+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.

I'm not a DJ. More of an audiophile. Wanted to see what formats the DJ community was using and ran across this discussion while googling. Frankly, surprised that Serato doesn't support FLAC but does support ALAC.

Lossless is appealing because you can convert it to any format (now or in the future) without worrying about transcoding loss. I switched from MP3 to AAC for my portable listening.

"Realize that Serato is just like those other companies mentioned and does not need the headache of supporting an open sourced format"

OGG is open source and supported. I don't see why supporting open source formats would cause headaches.

There may be technical challenges to implementing FLAC. You'd need more than simple decoding since, unlike regular listeners, you people need instant skipping. Still if ALAC is possible, I would think FLAC is too.

The best alternative is MP3 or AAC. Using LAME to encode, MP3 is transparent at the V3 preset for most people and V2 for everyone. 320 kbps is overkill. AAC gets even better compression than MP3. Using Nero to encode, AAC is transparent at 0.4 for most and 0.5 for everyone.

So you'd need to maintain two copies (FLAC and MP3/AAC) but some of us do that anyway because we use equipment (e.g., iPods) that can't play FLAC.

Just curious... why would you post here then?

Like I said I was curious about what the DJ community was using. Thought maybe you'd be ahead of the curve when it comes to audio quality. Pretty surprising that lossless isn't more widely used.

Oh I did DJ a little way back in the 90's. So much has changed since then...

Wow, now random people with made up user names are just popping in to say that ScratchLive should use FLAC.

So sad and transparent it's actually funny.

Wow, now our VJ is completely out of arguments that he has to make up any senseless theories, just because... well I still don't know his reason.
I think he's either trolling or weirdly hating FLAC.

"Not a DJ" seems unaware that SSL has supported Apple Lossless for quite some time.

I've been using it (both with audio-only files, and videos) for many months, and it's been working fine.

And...since this started out as a "vote" thread, I might as well explicitly vote against FLAC support.

Reasons:

1) it would be of zero benefit to me, since I use iTunes for library/playlist organization (and have no plans to change that in the foreseeable future)...and iTunes doesn't support FLAC.

2) I would much rather have development time/effort/$$ put towards finally releasing the even-longer-awaited "Pitch & Time"-based high-quality keylock plugin.

3) I strongly suspect that the number of people out in the real-world who care about FLAC support is similar to the number of people requesting a Linux version of ScratchLive.

1) I don't care (but it's OK if you have that oppinion). Don't get me wrong, but I'm using iTunes just to purchase music. If it comes to managing tracks it's for me one of the worst programmes to do so.
2) True that. Having better keylock and putting smart crates into normal ones are (even for me) more important than FLAC support. But it comes 3rd :)
3) This is something that we just can guess since no one will ever have official numbers about this. I think that you'll find 10x more supporters for FLAC than for Linux. And: Implementing an audio codec is muuuuch easier than making the whole software compatible to an OS - especially if it has like a gazillion versions out there ;)

iTunes + Scripts = excellent for me.
I vote no for FLAC until itunes supports it (or until SSL library is better then itunes)

Yeah, Flac would be great!
I have 1.5TB External HD of FLAC & have bought a same another External HD for ALAC, no i'm not worry about money, but i have no time to encode all my FLAC collection to ALAC!
I need to create a thousands new folders, give same titles for them & then encode every single & album separately, because i don't want to encode all my stuff in one heap! I will do it for a next year, got damn! But i need it now, i always thinking on my live-sets about some "cool tracks", which could be "ROCK THAT PARTY", but i have it in Flac at home & don't have in "Serato's format" right now in my hands!!!

pretty sure some of the converters will a-keep the same tags b-take in multiple folders c-replace files in the correct folders. so...

a - yes
b - you need indicate folder before click convert, but if you will convert all your stuff at one operation, it will be converted in one folder or you need convert every single & album separately!
с - yes (but see "b")

d - if you pretty sure, please give me info about this magic converer, that can correct "in one click" convert from FLAC to ALAC, keep tags & create same folders on another HD?

sbooth.org

OK, may you suggest me - how to install ".tar.bz2" files on MAC? I don't see any dmg or mpkg files inside archive?

Go to terminal
cd /path/where/downloaded/file/sits
bzip2 -d filename.tar.bz2
tar xf filename.tar

I don't understood how i must do it!? :(

Please give us FLAC

Please give us an end to the FLAC requests.

+1 for Flac support.

Eventually a Losless format will rise above the rest and stick around for a few generations. At this point it is looking like FLAC. Seems like a no brainer for Serato to sort this out. Itunes will no doubt eventually support it as well if the format gains steam.

I do not use them yet but it seems to win over WAV/AIFF in just about every way. People that advocate no evolution out of MP3 files should find another profession and should not be taken seriously. I play a lot of MP3's, but I am not so happy about it. Use what works best for you, but don't tell me or any one else to be happy with MP3's just because you are. That is a lot of Non Sense and nothing else.

regarding plug ins and so on. Lots of solutions exist. Including the use of hardware which will yield better efx than any software is going to. Not supporting FLAC has no solutions until the program is coded to do so. Bells and whistles are great and all, but lets keep Serato a professional platform. Supporting FLAC files is right in line with that.

Hmm you say that FLAC is winning out over all the other lossless formats...EXCEPT Apple doesn't support it. Perhaps it's because Apple has the largest share of lossless formatted files out there. IF Apple is already the leader and they don't support FLAC you think there might be a reason for that?

But keep trying for FLAC support. I am sure that one day someone will come up with an argument that will work.

I don't by that Apple has the largest share of lossless files. There are a number of online shops that sell stuff in FLAC. 24-bit FLAC was even chosen for The Beatles' complete collection on USB stick. I've never seen an ALAC file for sale/download ANYWHERE. The only ALAC files I've seen have been files someone personally ripped from a CD.

UH every file on iTunes is ALAC. As of Feb 2010 that was 10 billion songs sold.

You might want to re-think your last statement.

How comes my files come out as AAC?

Yeah! Give us your secret password to the lossless part of iTunes! I'm tired of ripping CD's and vinyl :o)


True of course, but maybe there could be another way to look at it. Apple has the largest share in the mobile music player business (iPod/iPhone), and I think also has the largest share in music management software business (iTunes). I'm not saying 'best', I'm saying 'largest'.

Even though ALAC is not on sale, lot's of people have iPods and use iTunes, so the audiophiles that like iPods will be ripping their CD's to ALAC. And since Apple is holding the largest share, it might as well be that they outweigh the share for FLAC, even though ALAC isn't sold anywhere.

I'm not saying that's the case since I don't have any numbers on it, just mentioning it as another way to look at it, another possibility, for the sake of discussion.


You are starting with assumptions (will... seems...), and are ending with facts (no-brainer... no doubt...).
You're not sure it will be FLAC, but you are sure it will be FLAC, and you're sure as well what other companies like Apple and Serato will do... Feels like a serious hole in your reasoning, or do you know something we don't?... Maybe your real name is Steve Jobs? :oP

Please bring us FLAC support. Having moved from Traktor to SSL I have most of my collection in FLAC. I buy FLAC where and when I can, and I always rip CDs to FLAC.

Yes please bring an end to FLAC requests by bringing FLAC support.

For real????? What the hell, I need these lossless itunes files now!!! Tell me more, please.

Not really, it always has been and still is AAC, they just started higher Q and DRM-free stuff over a year ago. But AAC and ALAC both use the same container (.m4a), so probably that's where the confusion comes from. But if you look at the iTunes purchased filesize, you'll know they can't possibly be lossless or compressed lossless.

Evil, it's not a surprise. Some suspects have proven mutiple times that they do not have a clue about encoding, containers and formats. :)

mp3? alac? aac? mp4? avi? bps? bpm? riaa? lol? rofl? lmao? That's all internet to me! ;)

Nik39, the last one, "lmao"... that sounds fancy, is that supported in iTunes? is it Lossless? :)

I think so! I swear I downloaded everything in the last 15years from iTunes in LMAO format!

+ 1

for FLAC support in 2.2!!!

+1

+1

+1

I don't even know where you can buy flac files.

Now, almost all digital music shops sell in flac, but if you buy CD, i think you'll not play tracks in Serato directly from CD & i riping it to FLAC, because that format better, than AIF, WAV & ALAC!

Really? All the big ones are selling MP3 and WAV. Except for "we-are-oh-so-special" Apple/iTunes = AAC.

Only Beatport & Juno selling only MP3 & WAV as always, but other shops selling flac. Very often digital shops on label's sites selling in Flac.

+1000 what is taking so long????

doesnt matter what and who are sellng what. theyre are tons of .flac out there ready to be played in serato!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bah quote failure :)

It sucks as a format, it costs the developer to implement it, it costs the developer a fee to use it, it is not the standard no matter the same few people who keep asking for it on this forum.

Just a few of the reasons you will never see FLAC in Serato.

Never? Never ever?

Because...?!

Every change in any software costs. Either it's money or effort.

Especially when it's a free codec?
Do you even know what you are talking about?!

The is no "the standard" in lossless formats.

Says who?
Are you involved in Serato?

Fail, indeed.

Sorry, but your comments about FLAC may be the most annoying thing ever written and read in these forums. You moan like always about people asking for FLAC... why bother? Are you involved in some kind of a FLAC-hater-religion? Is the implementation of FLAC going to kill you?
If next time someone asks me for the benefits of FLAC, I'm also going to list "because I want to get one over on VJ Justin Allen" - even if the asking guy is not a member on this board....................

Nice of you to pull bits and pieces of a sentence just to make your point. Always a sigh of a weak mind.

Sure. Specially if it was a listing in the first place.
Never mind. With your argumentation above you already proved that you just troll here... This makes it easier to ignore you.

Ah I see. You say you want FLAC and anyone who opposes YOUR opinion is a troll.

Once again, another sign of a weak mind.

+1 for flac..

A sign of a weak mindes is not to be able to confirm that he was wrong.

You can not even back up your bla bla.

You can start with your statements such as...



or



People on a word will judge you by the words you write. If it's nonsense, then the credibility points are deducted. Oh and you are the prime example - negative credit accounts are possible.

Don't worry Nik...people already judge you and as usual you come up on the short end. But that's the hanging out and playing again.

:oD :oD :oD

I respect you, but please... don't speak for other "people" as I am one of them and I will determine myself whether I think Nik is a Pain In The Ass :o)

@ Makiba

Dude seriously, get your facts straight!
- As for quality AIFF, WAV, FLAC and ALAC are identical... hence "lossless".
- AIFF and WAV are indeed inferior when it comes to tagging (WAV even more than AIFF), but ALAC and FLAC provide almost the exact same tagging-possibilities.
- As for size-compression, it has been tested over and over again that FLAC and ALAC are almost identical as well. For some files one is SLIGHTLY better than the other, but for other files the contrary is true... so you end up with an average that is almost identical.

And please don't say that FLAC sounds better :o). As far as I've been following this discussion, no one has debated whether one is better than the other. Only that one is available and the other not. So people with an entire FLAC-collection or people who buy tracks in FLAC-format are left with some extra hassle if they want to keep it lossless in Serato. Or people who don't want to maintain 2 libraries because Serato plays ALAC but their portable mediaplayer or mediacenter only plays FLAC... Or even about proprietary format vs Open source.
It's more about ease of use and availability than it is about FLAC vs ALAC as a format.

I think you're the first making that claim.

Okay, you're right, and I am wrong.

Since you are right, could you please elaborate and prove to us people why this is correct:





Thanks.

I've never seen even ONE iTunes Music Store file offered in ALAC, so either please correct yourself or post a link to wherever this repository of lossless-encoded iTunes files might be hiding out.

That aside, from Serato's viewpoint I suspect FLAC support still comes up on the short end of an objective cost/benefit analysis.

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I just verified that FLAC files can be easily transcoded to ALAC using the free software "Max":

sbooth.org

Before conversion, I tagged the FLAC file with Media Rage (including artwork), and then verified that the tags are in fact included with the converted ALAC file. The only annoyance is that the filename itself is not saved, but if you're using Media Rage that's extremely easy to fix using that software's "File Renamer" section. All this can be done in batches.

I get that it's an extra step and all that, but at least it's a free and relatively simple way for people to use files sold online as FLAC without compromising the sound and tag info, or having to convert them to much larger linear-PCM format.

Since finding exactly *where* the ALAC format can be found in Max might be a little confusing: you want to select "Apple MPEG-4 Audio" from the "Available output formats" listing, then within that format's Encoder Settings you'll find "Apple Lossless". Once you do that, your choice will be saved for whenever you use Max.

Um, since Ableton Live supports FLAC, won't we be able to play it through the bridge?

True... but scratching an Ableton track isn't really... handy, and you would have to beat grid the lot. And well... if your collection is 80% FLAC and you have to play all these files through Ableton... you might as well toss the serato-part out the door and do the whole set with Ableton.

Creative thinking! Definitely! But it's more like using a canon to kill a fly. It's possible... just not very practical and in proportion :o)

@ DJMark
XLD is a great conversion-tool as well, also allows batch-conversion and preservation of file/folder-structure. Worked fine for me. Just another option.

God that was the worst anti-FLAC post ever, still can't believe those lies came out amongst an intelligent debate. (No really dolphin meat is good for you)

But seriously come across as a mere anti-FLAC troll. It's rather strange while most people voice their support/desire for something that may benefit them, you voice your strong opposition when it would not effect you at all.

If and when Serato support FLAC they will do so with no detriment to your end user experience. It's not like they are going to sacrifice Video-SL for FLAC. So really I don't see your beef. Why spend so much energy attacking FLAC when were it to be implemented the effect on you would be trifling.

If you wish to respond, firstly respond to your quote as above.

Such negative energy.

@Evil banana, guess you're right on that one. But on the other hand it would be cool to have all my tracks color coded in Ableton =)

I've converted all my FLAC to ALAC so no real biggie. Also saves the hard drive space. I feel FLAC is definitely the future however.... that is, if we make it past 2012, hehe.

Will be a difficult one perhaps. And perhaps also depends about which market we're discussing. If we're talking about digital music sale, iTunes has a very big part of the market when it comes to sending digital music. For now they don't have lossless, but I guess it's only a matter of time. I think we'll be seeing Lossless in iTunes within 3 to 5 years.
But that's sale geared towards consumers.
Going towards a more specilized market like DJ's which are probably using beatport, Juno, whatever more than iTunes... things will probably tend towards Wav and FLAC more.
Talking about ripping/sharing music at home and "with friends"... probably FLAC since about 90% of the people are on Windows and windows users seem to be mostly geared towards using FLAC.
And Putting this all together.... I have no clue :oD

You know what, we'll see it when we get there.:o)

+1 for FLAC

Serato will have signed a deal with Apple in order to use ALAC as the ALAC codec is owned by Apple. Apple wants to lock consumers into their world of closed platforms and closed codecs. Apple will have told Serato if they want to use ALAC they are not aloud to implement FLAC. They is why Serato have not said another word about FLAC since ALAC was implemented. (THEY ARE IN BED WITH APPLE)

Well to be correct, I don't think they ever said anything specific about FLAC. In the initial thread "other codecs" they mentioned alac as lossless format if I rmember correctly. Probably because it is supported in iTunes.

Yes, it is an annoyance, but so are these paranoid assumptions you are spewing into every single FLAC-thread.

+1 Million - Pro-FLAC implementation!!!

Big Thx to Serkan for his efforts!!
I really don't understand some points of view...

Please add .FLAC support to SSL

+1 - i'm looking for alternatives at this time, sad to say but it looks like traktor for me.

Did you try the demo of TP2?
I download every single demo of Traktor Pro for the last two years and the FLAC support (which at least is given) has the same issue.
I have a TS certified mixer so TSP2 will only be €300 for me - but it's not worth the money if it can't do things right.
I will wait until one of these guys (Serato, NI) handle FLAC as it's supposed to be (and looong overdue) and then will make my decision in not even a second.
Saying goodbye to Serato? Not yet...

i hear you buddy, i just can't play mp3's any more... i buy a lot of music, i'm lucky enough to make a living from dj'ing - serato, to me, used to mean reliability and ease of use, any venue/any rig or set up - it would just work and was super easy to transport and set up. the compromise that i made was sound quality/convenience... now that lossless formats are playable, i have to buy the gear that allows me to deliver the best possible product. the investment in a new platform is worth it. i have been experimenting with converting from flac to alac and if i buy 300 + tunes per month plus promo's and my own productions then it's a lot of hack and time, might as well just carry a crate of cd's... if you are playing out a couple times a week to four or five times a week, the little things add up and quickly ! by keeping the admin to a minimum i can stay passionate and excited about the music, and for me that was exactly what serato represented, now it represents hack, admin and mission. the standard has changed and while i applaud serato for supporting the lossless format, for most dj's flac is superior in it's utility. if you buy flac/wav and then convert to apple lossless it means duplication of effort and time, constant checking and hassles and the time i'll save using a platform that natively supports flac will make me a better dj, in simple cost/benefit terms. i'll update you on my progress with different platforms. i won't sell my serato yet ;)

the time i'll save (BY) using....*

Very well explained. Makes sense.

spent the better part of today comparing the different products for converting wav or flac to apple lossless. wow. reading up on the various formats... my brain is sore.
in the short term i think i will get by playing wavs. That will mean bringing only 100-150 tracks to a gig (on my laptop) and then swapping them out for others,for the next gig, analysing them again each time (maybe,maybe not). a lot of my mates are talking up the new Traktor, it is looking good and relatively cheap (here in europe). i haven't tested it yet, still trying to find a serato based solution-)
does anyone here know if you can 'trick' serato into playing a 32 bit wav?
i have tested wav's at different bit rates and sample rates and am pretty confused so far.
any hints or pointers would be appreciated.

+1 for FLAC (again after a year ...)

Where is flac still waiting!

No new version yet.
We still need to wait for 2.3 (and other versions) before we get that FLAC will never come in favor of ALAC :)

at least I'm getting support on traktor's end. We will see how long until we get the support on Scratch Live...

There already was FLAC support in Traktor for some time but they had an issue that the first second was missing in every track.
In 2.0.3 they fixed this and FLACs play now flawless like an MP3/AAC/WAV...

Others support FLAC, too. I'm afraid Serato has a unique selling proposition in offering FLAC support *not*.

So 1 year 6 months on and still nothing, looks like were never getting FLAC

Can this thread finally die then?

Accepted. Finally. Just made my very last statement in the ITCH forums.

I just wish they would've been honest with us.

They never said that they're not gonna add FLAC support. IF they responded that it was like "it's our roadmap" or "it will come but we can't say anything yet".
If they don't want then they just should've say it.
They can't do it? Just admit. Don't make people hope for something that will never happen.

I'm dissapointed.
I will put the FLAC files on an external drive for use with my other devices and my desktop PC.
On Mac I will convert them to fu**in ALAC.

I'm finally out :(

Flac +1

ye give flac support

+1

Honesty is the best policy Serato. Please give us a response so we can stop the speculation.

thanks!

i did just find this detailed thread from a few years back explaining the difficulty in implementing flac.

serato.com

my main problem with serato not supporting is the amount of time i spend on converting files

I would really like to see support for FLAC even in a limited capacity. I can convert a small amount of files that I may use for dj purposes with out much trouble, but my live archive is too large and too time consuming to convert on the fly, or to carry with me. It remains unrealistic to grab files as I want them from one of the HD's when I run out the door to a gig or party and then convert them. We aren't talking hours we are talking days of time. I love my scratch Live software. Best investment I ever made. I just want to be able to use all of my music with it. I hope we can work this out someday!
The last thing I want to do is convert the whole thing to MP3, lose quality, and have load up more hard drives with duplicate music. That seems ridiculous.

As a point it took me months of converting all of my videos initially. Days don't seem all that bad.

And as to losing quality, there are other lossless formats that ScratchLive supports.

and drive space is cheap keeping an unconverted backup is nothing

Me too, but I'm not going to apple lossless, I'm going to a system that supports FLAC.

I don't see problem with this. Why just don't serato guys add FLAC support? Maybe some retarded deal with apple to support only their shitty codec?

+1 to FLAC!

also, +1 to POLLS! wouldn't it be nice if we could have a REAL poll? it's difficult to get any idea idea of the acutal numbers here. if you like the idea of being able to conduct POLLS on this website please chime in on this thread:

serato.com

serato.com/forum/discussion/511289

guess the forum decided to edit my link for me and turned it into "serato.com". interesting since that's not what i typed... wouldn't it also be nice if i could go back and edit my post myself? and make it look how i want? that's another website feature request that seems to be getting shot down.. but they say they will consider doing it if enough people make a case for it.

apparently according to ChrisD, the "entire reasoning behind" NOT allowing us to make post edits is that Serato wants to make us "take responsibility for [our] online behaviour". LOL! ok.. well personally I think that's a BS reason.

when asked about the benefit of correcting SPELLING & GRAMMAR mistakes I was told, and I quote:

"MEH"

"Meh"?! LOL!!! now THAT'S what I call a strong argument.

if YOU'D like the ability to EDIT your OWN POSTS, please say so as well here:

serato.com
(serato.com/forum/discussion/511289)

meh

+1 for FLAC

-1 for meh

+1 for feh

+1

plus 1

i dont use itunes
+1 for flac

I don't use iTunes because of flac :)

i dont use it cos it $hit

True.

I would purchase SSL the day it gets FLAC support. Until then, I simply can’t…

Okay, adding another to the list. I quit!!!

I have been a proud owner of an SL-1 and Scratch live software (that I still to this day believe has a better interface to all of the other offerings on the market) for many, many years. The whole of this time, I have repeatability told people to get it, its better, and FLAC will be coming soon. Many have gone and bought the hardware on my recommendation.

I now have realised that Serato have no intention of including this basic format into their product, or even giving users a vague idea of timescales to implement. Therefore I have had enough, I jump boat. You have lost yet another customer over this issue.

I will take it no more!!! If after over 7 years you cant support flac, then I cant be bothered with you. Your UI might be slick, but what is the point it it doesn't support basic functionality? I use this as a tool, I am a professional, The response from Serato has been less than adequate, so much so, that I am now destined on a path to steer all others away from this evil iceberg looming in their path.

I bid you all farewell, I shall not return, I hope for the rest of you that they start listening to the disenfranchised customers. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I shall not return, whatever they do. I have seen enough, and I can see the kind of company that they are and how they respond to their customers. I suppose that all you can hope for is a change of captain. Good luck!!!

this makes me laugh.

YOU make me speechless.

sorry serken - but I just dont see the issue. the work arounds are exceedingly simple solutions.

This verse say a feature request like "splice" for example - you have to open an editor and destructively edit the file. Yet no one threatens to toss the whole system (that Ive heard of) Or other features without work arounds.

dramatics

Honestly this is the most easily solved 'problem' Ive come across with SSL.

*if* youre using a mac. on windows its not that simple. itunes on windows is terrible and if you dont use itunes youve got to use alternative methods (such as ffmpeg).

so what serato on windows forces if you dont use itunes is:

1. Have everything as wav (disk space isnt *that* cheap)
2. Have everything as mp3
3. Use an open source implementation of alac

to me this just doesnt make sense. I really don't get what the issue can be with supporting flac. is it really that bad/hard/niche? with disk space becoming so cheap, surely everyone is interested in using lossless, so why force the use of a file format that can only be encoded *legitamitely* (as in not use a reverse engineered implementation) with one badly written piece of software?

its a facking ballache for me basically. so on i will go asking for flac support.

peas.

Interesting...apparently you have no idea what you are speaking about. I would leave to.

But before you do, at least be honest as to why you are leaving...it really has nothing to do with FLAC support, or lack of it...you just found something you like better and want to make a big deal out of something that can be easily worked around.

Serato NEVER said that they would support FLAC and many on these boards have talked this issue just about to death. Please leave, and tell everyone that you left for the sole reason that FLAC wasn't supported.

I am sure more people than I will get a laugh out of that.

damn ipad


it's not?

One terabyte drives cost $100 and can hold 20,000 uncompressed 5min files. Maybe you need even more files, but I doubts it. And maybe new drive space is unaffordable, but you gotta be making a little cash DJing - how else could you afford SL in the first place? The way the price of drive space drops over time, I have a hard time believing that anyone at this point has such a hard time with space for audio that you need to keep it compressed.

@akiem yes you're quite correct about price of hard drives, although I'd prefer to just use the hd on my laptop, so I am limited in space. additionally you lose the tagging capabilities of the files when using wavs - lets say i wanted to use my files with another media player for example.

it all about ease of use for me and what my work flow is with regards to file storage, so having flac support would benefit me (and others by the looks of things).

If I were in your position I would use flac to archive, yes spend the extra hundred for an external hard drive to back up losseless. And use MP3 320 CBR. You will save even MORE of your valuable drive space and be formatted for even MORE player devices.

Otherwise upgrade your system. You need a larger drive and an audio player that supports aiff - if you want to archive/spin/listen all in the same format.

I don't think Serato should waste time designing for old problems like drive space. Or should worry about being compatible with walkmans.

If your budget is limited then you have to do 'work arounds' thats really just the way of the world.

It’s not a question only of your laptop’s hard drive space, it’s a question of keeping (off-site) backups, transfers between computers, metadata, and so on. Data size isn’t, and never will be, a legacy problem. If you’re happy with AIFF, then great. There are, however, judging by the input in this thread, a lot of people who are not content with AIFF or WAV and would like FLAC support. Since the addition of such support shouldn’t detract from your SSL experience in any way, can you please leave it at that?

But! I agree with you that Serato shouldn’t waste their time designing for old problems. Serato should be designing a plug-in system that allows anyone to add any decoder for any format that they desire. That feature request is discussed in another thread.

My real point is just that it is silly and dramatic to be pretending that no flac support is causing you to move to a different system.

I'm not saying flac support would be bad, or not at all useful. I download thousands of flac files and would certainly enjoy saving the several minutes of my time it takes converting them to aif.

All for serato supporting another format. But not really important to me. Been using 320 mp3s and i'm happy with it.

@akiem what you are suggesting is to have exactly what i do already except flac and mp3 instead of flac and alac. hmm i think i'd like to stick to just one format thanks. then i can simply have a replicated file system for all my music.

also i think you're incorrect about drive space being cheap. what if i wanted/had a solid state drive?



If you call a description of how I like to work and ensure *all* my music whether in serato or archive is created and backed up safely and easily *IN* a feature request forum "silly and dramatic" then I think you're missing the point of what "feature request" means.

I see it as: I want a feature. This is why.

Compared to vinyl SSD is still cheap. But if you think it is expensive then you have even MORE reason to use MP3 and keep a flac archive.

Or you could keep everything in alac.

What I do is convert flac to aif and run them from a regular hard drive, and run my system on an SSD drive.

But are you really actually using or planning on using just an SSD, or just trying to make a point?



Im not sure what you are reading - thats not what i said.

Its a fine suggestion - some people are being dramatic about it not being implemented and there are various easy solutions that become more and more viable as prices drop on drive space.

In the near future there will be no need to compress audio to save drive space, I have personally reached that point. The only reason for compressed audio will be for file transfer, not storage.

As long as vinyl remains expensive, I’d rather not spend money buying really expensive large SSDs (which are still very expensive). I run a 60GB SSD. A 512GB SSD, which would cover most of my needs, would cost me about USD 1000. I’d rather buy 100 vinyl records for that kind of money.

As has already been pointed out, we who want this feature don’t want any of the alternatives, be it larger SSDs, ALAC, AIFF, WAV, MP3+FLAC. We want FLAC. Can we now please leave it at that?

Again, FLAC isn’t only about drive space. If it is, we all know the alternatives by now. Let’s now drop this point.

I would rather have a 100 pieces of vinyl too. But for storage you are going to get much more then 100 LPs worth of space.

If you want to leave it there thats fine.

Good thing FLAC was even invented, wonder if you guys would even be DJs without it.

I have a 3 year old that tells me the same thing.

+1

I guess we don’t have to argue anymore:

alac.macosforge.org

So, just use ALAC. :-)

+1

Right. Because now every other FLAC supporting device is... still supporting FLAC?
Why do I always have to bring back the point that FLAC has by far the widest support in hardware and software?
All I want to know (and I really don't care about anyone else in the world) is if FLAC will be supported ever. A simple yes or no.

It was a joke. (It should have been obvious.)

And yes, an answer (and hopefully a time line) would be nice.

ok, i made this survey (as suggested in another thread). everyone who has an opinion, please take the time to participate.

www.surveymonkey.com

Me English no good... I don't get jokes if there is no emoticon around ;)

ok "let's make a poll", i made a pole and so far only 10 of you have taken part. how is this possible on a thread with 173 msgs? i'll post the results when we get at least 50 responses.

I did it.
Why not post it in your social network profiles?
I put a link to my profiles in Facebook & Twitter.

ok will do...

Cause it's the same 10 people who just sign in under different names.

from what i can see the 10 responses all came from different IP addresses & you don't sign in on survey monkey. i believe it goes based off of cookies & IP address combination. i guess there's probably some way around that but to me it seems a bit silly to try and throw the results of something like this.

I voted YES for FLAC. It would be very important for me, also. Why has Traktor had it for who knows how long, and Serato hasn't?

i don't believe we have gotten any straight answer yet. flac support shouldn't pose any issue at all for a commercial development team with the wealth of resources that serato has. VLC & MPLAYER have both supported FLAC for years and they are free open source apps. my only guess is that this is possibly some kind of political of contractual issue or something which cannot be divulged openly. adding support for a popular lossless format like this really poses no detriment so i really can't see what all the fuss is about. sorry if i missed something but can someone please tell what is serato's official stance on this?

This is what I found in the "Codecs!!" thread:
serato.com

Nick M, 11 August 2008:
"Is FLAC on our radar? Yes, but we can't tell you what version it will be in sorry."

Nick M, 14 April 2009:
"FLAC is still in development, - codec stuff is tricky, because getting it wrong can be disastrous - i.e crashing on certain files!
I'm not a developer myself, but am pushing for this to be included in an update soon. When? Hopefully this year, but no promises :)"

ChrisD, 28 January 2011:
"FLAC support is a well known request and is prioritized accordingly along with everything else.
I can't give you a timeframe at this stage."

ChrisD, 28 January 2011:
"But we're well aware that a good deal of people would like FLAC support."

In other words:
It will not come but they're not saying it.

k.. thanks! this is good to know. it still seems a bit strange that FLAC support could be in development for so long without success. also curious to know some of the details about why this has been so difficult for the developers. i don't suppose they will speak on this but its intriguing nonetheless. guess i'll be converting to alac in the meantime.

Pull your finger out Serato... FLAC support!! +1

support for FLAC +1

Vote for FLAC
+9

Flac for Christmas :P

+1

I also would really love to see flac support - and I would / will think about change to an alternate system soon if Serato won't accept the request from the community. It's not like flac is an "exotic" codec, its widely used and proofed as good. One can only speculate what the reasons behind Seratos ingorance towards this - but flac will be bigger and bigger in the next time, and other products support it!

If people were that bothered about Flac support you'd think they would keep an eye on the forum. Or maybe even do a search. If they did, they would find this:

serato.com

@phatbob: something similar was announced December 2010... and any exuses dont make it better. Since years people request it, and since years nothing happens. We have 2012, goddammit!

+1 for flac!

traktor using flac, and the best (serato) no, it's a shame

yes its really uncomfortable for me, im thinking about switching to traktor, if i had known this when i bought serato i would have rather bought traktor :(

If only the supported file formats were to be found somewhere online, like the Serato website, for you to be able to check what is obviously very important to you before buying!

If only, eh?

Gentlemen, tired of broken promises (flac support), I use Serato, but I got tired of waiting, so, traktor 2.5 is just around the corner ... it's a shame, serano not understand your customers.

flac support please, saves disk space

+1!!!!

I suppose the fact of Apple making their ALAC lossless format open-source some months back will change few people's minds about transcoding FLAC files to ALAC for "lossless"/"space-saving" use in Scratch Live? Though I do remember the "open source" thing being discussed as a primary reason some people wanted to stick with FLAC...

That point was brought up several months ago...it was ignored.

A visit to the 'make Serato EXACTLY like Traktor' thread is in order.

I would also love to have FLAC support in serato.

Coming from Traktor, I converted a lot of my FLACs to lossless M4A. The files seem to have the same size as the FLACs and Serato is playing them and reading the tags without problems.

Is there any reason not to use this format? Why is FLAC still prefered (except from the need to convert the files)?

David_E, I've used ALAC files in Scratch Live for a few years now, and have yet to encounter any issue with them.

I think support for ALAC came as kind of a "bonus" with support for other QuickTime formats in SL a few years back.

For some people, the big deal with FLAC seems to be due to that format being sold (or at least served, lol) by some online places, and not wanting to transcode the files.

Though, as I've pointed out before, transcodes between lossless formats don't degrade audio (different scenario than with transcoding between lossy formats like AAC and MP3), and in my FLAC-to-ALAC testing (with "Max" sbooth.org) the tags from the source FLAC files were preserved in the ALAC versions.

I remember Final Scratch and Traktor advertising FLAC support as long ago as 2004. But then in the manual they advised just using MP3 files. Seem to recall "random access" speed being mentioned as an issue with FLAC...not sure if that was resolved or maybe computer horsepower just caught up to the demands for that...

Thanks for the info.
I'm also using Max to convert, it's painless and as you mentioned all tags are preserved.

Never had an issue with FLAC on Traktor though.

I had an issue with FLAC on Traktor because the first 1-2 seconds of a track were missing. I read this was solved in 2.0 but I didn't test it and deinstalled the Traktor demo I had on my computer.

The problem I had with ALAC (and also AAC) is the date tag which only allows the use of a 4-digit number for "year" but I use do also put the month into it. Another issue was the compatibility with MixedInKey (solved with 5.0 on Mac version).

At the moment I'm not sure whether to go with FLAC or ALAC.
ALAC is slightly bigger (and size matters again since I have an SSD now). But I replaced all of my relevant FLAC compatible devices with an Apple device...

Sandisk Sansa Fuze > iPod nano 6G
Nokia N96 8MP > iPhone 4S
WD Live TV > Apple TV 2

Damn date/year tag!
Any suggestions?
I would have to check again but I think I'm in use of all the tags/columns provided by Scratch Live and ITCH already.
Serato devs?

Did the final switch.
F**k FLAC, ALAC ftw :)

Seriously:
I'm with Apple Lossless now but I'm still all for FLAC because I think it's still the best lossless codec out there and it belongs into every professional audio software.

With all the energy I have left without the FLAC request I'm now going to piss off everyone by requesting better library management with improved smart crates... haha :)

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say the thing that no one seems to want to say (pardon me if i've overlooked a post somewhere). FLAC is the standard lossless filetype in the music sharing community.

no one wants to go and convert every time. and since most people want to continue seeding in order to keep a decent ratio they have no choice but to keep both a flac version and now another version after converting to ALAC. this completely defeats the purpose of lossless audio compression since the two files together take up the same amount of space that a full wav or aiff would.

i know dozens of musicans, producers and dj's who regularly release their new material over the internet on a grassroots level in FLAC format. none of them use ALAC.

i'm not saying ALAC isn't just as good. it's just fine. i use it all the time without a hitch. but let's face it, AAC/m4a's AND OGG are both better than mp3 but mp3 is still the standard lossy format the world over. it would be nice if everyone switched to a better format but does it make any sense to say ok, we're gonna make this software that ONLY supports OGG because we like OGG and mp3's would take a lot of time to build support for. NO. you would not do that. because very few people would use your software.

Serato, so far you are lucky that most DJs don't even have a clue about various bitrates and file formats. hell, i'm still hearing 128k mp3s and youtube rips played in the club! but those of us who do are getting all our music as FLAC. Actually, I don't even know of anywhere I can purchase an album in ALAC format. do any of you?

That argument is interesting, but I doubt Serato will add flac so you can "keep seeding".

I dont see drive space as an issue anymore.

So the main point is that pirates are too lazy to transcode?

I actually *did* bring up the "music sharing community" (LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL) aspect awhile ago, and it was vigorously denied. Go figure. Nobody ever bothered to clue us in on where FLAC files are actually sold, though... I see DJ sites selling MP3, WAV and AIFF, but never FLAC.

I've spent, over the years, many thousands of hours recording/remastering VINYL RECORDS to digital so they could be played in Scratch Live.

So I just have to LAUGH OUT LOUD at someone whining that simply transcoding pirated FLAC files to ALAC is some kind of major burden.

Totally disgusting.

there are many that sell FLAC... here's a short list of the ones i know about and have used:

www.hdtracks.com
www.zunior.com
magnatune.com
www.rhino.com
www.qobuz.com
bleep.com
www.fairsharemusic.com
bandcamp.com
us.7digital.com

boy this sure sounds condescending... but no, that was not my main point. since i'm not sure if you misunderstood i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to clarify.

first off, i hold the opinion that just because someone doesn't want to spend "thousands of hours recording/remastering VINYL RECORDS" it doesn't make them lazy.

i have in the past, like you, spent countless hours recording my vinyl to digital format. as a matter of fact i can tell you that i personally own well over 2500 records. it's tiresome to record and if i spent 8 hours a day it would take me perhaps 4 or 5 years to do it all. that's obviously not realistic.

this being the case, i see nothing wrong with saving myself time and energy to get a superior quality music file by D/Ling FLACs of music that i OWN and have paid for, especially in light of the fact that most of my vinyls are not available for sale anywhere in any lossless format. i cannot purchase, even if i wanted to, 99% of the music that i own in a lossless digital format. therefore, downloading them is the only feasible option.

i don't think anyone here said transcoding is a "major burden". it's just that since FLAC is mostly what's available, we'd all appreciate not having to waste our time & drive space making transcodes.

this is just sad. imagine if you could get those "thousands of hours" back? is that truly how you want to spend your time?

Welcome to the Dark side Serkan ;-)

In SSL 2.4.2 Beta/RC1, Serato seems to have sorted out the ALAC/AAC/MP4 year tag bug from 2.3.3/2.4.1 (SLL wrongly replaced year for the track # in those versions)

I keep my main master archive in ALAC (about 10TB), but downconvert to mp3 320k for my SSL DJ library. Think I might "rebuild" the DJ library into lossless now. (Gonna be a lot of "fun" rebuilding al those loops and cues... he,he)

Would be real cool if Serato made a transfer tool, so I could copy my loopes, cues and beatgrids from my 320 files into the ALAC files. After all those 320 originates from the ALAC anyway, and should have identical time signatures?

THAT is perhaps the single most intelligent idea that's come out of this thread. Seriously.

I do much the same as you for my music library, except I convert to 320k AAC. To my ears, just sounds a bit better on some material than MP3.

Glad you like the suggestion Mark, please head over to my suggestion thread,
and give a "+1" and any other thoughts on the matter > serato.com

Quick question to everybody using ALAC files:

Is nobody having problems with gain settings not sticking / reverting back to 0?

8 out of 10 times after analyzing a new file and setting the gain, it's reverted back to 0 on next load.
Just curious, because you guys seem to be happy with ALAC.

Ha... that's where your PM comes from :)

hehe, sure is, a few others have gotten that one as well ;)

I was going to say that sounds like a ScratchTools job ftw.

Yeah or Inklen.... ;)

or yeah....

wow ;)

flac +1

FLAC support is now available in the Scratch Live 2.4.3 public beta.

@ YEARS later anyone care?

FLAC support is in Scratch Live and ITCH for a couple of months now.

Thanks Serato