IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
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
  
My name is Mud
post Apr 25 2006, 18:48
Post #76





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



I thought that Matroska was better suited to A/V needs to begin with, and never considered it strictly for my audio files. Is this an incorrect assumption?


--------------------
voted 'Most likely to veer your thread' three straight years!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
flcpge
post Apr 25 2006, 19:29
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 15-December 05
From: California
Member No.: 26415



FLAC because I'm used to it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lex_nasa
post Apr 27 2006, 12:02
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 27-May 04
Member No.: 14361



Wavpack - better compression and hybrid mode

This post has been edited by lex_nasa: Apr 27 2006, 12:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Julien
post Apr 27 2006, 13:33
Post #79





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 26-July 05
Member No.: 23534



I mostly use Wavpack, not so much for music archiving per se but for my own loops and samples backups. Wavpack doesn't remove the rather exotic but very useful RIFF subchunks which are created by some audio software(loop tempo, loop pitch etc...)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Apr 27 2006, 19:12
Post #80





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 682
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



WavPack for speed, compression and hybrid mode.


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.43 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Xenion
post Apr 28 2006, 01:54
Post #81





Group: Members
Posts: 1042
Joined: 23-May 02
From: DE
Member No.: 2107



Wavpack because of its perfect cue-sheet support and because bryant is such a friendly guy.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
miscellanea
post Apr 28 2006, 02:37
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 229
Joined: 4-February 05
Member No.: 19579



past : FLAC for fast decoding.
now : WavPack for better performance (encoding speed, compression).


--------------------
Non-profit Netlabel : Bump Foot
http://www.bumpfoot.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mariuszn3
post Apr 28 2006, 12:38
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 22-March 05
Member No.: 20813



FLAC.. just because I'm keeping all albums in matroska containers.
Yes, I know that matroska theoretically supports wavpack... but somehow I always get errors when I try mux in wavpack audio.. tried few times and had no time to look deep into that issue.


--------------------
http://www.medikoo.com
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/mariuszn3/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
man
post Apr 28 2006, 13:04
Post #84





Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 16-April 03
From: Paris
Member No.: 6007



WavPack. Best efficiency, ie. decoding speed vs size.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dhry
post Apr 28 2006, 15:37
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26-March 03
From: Phoenix, AZ
Member No.: 5688



As usual, I tried them all. Optim, APE, FLAC, WV etc. I settled on WavPack - best overall speed vs decode speed vs size. I'd normally have said APE but at maximum compress, it decodes like an absolute dog.

This is only for my very favourite albums. For everything else I have, MusePack.

Dhry


--------------------
Dean-Ryan Stone
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregorian
post Apr 28 2006, 19:59
Post #86





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 7-April 06
Member No.: 29243



Newbie here & a virgin post!

Wavpack rip to image with cuesheet & log embedded.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xequence
post Apr 28 2006, 21:11
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 106
Joined: 1-December 05
Member No.: 26127



FLAC. I just havnt given any thought to it... And FLAC seems to be the standard format people distribute lossless in.

So, basically the reason I also use MP3: It's the standard.


--------------------
And if you believe theres not a chance to die...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpole
post Apr 29 2006, 03:22
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 28-January 06
Member No.: 27375



QUOTE (user @ Apr 24 2006, 11:58 AM) *
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.


I switched from monkeys audio to FLAC because of the above reasons. I think that the licensing restrictions are less for FLAC and will therefore become more popular. Also, foobar 0.91 has good embeded cue sheet support for CD image rips. No offense to Wavpack...I haven't tried it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moi
post Apr 30 2006, 18:00
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 23-June 04
Member No.: 14859



Using Wavpack. One thing surprised me yesterday though.

I compressed a .wav file to .wv, maximum compression (using Dbpoweramp-with their most recent .wavpack support--I believe the newest wavpack, 4.31.

Then I decompressed the .wv file back to .wav, in a different folder, also with dbpa.

The resulting .wav file (from the decompressed .wv) was not the same size as the original .wav file! It was listed in Windows Explorer as being 1 kb smaller.

Not a significant size difference, and I could not hear a difference, in hearing the beginning of each file. Yet, it makes me wonder---did something get lost in the "lossless" compression of the .wav to .wv, that made it a different size when uncompressed back to .wav?

I'm wondering whether it is safe to delete the original .wavs, and think I still have that music in full lossless format? Is lossless not always completely loss-free? What could have accounted for that difference in 1 KB?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krmathis
post Apr 30 2006, 18:13
Post #90





Group: Members
Posts: 742
Joined: 27-May 02
From: Oslo, Norway
Member No.: 2133



moi. A lossless encoder only compress the PCM data, not the actual container (WAVE or AIFF).
Meaning that when its decoded the actual filesize may differ from the original, but the content should be identical.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moi
post Apr 30 2006, 19:29
Post #91





Group: Members
Posts: 53
Joined: 23-June 04
Member No.: 14859



QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 30 2006, 09:13 AM) *
moi. A lossless encoder only compress the PCM data, not the actual container (WAVE or AIFF).
Meaning that when its decoded the actual filesize may differ from the original, but the content should be identical.


But since it is the same container (.wav), why would the file size be different? blink.gif

Is there any way to test whether the content is identical? (Just to ease my mind before deleting the original .wav files. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kanak
post Apr 30 2006, 19:45
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 1190
Joined: 12-January 06
From: Cambridge, MA
Member No.: 27052



QUOTE (moi @ May 1 2006, 12:29 AM) *
QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 30 2006, 09:13 AM) *

moi. A lossless encoder only compress the PCM data, not the actual container (WAVE or AIFF).
Meaning that when its decoded the actual filesize may differ from the original, but the content should be identical.


But since it is the same container (.wav), why would the file size be different? blink.gif

Is there any way to test whether the content is identical? (Just to ease my mind before deleting the original .wav files. biggrin.gif


You could bitcompare the files using foobar.

QUOTE (moi @ May 1 2006, 12:29 AM) *
QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 30 2006, 09:13 AM) *

moi. A lossless encoder only compress the PCM data, not the actual container (WAVE or AIFF).
Meaning that when its decoded the actual filesize may differ from the original, but the content should be identical.


But since it is the same container (.wav), why would the file size be different? blink.gif

Is there any way to test whether the content is identical? (Just to ease my mind before deleting the original .wav files. biggrin.gif


You could bitcompare the files using foobar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Apr 30 2006, 20:09
Post #93


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 30 2006, 02:13 PM) *
moi. A lossless encoder only compress the PCM data, not the actual container (WAVE or AIFF).
Meaning that when its decoded the actual filesize may differ from the original, but the content should be identical.


Hrm... but WavPack DOES store the container when compressing a file. That's how it supports custom RIFF tags in WAV.

I wonder if dbPowerAMP is ignoring that information and writing default RIFF headers to the file instead.


--------------------
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
krmathis
post Apr 30 2006, 20:25
Post #94





Group: Members
Posts: 742
Joined: 27-May 02
From: Oslo, Norway
Member No.: 2133



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Apr 30 2006, 09:09 PM) *
Hrm... but WavPack DOES store the container when compressing a file. That's how it supports custom RIFF tags in WAV.
Ooops, I didn't know that.
I thought all lossless encoders compressed the PCM stream only, but I was wrong. blush.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Apr 30 2006, 21:23
Post #95


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (krmathis @ Apr 30 2006, 04:25 PM) *
I thought all lossless encoders compressed the PCM stream only, but I was wrong. blush.gif


Actually, most encoders store the extra data. Just look at the lossless comparison, in the "RIFF chunks" field.


--------------------
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
HotshotGG
post May 1 2006, 23:38
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24-March 02
From: Revere, MA
Member No.: 1607



Both: FLAC for compatability these days though and I have no need to use hybrid lossy either. wink.gif


--------------------
College student/IT Assistant
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
geopoul
post May 2 2006, 01:52
Post #97





Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 12-December 04
Member No.: 18631



Wavpack for me ...
...although I like FLAC too. I like them both because they are open source.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
birdie
post May 2 2006, 04:25
Post #98





Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 3-March 06
From: this planet
Member No.: 28235



WMA lossless with no particular reason. Anyway it's very fast at coding/decoding and compresses better than FLAC - I haven't had the time to try WAVPack though.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Digisurfer
post May 2 2006, 07:48
Post #99





Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 10-August 04
From: Canada
Member No.: 16174



I'm about to change over from Monkey's Audio to WavPack. It's all about compression for me. WavPack high seems to be almost as good as Monkey's Audio at -3000, which is what I've always used. Decode speed is pretty nice with WavPack too, about twice as fast, so that doesn't hurt either. FLAC is a really good format too in my opinion, but the small difference in compression per album adds up to quite a bit when you have a lot of them lol. That equals many gigabytes saved in my case. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PatchWorKs
post May 2 2006, 09:12
Post #100





Group: Members
Posts: 498
Joined: 2-October 01
Member No.: 168



I use FLAC (for lossless and Vorbis for lossy) 'cause i love Xiph's product philosophy.

This post has been edited by PatchWorKs: May 2 2006, 09:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 27th November 2014 - 14:27