IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
FLAC & APE, Comparison?
Žom
post Jan 11 2004, 22:38
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 11-January 04
Member No.: 11143



I see most of people who use lossless use FLAC codec...

I did some tests, & I don't know why more use FLAC instead of APE...

I tested with:
FLAC compression 8 (maximum)
APE 3.98a1, compression normal

Size of files: FLAC - APE (Kb)
file 1: 1268 - 1246
file 2: 31049 - 30387
file 3: 27871 - 27213
file 4: 33252 - 23975 (!)

So APE normal compress more than FLAC maximum...

APE Encoding was shorter than APE encoding (far away).

Decoding seems to be equivalent (APE maybe better).

So why people prefer FLAC, what advantages?

If I forgot anything to compare, or else...
Thanks...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
atici
post Jan 11 2004, 22:42
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1180
Joined: 21-February 02
From: Chicago
Member No.: 1367



Oh no sad.gif please use the search. Or just click on Forums->Lossless Codecs. You'll see many threads about this question.


--------------------
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Žom
post Jan 11 2004, 23:01
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 11-January 04
Member No.: 11143



QUOTE (atici @ Jan 11 2004, 01:42 PM)
Oh no sad.gif please use the search. Or just click on Forums->Lossless Codecs. You'll see many threads about this question.

I find on a topic:
QUOTE ("atici")
FLAC has poor compression ratio? I think the difference is rather tiny  I used to use Monkey's Audio but now switched to FLAC because it has error detection/recovery + is supported in more platforms.

For the error detection/recovery, APE 3.98 has MD5 hash in technical info in foobar file info biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Jan 12 2004, 00:46
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



hm, flac has way shorter decoding times / cpu usage than ape.

ape is fast encoding, yes, flac, too.
But the decoding is important for portable devices, industrial support.
and afaik, flac has already commercial support.
if you look at the file size differences in percent %, you will see, it is neglectable.
Lossless files are big, if 1% bigger, who cares ?
and wait a short time and have a look at wavepack 4.0
My personal favourites: flac & WavePack 4 in Hybrid mode.


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jan 12 2004, 00:50
Post #5


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



Disadvantage of FLAC: buggy seeking.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Žom
post Jan 12 2004, 00:56
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 11-January 04
Member No.: 11143



QUOTE (user @ Jan 11 2004, 03:46 PM)
hm, flac has way shorter decoding times / cpu usage than ape.

ape is fast encoding, yes, flac, too.
But the decoding is important for portable devices, industrial support.
and afaik, flac has already commercial support.
if you look at the file size differences in percent %, you will see, it is neglectable.
Lossless files are big, if 1% bigger, who cares ?
and wait a short time and have a look at wavepack 4.0
My personal favourites: flac & WavePack 4 in Hybrid mode.

Hum...

Thanks for your point of vue... interesting...

But, when u compare here, flac compression 5 encoding time is double ape normal, compression 8 is about 4x! OK, I'm agree with you, encoding time isn't important...

Decoding time is about 10~15% faster, and Monkey normal is already very fast (0% in windows task, so 0<%<1!)...

And flac comp 8 filesize is for some files 25% smaller than ape normal...

This post has been edited by Žom: Jan 12 2004, 00:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Jan 12 2004, 05:02
Post #7


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



QUOTE (Žom @ Jan 11 2004, 04:38 PM)
So why people prefer FLAC, what advantages?

If I forgot anything to compare, or else...


http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm

QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 11 2004, 06:50 PM)
Disadvantage of FLAC: buggy seeking.

how so? maybe I'm forgetting something...

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Žom
post Jan 12 2004, 12:30
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 11-January 04
Member No.: 11143



So, the (only) advantage of FLAC is decoding time, about 20% faster?...

APE decoding time is already very short (while playing 0% precessus time), so I will use Monkey's Audio...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amadablam
post Jan 12 2004, 13:44
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 6-September 02
Member No.: 3307



QUOTE (Žom @ Jan 12 2004, 04:30 AM)
So, the (only) advantage of FLAC is decoding time, about 20% faster?...

...and it's supported by several hardware players, and it's open source, and it's very linux-friendly, and it's the new preference of a serious file-trading community...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 13:49
Post #10


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Amadablam @ Jan 12 2004, 10:44 AM)
and it's open source

The Monkey's Audio sources are also available.

QUOTE
and it's very linux-friendly


I don't know what you mean by "linux friendly", but there are Monkey's Audio Linux binaries from Frank Klemm's site.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Jan 12 2004, 14:29
Post #11





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



Advantage (for me) of Monkey: APEv2 tags are stored at the end.
Fast decoding is useful when transcoding (to lossy format for exemple), and then, Flac is preferable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Amadablam
post Jan 12 2004, 14:48
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 6-September 02
Member No.: 3307



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 12 2004, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE (Amadablam @ Jan 12 2004, 10:44 AM)
and it's open source

The Monkey's Audio sources are also available.

QUOTE
and it's very linux-friendly


I don't know what you mean by "linux friendly", but there are Monkey's Audio Linux binaries from Frank Klemm's site.

I apologize for being vague. First, I had forgotten that the Monkey's Audio source was made available, even if it's not as "free" as FLAC. Also, when I said "linux-friendly", I was reflecting on the fact that I can, in Debian, simply do "apt-get install flac xmms-flac" and I'm ready to go. I do greatly appreciate the rarewares debian repository, and I see that Monkey's Audio is available there. I'm not sure if that includes an XMMS plugin, however. Also, by "open-source" and "linux-friendly", I believe that FLAC and it's development model would be found in much greater favor by the open-source and linux community than that of Monkey's Audio.

Of course, if you're a Windows user who has no plans to play lossless on a special hardware player, I'd say go with whatever looks best to you. Under those conditions, I'd have to say that the two choices are nearly equal.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Žom
post Jan 12 2004, 15:33
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 11-January 04
Member No.: 11143



Ok thanks very much for your answers smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Žom
post Jan 12 2004, 18:20
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 11-January 04
Member No.: 11143



QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 11 2004, 03:50 PM)
Disadvantage of FLAC: buggy seeking.

Ah yes sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
spase
post Jan 12 2004, 18:54
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 773
Joined: 23-October 01
From: USA
Member No.: 340



I have myself decided to use FLAC with external cuesheets.

FLAC is MUCH faster on the decode (about 3-4x faster) and that makes a huge difference to me as far as transcoding.


--------------------
http://www.last.fm/user/spase

-spase-
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jan 12 2004, 19:30
Post #16


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Jan 12 2004, 06:02 AM)
how so?  maybe I'm forgetting something...

Josh

Case reported there were still problems like this: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ic=16699&st=0&&
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 19:59
Post #17


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (dev0 @ Jan 12 2004, 04:57 PM)
Eric Raymond invented the term open source and founded the OSI.

How can he have joined two words together and claimed he invented it?

That's ludicrous at best!


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dev0
post Jan 12 2004, 20:00
Post #18





Group: Developer
Posts: 1679
Joined: 23-December 01
From: Germany
Member No.: 731



Licensing / OSI discussion (What is open source?) split to Off-Topic
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 12 2004, 20:04
Post #19


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (dev0 @ Jan 12 2004, 05:00 PM)

Brrrr. The usual mess.

One post was left behind...


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bawjaws
post Jan 14 2004, 10:59
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 10-December 02
Member No.: 4043



I realize that the discussion of what defines open source is off-topic, but as you've left your original confusing comment I'll repeat:

APE, despite the availability of it's source code, is *not* open source (as defined by the OSI and, imho, as generally accepted by programmers of all kinds).

Real world effects of this are that certain influential Linux distributions will not include the code (Debian for one) which limits it's acceptance and use in the Linux community as does the fact that no open source (per OSI) programs can build upon the code unless they ask for it to be relicensed (which they have previously, and been turned down).

Also, each business that wishes to use the code will need to negotiate with the author the exact terms of use in advance, rather than deal with a known license that is in common use. This (imho) limits the chance of it being adopted by businesses.

Other miscelleaneous problems include the legal limbo if the original author dies or just becomes difficult to contact etc.

The above is an on-topic comment as far as APE vs. FLAC is concerned as FLAC is under an OSI approved licence (i.e. what I would call "open source") and for some people this is an important distinction and reason for choosing one over the other. And not *all* of these people are zealots or just the general kind of idiots you commonly find cheerleading for Ogg Vorbis.

Some discussion of the issue can be found here on the APE discussion boards:
http://www.monkeysaudio.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/Y...&num=1029850282

and this one is interesting too:

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/cgi-bin/YaBB/Y...&num=1070119776
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 18:08