IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?, Simple poll on two of the most popular lossless codecs
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
FLAC [ 325 ] ** [54.99%]
WAVPACK [ 222 ] ** [37.56%]
Neither, I use another losless codec [ 44 ] ** [7.45%]
Total Votes: 718
  
jcoalson
post Apr 24 2006, 17:06
Post #51


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Apr 24 2006, 06:11 AM) *
EDIT: I'm using 16384 kb of padding with flac. Could you tell me if there's a limit for padding? I thought I read once 16 or 32 Kb as limit, but I didn't found the information again.

the limit is 24MB

I see what you're saying. there are disadvantages to tags being at the end which is why it's not done that way in FLAC or vorbis. I agree if you're compressing whole CDs and adding a lot of metadata afterwards you need more padding. in that case 40k on a 400M .flac is only 0.01% of the file. but flac cannot detect that case automatically unless you give it a cuesheet during encoding, at which point you don't need as much padding anyway.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zepoloo
post Apr 24 2006, 17:41
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 27-January 05
Member No.: 19378



I find the emphasis on speed and compression somewhat odd, given the difference between the two seem pretty insignificant. Looking 5 years ahead, storage prices will be cheap enough to hold all your music in lossless format (in which case, why even have lossy?). The more important issue to me is a standards setting issue.

- Will there be devices to support it on your home stereo?
- Is the format supported by a portable player? Car?
- Can you purchase music in that format?

This standards war is already being fought out by Microsoft and Apple, two formidable players. I just hope that some non-drm technology will be available as well. But this will happen only if there is a big enough market for the lossless format, whether that be FLAC or WavPack.

So right now, I believe FLAC is better in each of the departments above, so I use FLAC.

If it ain't, someone let me know before I finish burning all my CD's to FLAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 24 2006, 17:57
Post #53





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



QUOTE (zepoloo @ Apr 24 2006, 05:41 PM) *
This standards war is already being fought out by Microsoft and Apple, two formidable players.

It doesn't seems obvious to me that lossless audio is the favorite battlefield for Apple and Microsoft wink.gif Moreover, both format/compagny are providing lossless encoding tools without any form of DRM. Finally, don't forget MPEG-4 ALS (for interested people, it was apparently updated).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Apr 24 2006, 17:58
Post #54





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



QUOTE (zepoloo @ Apr 24 2006, 06:41 PM) *
I find the emphasis on speed and compression somewhat odd, given the difference between the two seem pretty insignificant. Looking 5 years ahead, storage prices will be cheap enough to hold all your music in lossless format (in which case, why even have lossy?). The more important issue to me is a standards setting issue.

- Will there be devices to support it on your home stereo?
- Is the format supported by a portable player? Car?
- Can you purchase music in that format?

This standards war is already being fought out by Microsoft and Apple, two formidable players. I just hope that some non-drm technology will be available as well. But this will happen only if there is a big enough market for the lossless format, whether that be FLAC or WavPack.

So right now, I believe FLAC is better in each of the departments above, so I use FLAC.

If it ain't, someone let me know before I finish burning all my CD's to FLAC.


I subscribe fully to your text.
This is the reason, why I changed in my Lossless career from Flac to wavpack to flac again. Wavpack is technically of better overall performance than flac, but flac got recently some major hardware device support by real companies.
But you and me don't need to worry, if you have your music Losslessly as Wavpack or Flac, you made nothing wrong, in the case, one or the other format might be implemented in your next hardware device, you can transcode easily and quite (more or less) quickly.

This post has been edited by user: Apr 24 2006, 18:00


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
snookerdoodle
post Apr 24 2006, 18:36
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 13-May 05
From: Albuquerque
Member No.: 22035



Flac because plugins were available at the time for the players/rippers I used under both Windows and Linux. Had grip (linux ripper) had wavepack, I might have gone that way.

That's a qualified "flac because of better cross platform support", I think...

Mark
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post Apr 24 2006, 19:31
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



Wavpack, good speed, better compression, actively developed here at HA.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
My name is Mud
post Apr 24 2006, 19:47
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 17-February 06
From: California
Member No.: 27815



QUOTE (zepoloo @ Apr 24 2006, 09:41 AM) *
Can you purchase music in that format?

Another reason I like FLAC is this one - I collect (legal) live bootleg concerts, and a lot of traders use FLAC as a sorta-universal format for distributing these recordings.


--------------------
voted 'Most likely to veer your thread' three straight years!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TimYork
post Apr 24 2006, 19:54
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 15-July 02
From: IL, USA
Member No.: 2607



WavPack, because I get better compression with a pretty small tradeoff in encoding/decoding speed, even when using the -h option. Since I use foobar2000 for playback, and don't have a lossless capable HW player, compatibility doesn't really concern me, so I made my decison based on filesizes, and WavPack consistently delivers smaller ones.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wombat
post Apr 24 2006, 21:09
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: 7-October 01
Member No.: 235



Flac. Since my hardwareplayer supports it native. Before i used different compressors cause all i did was playing them in Winamp.
The first time i sorted this i came to Wavpack high cause of its fast and high compression.
Some weeks later i switched to flac cause of my player. Some weeks after i switched from flac to flac!
Ehm.. 1.1.2 to 1.1.2.1 --best smile.gif
This is so beautiful with this lossless stuff. When your CPU feels bored just let it reencode without a loss!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
opeth2112
post Apr 24 2006, 21:24
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 7-December 05
Member No.: 26276



Wavpack - compression ratio mainly. No player that supports Flac so I am either listening to them on PC or sending them to MP3 for my portable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Badass01
post Apr 24 2006, 22:21
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 24251



Is it pretty easy to convert from FLAC to Wavpack or vice versa or do you require to decode back to WAV first? Any programs that automate this process?

A painless switch is always good when you are doing GIGs of data!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nyarlathotep
post Apr 24 2006, 22:31
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 13-April 03
From: Haut-Médoc FRA
Member No.: 5943



I use WavPack.
(Yes I like the red foobar2000 wv icon)

Unfortunately, I'm quite unhappy when I use Linux. There are few options then.
Basically I just dislike XMMS.
Quod Libet is a really nice piece of program but just refuses to play some of my wv files while other just play fine. Me being blind or something?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Apr 24 2006, 22:34
Post #63





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (Badass01 @ Apr 24 2006, 09:21 PM) *
Is it pretty easy to convert from FLAC to Wavpack or vice versa or do you require to decode back to WAV first? Any programs that automate this process?
You could pipe from one to the other on the command line, e.g.:

FLAC --decode --stdout file.flac | WAVPACK - file.wv

... but by far the easiest way would be foobar (or dbPowerAmp which I don't use), as it will copy over the tags at the same time. foobar would pipe to the encoder, so no temporary WAVE file required.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 24 2006, 22:34
Post #64





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



QUOTE (Badass01 @ Apr 24 2006, 10:21 PM) *
Is it pretty easy to convert from FLAC to Wavpack or vice versa or do you require to decode back to WAV first? Any programs that automate this process?

A painless switch is always good when you are doing GIGs of data!

foobar2000 and dBpowerPack are fine for this job (both are also keeping the tags and the latter also keeps RG gain and offer an option to delete the source file after encoding).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
valnar
post Apr 24 2006, 23:41
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 31-December 02
Member No.: 4330



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Apr 24 2006, 01:34 PM) *
... but by far the easiest way would be foobar (or dbPowerAmp which I don't use), as it will copy over the tags at the same time. foobar would pipe to the encoder, so no temporary WAVE file required.


Foobar only converts tracks though, not an image. I have not found a way to have it properly convert a whole image with CUE sheet especially if there is a index 0 before track 1.

I still use FLAC -d....

-Robert
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andavari
post Apr 25 2006, 00:22
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 935
Joined: 3-June 02
From: USA
Member No.: 2204



I use: WavPack (Normal, -m) via Speek's WavPack Frontend
Reason: Because I want to! tongue.gif


--------------------
Complexity of incoherent design.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
keytotime
post Apr 25 2006, 01:29
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26582



This is the batch file that I use to transcode between album images:

CODE
for %%i in (*.wv) do "C:\Program Files\WavPack\wvunpack.exe" "%%i" -d
cls
for %%i in (*.flac) do "C:\Program Files\FLAC\flac.exe" "%%i" -d --delete-input-file
cls
for %%i in (*.ape) do "C:\Program Files\Monkey's Audio\mac.exe" "%%i" "%%i.wav" -d
del "%%i"
cls
for %%i in (*.wav) do "C:\Program Files\WavPack\wavpack.exe" -h -m -w -d "CUESHEET=@*.cue" "%%i"


This post has been edited by keytotime: Apr 25 2006, 01:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
cadash
post Apr 25 2006, 01:30
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 21-March 06
Member No.: 28656



wavpack, better compression, it is very fast on my machine and it is the one I used first. When I firtst started investigating about the lossless format, one thing i made me decide towards wavpack was that it was the codec with most features. I recognize that FLAc is quite good too.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChristianHJW
post Apr 25 2006, 02:13
Post #69


Matroska developer


Group: Members
Posts: 922
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 74



I love both FLAC and Wavpack. Only reason i am favouring Wavpack for the time being is

- Hybrid mode. With TCPMP's upcoming Wavpack support in MKA, it could be very interesting to store the Hybrid + correction in one MKA, and extract the lossy part for mobile use in a very fast demuxing process then, if necessary

- frame accurate editing. Being a video freak, i hope we will have a video editing tool available one day that will allow us to cut videos with Wavpack audio, to compress them into the end format then.
It would be great for DV video editing, should we be able one day to extract Type 2 DV AVIs into MKV's with Wavpack audio, instead of PCM

Christian
matroska project admin


--------------------
Support matroska - the bestest vapourware project ! http://www.matroska.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Musique-Rabbit
post Apr 25 2006, 02:22
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1-March 06
Member No.: 28173



.WV in -h mode.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Apr 25 2006, 03:02
Post #71





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3348
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



Wavpack, with the -x6 command-line, because I like the .wv extension. tongue.gif


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Apr 25 2006, 05:11
Post #72


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1290
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



QUOTE (nyarlathotep @ Apr 24 2006, 02:31 PM) *
I use WavPack.
(Yes I like the red foobar2000 wv icon)

Unfortunately, I'm quite unhappy when I use Linux. There are few options then.
Basically I just dislike XMMS.
Quod Libet is a really nice piece of program but just refuses to play some of my wv files while other just play fine. Me being blind or something?

Quod Libet uses the gstreamer-wavpack plugin and there are some problems with earlier versions (like 0.8) of that. I don't know my way around Linux yet to know how to upgrade, but that's what you need to do (you might need an updated app also, I don't know). The problem was that WavPack "high" mode files crash the plugin. And, files before 4.0 will not work either, in case you have some of those. I have the same problem with Rhythmbox.

Hope this helps... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cartman_Sr
post Apr 25 2006, 06:49
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 112
Joined: 9-February 06
From: Edmonton, Alberta
Member No.: 27644



Not that my opinion counts or anything, but I use flac. I chose it originally for a few important reasons: While researching different codecs, it appeared that the flac format had been well-thought out right from when it was first conceived. By this I mean that it seemed that the format is the most "general" in terms of future expandability and upgradeability (had the best of these features). Already a few lossless codecs have come and gone, and I think the flac developers designed flac taking into account the shortcomings of those other formats (not that there's anything wrong with any format, but this is a learning process after all, right?).

Secondly, even though it doesn't get as good compression as the others, I decided that nowadays that's not really an issue because storage space is becoming quite cheap. For example, I bought a new Maxtor 200 GB hard drive a few months ago for $85 Canadian at Best Buy. So for me, another 3% savings isn't going to help too much. The trade-off for compression is the decoding speed; I can decode a 400 MB flac file coded with -8 compression in under a minute, and I think that's pretty good. Finally, it has good hardware support, which is a big plus.

My only beef is the metadata; I do wish that the cd-text info could be stored in the cuesheet metadata block instead of having to be in a cuesheet tag.

Edit: Actually I just re-tagged all my flac images to get rid of the cuesheet tag. I kept all the cuesheet metadata blocks, though. What I do now is just drag the cuesheet file (with song titles) into foobar, and it parses that and you get the names. So it's really no problem at all.

And very last, it's good to see that flac is still in development also. Of course it's fun to get on board with a new emerging format and adding your input into the development, but I'm not much of a software guru, so I appreciate having a finished working product that is essentially bug-free (at least I haven't found any), and reliable. I have tried wavpack and I think it's also good. I do think that hybrid-mode is really cool.

This post has been edited by Cartman_Sr: Apr 29 2006, 09:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChristianHJW
post Apr 25 2006, 16:36
Post #74


Matroska developer


Group: Members
Posts: 922
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 74



QUOTE (guruboolez @ Apr 24 2006, 11:11 AM) *
Hi,
the problem I mentionned is maybe a consequence of a bad support of padding in several application. It was the case in the past at least. For example, it's only after I complained about it three years ago that Case introduced padding support in the dedicated diskwriter component of foobar2000.

I complained for another reason: I was used to add several tagging fields inside lossless encodings. In a not-so-old past, my favorite hobby was to add EAC's extraction log file as a dedicated field.

Nonetheless, as I reported it in fb2k forum 2 days ago, there's a common (I'd say) situation where 4Kb is not enough: it's flac+cue situation in where one single file must endure the charge of information usually splitted in multiple tracks.


You know what solution i could offer to your needs, but i also do know that most of you guys are anti-MKA and there are also no good, automated file creation tools available still, so i better shut up here .....

Christian
matroska project admin
http://www.matroska.org

This post has been edited by ChristianHJW: Apr 25 2006, 16:38


--------------------
Support matroska - the bestest vapourware project ! http://www.matroska.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 25 2006, 16:51
Post #75





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



I'm using matroska for most of my videos needs wink.gif Matroska audio is not as convenient, has few support (not your fault), is not bug free (I'm talking about foobar2000 0.83 plug-in).
I'm sure that what you call "anti-mka" attitude is more trivially a consequence of the lack of tools for creating/using (playback, tagging, hardware support) this container for that purpose.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Closed 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: 24th July 2014 - 05:11