Why can't Pro Tools import FLAC files?

[JingleDjango]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Maybe they don't want to introduce so many Mac-only features?

FLAC is not ALAC. What has platform for to do with it?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by JingleDjango

FLAC is not ALAC. What has platform for to do with it?

the macOS built-in afconvert would need to be built in windows in-house

[JingleDjango]

The codec has a permissive, open license. Why would PT have to call Apple's command line utility?

[nednednerb]

Originally Posted by JingleDjango

The codec has a permissive, open license. Why would PT have to call Apple's command line utility?

The answer is rhetorical: why reinvent the tool from scratch when a command line utility exists? The true answer is: it's a lot of irrelevant work for most user's needs.

Most of what's expressed here as benefits is "half the storage used" which most user's replies were "we never run out of space" and the other expressed reason was "it could be done so why not" and the other most user's replies were "we have real current bugs cramping our style, please don't waste time with FLAC"

So there are a mixture of opinions. That's normal.

[Teej]

Originally Posted by nednednerb

The answer is rhetorical: why reinvent the tool from scratch when a command line utility exists? The true answer is: it's a lot of irrelevant work for most user's needs.

Most of what's expressed here as benefits is "half the storage used" which most user's replies were "we never run out of space" and the other expressed reason was "it could be done so why not" and the other most user's replies were "we have real current bugs cramping our style, please don't waste time with FLAC"

So there are a mixture of opinions. That's normal.

I truly don't get the attitude in this thread.

We're all paying users of this software. None of us have exactly the same needs. I don't look at other feature requests and think F off work on mine instead...I've always taken for granted that there are some features I use and some I don't.

Fine then, I'll get ahead of all of you and request they take my usage data and remove all the features I don't use.

[huzzam]

Originally Posted by nednednerb

The answer is rhetorical: why reinvent the tool from scratch when a command line utility exists? The true answer is: it's a lot of irrelevant work for most user's needs.

There would be no need to reinvent Apple's tool. There's a free, open source command line FLAC utitilty (and library, for inclusion in applications) for all platforms, called—wait for it—flac. Just like there are FOSS utilities & libraries for mp3, alac, ogg, and all other major formats. Avid would just need to link to those libraries. (The libraries might need to be a separate download from PT for licensing reasons, but we already have the separate Avid Codecs pack, so...)


I am fully with OP on this; there's not much reason for FLAC (and other major formats) not to be supported for import, as the libraries are robust & stable, and the development work for Avid is minimal. (Of course, that's different from advocating for *leaving* files in those formats, which would unnecessarily burden the audio engine during playback.) Currently we can import mp3s this way; how? because Avid decided to include that library.

[JingleDjango]

Originally Posted by huzzam

I am fully with OP on this; there's not much reason for FLAC (and other major formats) not to be supported for import, as the libraries are robust & stable, and the development work for Avid is minimal. (Of course, that's different from advocating for *leaving* files in those formats, which would unnecessarily burden the audio engine during playback.) Currently we can import mp3s this way; how? because Avid decided to include that library.

Exactly my feeling. This would be a handy function for me and many others.

[nednednerb]

Originally Posted by Teej

I truly don't get the attitude in this thread.

We're all paying users of this software. None of us have exactly the same needs. I don't look at other feature requests and think F off work on mine instead...I've always taken for granted that there are some features I use and some I don't.

Fine then, I'll get ahead of all of you and request they take my usage data and remove all the features I don't use.

I literally said a mixture of opinions is normal. Did you call that "truly... attitude" when you literally said "F off work on mine" language?

I provided that the forum is quite certain that there are very very important bugs compared to a non issue regarding the ease of ability to convert FLAC outside of PT without wasting devs time.

It's math, utility, and time not to waste for FLAC in PT.

Again, this is opinion. Wanting to save half the space is irrelevant to me, cos I won't run out of space. Are there other reasons? I wasn't impressed on any.

Anyone is allowed to defend their opinions, which there will be a mixture of.

I'm straightforward, not angry. It's OK!

Originally Posted by huzzam

There would be no need to reinvent Apple's tool. There's a free, open source command line FLAC utitilty (and library, for inclusion in applications) for all platforms, called—wait for it—flac......because Avid decided to include that library.

For the record, I work as a bug tester for educational software company with software quite less complex in some ways regarding program functionality on the computer and much more complex in other ways regarding teacher and student server database. For what it's worth, it sounds to me like many people on this thread think it's absolutely easy and non-trivial to just use and add software to your own "by inclusion.... decided to include" like it's a moment of will and then done in minutes.

It might NOT be that easy whatsoever, compared to very important actually existent bugs really on people's nerves, rather than this non-issue.

Why doesn't AVID bend over backwards for this?? No, why don't you just use the super easy command line utility yourself? It's easier to. Really, isn't it?

[Eric Lambert]

If Avid sent every customer a survey: "Would you like to see FLAC conversion support built into ProTools?" *every* customer would say yes.

The coding required is almost negligible. There are other reasons why it's being avoided, and it's definitely being avoided. As someone said, we're paying a lot of money for updates, not receiving a great bulk of them, so this request is pure and basic.

[nednednerb]

*every*?

Nope, I would say no thanks. I've never ever used a flac in my life.

Please speak for yourself. Quite obviously there is not only one point of view in this thread.

I'd go for "RXDoc import/integration/RXDoc Connect" LONG before FLAC import.
I want better non-destructive editing, not a waste of time CODEC.
I want LOTS rather than FLAC import.

Simply put...