ...

What?! ;)
You can get converters like everywhere. Lots of them can convert all your music library over night without even have to create batch files and almost every one is free.
But the main issues are:
- it will not solve the main problem
- it will take even longer to implement FLAC
(I'm almost 30yrs and don't have much time) :)

I am losing any respect I have for Serato day by day................

Is there another program that will play flac. How is Final Scratch these days? I think I need to sell my serato box and switch over...................

Bye.

Don't listen to him ;)

FS is discontinued for some time now. The unofficial successor is Traktor Scratch which actually supports FLAC files. I tried it just a couple of days ago and didn't like it at all. The GUI is all messed up and nothing to come along with if you are familar with the clean interface of SL.
I kinda like accepted the lacking FLAC support of SL since I think it will never come, ever. I will give this another thought when lossless music is avaible for the price of MP3/AAC is now, because only about 10-20% of the tracks I play would be lossless.

And I think it's not fair to "lose respect" for Serato since they already did some great stuff. And we still have to be aware that Serato is still a pretty small company compared to it's biggest competitor NI.
It sucks hard - no doubt.
But there nothing that we can do about it since it's being requested for almost six years now. I realized this - and am trying to find my peace with it.