IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
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
  
Synthetic Soul
post Apr 23 2006, 20:12
Post #26





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



QUOTE (kwanbis @ Apr 23 2006, 07:01 PM) *
shouldn't you had inclided monkey, alac, yalac, wma lossless as choices?
In a poll called "Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?"? wink.gif

However, I agree: a full "Lossless codec of choice: 2006" poll is well overdue.

This one is gripping though, and only goes to confirm my expectations: WavPack is getting more popular every day. New members are seeing the benefits of the format, and even existing FLAC users are converting.

Kudos to David.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
My name is Mud
post Apr 23 2006, 20:24
Post #27





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



FLAC - partially because my copy of EAC is already set up for it; partially because it works well for me; and partially 'cause I just don't feel the need to try anything different right now.


--------------------
voted 'Most likely to veer your thread' three straight years!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Realityfreak
post Apr 23 2006, 20:39
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 20-June 05
From: Over the rainbow
Member No.: 22868



WavPack

I like the compression ratio, the decompression speed and it's (slowly) increasing hard- and software support.
An other trait that I like is the -m switch. (-->Paranoid about corrupted audio files<--)
And it was my first (but not only) lossless encoder I've used and I'm still happy with it.

This post has been edited by Realityfreak: Apr 23 2006, 20:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Alexxander
post Apr 23 2006, 20:39
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 15-November 04
Member No.: 18143



FLAC -8 because of the fast decoding speed and native tags. I don't care about 2-4% less compression.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Menollo
post Apr 23 2006, 21:33
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 23-April 06
Member No.: 29940



FLAC because:
1. it decodes faster.. (dont know the difference of my battery live of my iRiver with Rockbox)
2. it has better support..
3. the embedded cuesheet metadata block (one cd -> one flac, but Rockbox doesn't support that sad.gif )
4. it is streamable (wavpack isn't)

This post has been edited by Menollo: Apr 23 2006, 21:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DreamTactix291
post Apr 23 2006, 22:04
Post #31





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 552
Joined: 9-June 04
From: A place long since forgotten...
Member No.: 14572



WavPack for a few reasons.
  • Faster compression speed with -h while being smaller than FLAC -8.
  • Not that much slower than FLAC to decode on my 2GHz CPU (definitely not enough for me to really notice).
  • Very well supported with Rockbox should I choose to use it on my H140.

FLAC is a fine format but WavPack has better suited my needs now since 4.1 smile.gif


--------------------
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CyberFoxx
post Apr 23 2006, 23:16
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-August 02
Member No.: 3062



Flac, mostly for the better Linux support.

Then again, I haven't even tried Wavpack out yet...


--------------------
"It's the panties fault! The panties made me a pervert!"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fairyliquidizer
post Apr 23 2006, 23:18
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 11-November 03
Member No.: 9786



I saw an alternative at Ikea called FLATPAC
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rehgf
post Apr 24 2006, 01:07
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 21-April 02
From: Finland
Member No.: 1836



WavPack, because of better size to decompression speed ratio and faster tagging. What actually pushed me to do the switch from Monkey's Audio was this extensive CLI for advanced use with EAC.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
VCSkier
post Apr 24 2006, 01:44
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 447
Joined: 26-January 05
From: LynchburgVA(US)
Member No.: 19325



wavpack, largely because of the ability to embed cuesheets in my cd images. another reason i like it so much is its the flexibility. as my sig shows, i use rather specific and slightly extreme switches, because encoding time is irrevelent to me, but decoding speed is very important. using the "-fx" switches, i can get pretty good compression w/ excellent decoding speed.


--------------------
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post Apr 24 2006, 02:59
Post #36





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



I switched from Monkey's and FLAC to Wavpack.
Switched for better compression (from FLAC), error robustness and featurefull encoder. It seems to be more actively deleveloped also, though FLAC is more widespread.

This post has been edited by beto: Apr 24 2006, 02:59


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Apr 24 2006, 07:14
Post #37


FLAC Developer


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



can someone fill me in about this supposed "slowness" of FLAC tags? guruboolez keep repeating it, but the reference encoder puts in 4k of padding by default, and you can change that in the unlikely event you really need more. with proper padding all metadata edits are instantaneous.

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kjoonlee
post Apr 24 2006, 07:21
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



I think he needs (but doesn't want) 32kb~64kb (sic) of padding.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....4580&hl=padding


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Apr 24 2006, 07:21
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 1529
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



QUOTE (Menollo @ Apr 23 2006, 12:33 PM) *
FLAC because:

4. it is streamable (wavpack isn't)



The official site and wiki say that it is streamable, so where are you getting this from ?


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kjoonlee
post Apr 24 2006, 07:26
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25-July 02
From: South Korea
Member No.: 2782



No implementations, maybe?

This post has been edited by kjoonlee: Apr 24 2006, 07:26


--------------------
http://blacksun.ivyro.net/vorbis/vorbisfaq.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sshd
post Apr 24 2006, 10:36
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 211
Joined: 16-June 03
Member No.: 7218



I use both.

Wavpack for the handful of 192k/24bit DVD-A rips I have.
FLAC for the rest.

I have no issues with any of the programs. My mass encoding/tagging script is optimised for FLAC and I am too lazy to change it to Wavpack (and there really is no point).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Apr 24 2006, 10:40
Post #42





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



I started Lossless with Flac some years ago,
went over to Wavpack,
and switched back to Flac some months ago.

Of course, without transcoding from the one format to the other, just keeping, what I had stored on DVD+R.

Both formats are very well !
So, the decision to use wavpack, or flac, well, both are so great,
yes, and especially bryant is a nice guy and jcoalson has been politely and always active here in forum also, maybe both seem to be an exception to the usual coders;)

So, why do I encode new rips these days to flac instead of wavpack ?
because hardware support will matter sooner or later.
VW (Volkswagen) will build in soon a car radio with flac support, i assume like Volvo the phatbox(or Keg?) or how it is called.
Volvo.
and all the other Flac devices.
So, as my feeling tells me, it is to expect, that in nearer future, sooner or later, every (cheap) device (which could play lossless) will be able to play Flac.
Unfortunately, this is less likely (to my feeling) for wavpack.
It would be great, if Wavpack would get more devices to be played natively.
Maybe, it is time for wavpack, not to concentrate even more on nice (encoding/decoding) software features (wavpack is already great!), but to get it accepted and built into even more hardware than today.

My encoding settings:

Wavpack: -x -m
(great compression ratio with same/similar decoding speed as flac)

Flac: -8 -V
(best compression ratio of flac, though not as good as wavpack -x)

I won't use the -h option for wavpack, though the half decoding speed of -h would still be ok for fast PCs, but maybe unsafer to use in possible hardware devices regarding speed/decoding abilities & battery consumption.
And Wavpack -x & flac are very convenient&fast for transcoding to mp3/Lame eg., or if i ever should transcode to any Loslsess format, which might be played in future by hardware devices.

This post has been edited by user: Apr 24 2006, 10:50


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
micimaci
post Apr 24 2006, 10:49
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 16-April 03
Member No.: 6006



WavPack - speed, warm fuzzy feeling
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Apr 24 2006, 12:11
Post #44





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



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 24 2006, 07:14 AM) *
can someone fill me in about this supposed "slowness" of FLAC tags? guruboolez keep repeating it, but the reference encoder puts in 4k of padding by default, and you can change that in the unlikely event you really need more. with proper padding all metadata edits are instantaneous.

Josh

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:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=126256
It also seems that foobar2000 improved tag editing inside flac, vorbis and mp3 - which should imply that previous versions where not so good (it has to be confirmed though). I also remember other applications I tested some time ago (was it Tag & Rename, I can't say anymore) which doesn't take advantage at all from existing padded area.
So if I'm not wrong, to be a working solution padding must be supported by tagging editors and it's (or was) not apparently always the case. Such issue doesn't exist with tags located at the end, even with poor tagging software.

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. Because .log files are 4...10 kb long the 4kb padding size was by far not enough. I finally leave this bad habit because it causes annoying issue on memory usage (foobar2000 took -database loaded in RAM- 120.000 Kb... and not all files were tagged or present in the library tongue.gif).

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. For example, when I encoded two days ago a mono disc for testing WavPack 4.4, I did first in flac format as single albumfile and by using freedb information only. Here's the result (log by frontah):
CODE
FLAC, Vendor: sjeng.org libFLAC 1.1.2.1 20060107
513.583 kbit/s, 16 bit, 44100 Hz, Stereo
Length: 46:12.760

Filesize: 177 975 519 bytes  (169.73 MB)
Uncompressed: 466.29 MB (36.40%)

-------- Tags --------
Vorbis (207 items, size: 11 323 bytes)

Not only the file had to be rewritten just after the encoder finished its job, but if I add a new field to the basic ones, the file has to be written again for a third time because the padding reservoir is already vanished... That's why I suggested to foobar2000 developers to:
- use more than 4Kb padding when a user set the converter to "create a single file with cuesheet"
- add a new padding reservoir when the first one is full

A second situation where tags located at the beginning are possibly boring: adding cover (usually more than 10 kb) inside a file... Once embedded (and files rewritten), there's still no padding anymore and each tags revision implies a new happy moment of rewritting. With large storage capacity of modern HDD and with masstagging software, a simple revision of all files (i.e. convert "NUMBEROFCD to "TOTALDISCS") may took a complete afternoon, with possible corruption (if the app. crashes) but only 15 minutes with APEv2. You see the problem? wink.gif

So I don't think people have to use tags in an extravagant manner to be annoyed by FLAC tagging system. But with foobar2000 0.9 I admit that my daily tagging experience is much more positive than in the past (excepted for CD image, to be avoided unless stoic patience wink.gif)


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.

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Apr 24 2006, 12:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Apr 24 2006, 13:06
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 1529
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



I use wavpack. It is cutting edge technology, great to play with but it really does work practicaly. Amazing software and developer.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tpc
post Apr 24 2006, 13:11
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 7-August 02
Member No.: 2976



I use monkey and have been for the past few years, it was the 1st lossless format i used and just kept on using it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zergen
post Apr 24 2006, 13:25
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 7-February 05
Member No.: 19656



APE High - I use lossless for archive and listen MPC, and I encode to lossless in batches and write to DVDs - so encoding time is important, and compression too. Decoding time isn't so important - I'll need this only if I lose my MPC or if I decide to re-encode to different format/settings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yane
post Apr 24 2006, 13:53
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 13-December 03
Member No.: 10403



Recent convert to Wavpack.

I was using FLAC for overall performance and cross-platform compatiblilty, but after a few quick tests wavpack seems to perform a *little* better on compression and speed; most significantly wavpack is nicely integrated into Audition 2.0 (my editor of choice and habit) right out of the box. In addition Wavpack is the first lossless codec I've seen that can deal with Audacity's peculiar 32 bit float format without having to run the codec from within Audition (using the -a switch).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zombiewerewolf
post Apr 24 2006, 14:05
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-January 03
From: Perth, AU
Member No.: 4755



I go for Wavpack. It's fast and has better encoding ratio. Flac might get more support on portable devices but I would use lossy instead.

If YALAC really join with Flac, I might consider changing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
laneling
post Apr 24 2006, 14:17
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 30-August 05
Member No.: 24200



Wavpack is better,I think.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 18th December 2014 - 23:06