Why can't Pro Tools import FLAC files?

[deanrichard]

You seem to think this will be time consuming or difficult. It is neither. The libraries exist so the effort is minimal. A good engineer could probably have it working in an hour or two. (I've written software file import routines, so I have perspective.) Testing would take a bit longer.

This will take almost no time away from other, more difficult tasks.

Originally Posted by nednednerb

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

[nednednerb]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

You seem to think this will be time consuming or difficult. It is neither. The libraries exist so the effort is minimal. A good engineer could probably have it working in an hour or two. (I've written software file import routines, so I have perspective.) Testing would take a bit longer.

This will take almost no time away from other, more difficult tasks.

I definitely was clear it MAY take very valuable time from Dev perspective especially considering they have many many other important tasks.

I did not say "it would be time consuming or difficult" I said I don't know but it surely isn't priority and takes important time from relevant real bugs.

The question in the title subject is "why can't Pro Tools import FLAC files?" and I am providing answers. The question wasn't "but what if we could would that be good". My answer to first question is there is no pressing reason to do it.

Another reason is that PT could arguably be demanded to include codec after codec after codec and extra piece, and then it's even more unmanageable and hard to test.

Keeping to WAV as a basic uncompressed format when file space is irrelevant is much simpler than conceding to *every* random desire for import.

I would say for sure, people thinking it will take no trouble whatsoever could be very wrong about that, realistically. It's hard to say.

And including one package MIGHT take longer for UI shift if necessary, etc, when nobody has convinced me regarding "why not just use an existing command line utility or GUI yourself?"

Why don't people install a second app on their computer? :

[FunkzzaJ]

Originally Posted by Teej

Yes it's also super annoying to me. Make that three users.

+1
/T

[Philthy]

FLAC is a great format, would love to see import implemented. I would bounce to it as well, if available.

[JingleDjango]

Originally Posted by Philthy

FLAC is a great format, would love to see import implemented. I would bounce to it as well, if available.

I'd LOVE to bounce to FLAC.

[Tweakhead]

Let's keep things in perspective. Avid seemingly can't even keep MP3 import working reliably from release-to-release, so adding yet another cog in the wheel of an already-malfunctioning engine seems like the last thing we all need to be demanding from them. Let the toddler crawl before they walk.

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by Tweakhead

Let's keep things in perspective. Avid seemingly can't even keep MP3 import working reliably from release-to-release, so adding yet another cog in the wheel of an already-malfunctioning engine seems like the last thing we all need to be demanding from them. Let the toddler crawl before they walk.

I wouldn't want this to take precedence over other support issues either, but with a single line of built-in OS code being able to handle the very simple task of FLAC conversions, I can't imagine this feature being as susceptible to bugs as the MP3 compression codec.

[smurfyou]

Originally Posted by Tweakhead

Let's keep things in perspective. Avid seemingly can't even keep MP3 import working reliably from release-to-release, so adding yet another cog in the wheel of an already-malfunctioning engine seems like the last thing we all need to be demanding from them. Let the toddler crawl before they walk.

It IS weird that they fixed the MP3 import issue only to have it return. One would think import routines were set years ago.

I think FLAC would be a good addition because it is an established standard at this point. I'm also not surprised that Avid ignores it.

[nednednerb]

Originally Posted by smurfyou

It IS weird that they fixed the MP3 import issue only to have it return. One would think import routines were set years ago.

I think FLAC would be a good addition because it is an established standard at this point. I'm also not surprised that Avid ignores it.

Perhaps something in the code changed, like an "update" outside of Avid's making, but they included it. If there was MP3 codec refactoring, which pasted into place, wasn't properly edited to connect to PT's playback engine, etc, then something might happen in the script, such as people complaining of speed. For some reason, maybe it's using 2% of one CPU core instead of Intel Boost to import MP3 so it takes minutes and minutes. Why? who knows, but if so, it would need to be fixed.

Nothing is set and forget in software that changes and meets new OSes. I mentioned above that I work as a tester for an educational software company. Really, some of you might be surprised how often I hear a senior developer say something like "we fixed that, but then it came back, then again... third time's a charm???"

Software magic is actually a lot of hard work. Hours testing and debugging, for simple things like "audio file not playing on time" in the simplest of setups. Bugs can be really really hard to repro the same for everyone, and lots of users want things to be simple, but they're not going to be often.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, patience is key. Of course, we got work to do!