IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Which lossless audio codec do you use?
Which lossless audio codec do you use?
Which lossless audio codec do you use?
ALAC [ 15 ] ** [3.46%]
FLAC [ 228 ] ** [52.66%]
WavPack [ 140 ] ** [32.33%]
YALAC [ 2 ] ** [0.46%]
Monkey's Audio [ 36 ] ** [8.31%]
Shorten [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
WMA Lossless [ 6 ] ** [1.39%]
TTA [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
OptimFROG [ 5 ] ** [1.15%]
Other (post details below) [ 1 ] ** [0.23%]
Total Votes: 534
  
zorba
post Apr 28 2006, 10:48
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26571



i'm using flac & wavpack but i've voted flac cause the last cd was flacced, and my lossless collection is more flacced than wavpacked


more, flac is easy to say [flak] while wavpack is not easy to write nor pronounce [weivpak] or [wa:vpak] since there is no E after V

Hey Bryant, why there's not e? how many spelling errors on the internet with "wavepack"?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Apr 28 2006, 11:51
Post #52


Rarewares admin


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



QUOTE (zorba @ Apr 28 2006, 06:48 AM) *
Hey Bryant, why there's not e?


I'm not Bryant but...

The file extension is .wav, not .wave tongue.gif


--------------------
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
probedb
post Apr 28 2006, 11:54
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 1319
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



I use FLAC smile.gif Dunno why really, Squeezebox has native support which is helpful for when I eventually get one smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Apr 28 2006, 16:56
Post #54


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (zorba @ Apr 28 2006, 04:48 AM) *
Hey Bryant, why there's not e?

maybe because there was already a wavepak format?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cartman_Sr
post Apr 28 2006, 17:53
Post #55





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



I use flac because I still think it was designed right from the beginning to have the best forward-compatibility with future software and hardware. Like I said before (not that it matters to anyone), having an extra 4% compression is not going to help much anyway, especially with the relatively low cost of hard drive space nowadays.

QUOTE
I understand that it is fashionable to use Wavpack, but I'm not much into Haute Couture

Me neither smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Apr 28 2006, 19:30
Post #56


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1292
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 28 2006, 08:56 AM) *
QUOTE (zorba @ Apr 28 2006, 04:48 AM) *
Hey Bryant, why there's not e?

maybe because there was already a wavepak format?

Actually, I never saw that program before! It's funny though because that's missing the 'c'. People just don't want 8 letters! smile.gif


QUOTE (zorba @ Apr 28 2006, 02:48 AM) *
flac is easy to say [flak] while wavpack is not easy to write nor pronounce [weivpak] or [wa:vpak] since there is no E after V

Hey Bryant, why there's not e? how many spelling errors on the internet with "wavepack"?

Yeah, people include the 'e' all the time. Fortunately the search engines still find me first when people type "wavepack".

The genesis was that originally all I had was the extension .wv, which basically was .wav with the fat squeezed out. The programs were called wav2wv and wv2wav. Those obviously had to go, so a friend suggested "wavpack". Well, I should have changed the extension to .wpk right then, but I didn't.

BTW, it's pronounced "wave-pack", except for my Romanian mother-in-law who says "wauve-pock".

When I released 4.0 I briefly thought of changing name and extension to PAF for "People's Audio Format", but fortunately I came to my senses in time. My mother-in-law probably would have approved though. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Echizen
post Apr 28 2006, 19:33
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 22-April 03
Member No.: 6122



I voted for WAVPACK because it seems to be the best lossless format when you take a look at the comparison table in HA-WIKI.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Apr 28 2006, 20:40
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 1394
Joined: 20-December 01
From: seattle
Member No.: 693



i'm down with the wpk file extension, bryant.

*goes to rename all his files*

seriously though, that might be a good idea...


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Supacon
post Apr 28 2006, 21:11
Post #59





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 543
Joined: 19-March 04
From: Alberta, Canada
Member No.: 12841



QUOTE (MusicLover @ Apr 28 2006, 12:54 AM) *
[Monkey's Audio] is being developed, BTW... 4 b2 came recently.


According to the development history at monkey's audio, the changes in the newer versions seem only relevant to the GUI, which probably doesn't mean much to most of the people here.

I generally am using EAC or foobar, and not the Monkey GUI when I encode, so it's irrelevant to me.

Does anyone know if there are changes to the compression or speed in the newest versions of MAC?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MusicLover
post Apr 29 2006, 13:48
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 327
Joined: 1-November 02
Member No.: 3669



QUOTE
Does anyone know if there are changes to the compression or speed in the newest versions of MAC?

No, not yet. However, it is promised soon... Whatever the future will be, it produses the smallest files with reasonable CPU use, for me the choiсe is obvious.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post Apr 29 2006, 14:50
Post #61


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1744
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



i use FLAC, since wavpack page annoys me (i blame roberto for that), and yes the logo sucks as well wink.gif

p.s. that was a joke

This post has been edited by smok3: Apr 29 2006, 14:50


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Egor
post May 11 2006, 12:21
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 826
Joined: 29-September 04
Member No.: 17374



FLAC for me (though Wavpack is a very attractive alternative).

- various open-sourced distros include flac, so it is widespread and therefore easy to decode as codec is already in the system.
- synonym to lossless: when someone says he has flac files you know for sure it is lossless. Yes, I think that value of hybrid mode is really overestimated: lossy part of the encoding that is not supported by hardware/portable players has a little sense.
- almost ideal cuesheet support - since I stopped caring about cd-text to be necessarily restored onto the restored audio cd. I just add cuesheet into vorbis unicode tag for transcoding purpose (with fb2k), and then embed the flac-metadata cuesheet which is to be used to recreate disc from an image.
- cuepoints is a good idea, one can even create set of mp3s from flac image with only flac.exe and mp3encoder.exe! (but without tags)

I wish flac could have more options to manage and embed cuesheets (e.g., import to vorbis tag as well).

This post has been edited by Egor: May 12 2006, 04:36
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pest
post May 11 2006, 12:43
Post #63





Group: Members
Posts: 208
Joined: 12-March 04
From: Germany
Member No.: 12686



i use monkey's audio since a couple of years

wavpack is a good alternative solution but i don't like flac
because cue-sheets get crippled and there's no? possibility to
restore the original one. wave-extended files don't get read
and additional riff-headers don't get stored. the only reason
why someone could use flac is because of hw-support.
i hope that wavpack improves on compression (maybe some high-order predictors?)
than i would switch
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
venezici
post May 15 2006, 14:23
Post #64





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 7-May 06
Member No.: 30506



Hi audio geeks,

I prefer flac. because EAC(my preferable ripper) supports it as well as my Foobar player.
Only disadvantage are the large filesizes on your harddisk.
Further it's free and open source.
As for a lossy codec (now we're at it) I prefer mp3 V0 VBR. Good soundquality, and it only takes the size it needs. So, low bitrates when replaying silent parts in your tracks and vice versa.

Venezici
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Galley
post Jun 2 2006, 02:12
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 3-December 03
From: Greenville, SC
Member No.: 10162



RealAudio Lossless; I'm getting encoding speeds from 25-33X.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
satorippoi
post Jun 29 2006, 18:37
Post #66





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 10-February 06
Member No.: 27682



Well, I guess it is time to have my say..)))

First of all, I should say that personally I am used to using Wavpack:

1. high decoding speed
2. quite an impressive compression rate
3. embedded cue

However, today I found out something that is definitely going to shake my values and believes...
It is about Flac...

1. high decoding speed - 188x at -5
2. Flac now also supports embedded cue via Fb2k

So, now it basically comes to compression rate...
I have ripped A-ha album "Headlines and Deadlines" and that is what I get:

Flac - 448.543 Kb
Wvpack - 430.537 Kb

As you see, the difference is ~18Mb which is...umh, and that is what I want you to ask

Would you go for Flac or choose Wvpack considering that the size difference is quite impressive?..Is encoding speed so important to you and are you willing to sacrifice space for this?..

Edit: forgot to state the space of these files

This post has been edited by satorippoi: Jun 29 2006, 18:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martin H
post Jul 10 2006, 04:33
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 857
Joined: 5-March 05
From: Denmark
Member No.: 20365



QUOTE (satorippoi @ Jun 29 2006, 19:37) *
Would you go for Flac or choose Wvpack considering that the size difference is quite impressive?

You talk like WavPack only had the -h option wink.gif

If you want fast decoding speed, then just use WavPack's -f switch, which is about 0.6% faster than FLAC -5, while encoding about twice as fast as FLAC -5 and having the same compression ratio as FLAC -8. FLAC is indeed a very good lossless format, but unless you have a FLAC supported hardware player that you want to use, then i would stick with WavPack anytime as it's simply a more feature-full, efficient and flexible codec, which depending on mode used can outperform FLAC in either decoding speed, encoding speed or compression ratio or several of them at once.

This post has been edited by Martin H: Jul 10 2006, 04:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohanDeBock
post Jul 11 2006, 09:52
Post #68





Group: Developer
Posts: 250
Joined: 23-March 05
Member No.: 20866



I'm trying out OptimFROG.


--------------------
foo_softplaylists: http://tiny.cc/kh9m9
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JEdwardP
post Jul 18 2006, 06:02
Post #69





Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 1-December 05
Member No.: 26129



I switched from FLAC to WavPack in August of 2005. It's encoding, decoding, and tagging are fast, and it's compression is better than FLAC. I've tried and rejected Monkey's, OptimFrog, LA, TTA and Shorten for various reasons.

I'll try YALAC at some point, but it'll need to be awfully good to unseat WavPack as my lossless codec of choice.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eboomer
post Sep 3 2006, 08:02
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-August 06
Member No.: 33739



I'm currently transcoding my files to OptimFROG because my external HD just filled up, and I'm planning to get a new desktop in a few months or so, so I need high compression ratios. I would use Monkey's Audio (typically better compression within sane encoding timeframes), exept that it takes a few seconds every time playback starts and every time I use the seek bar. When I get my new desktop, however, I'll probably use FLAC just because it gets the most support and is best known outside of the audiophile niche.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hellokeith
post Sep 7 2006, 21:02
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 14-August 06
Member No.: 34027



Flac. Simple, easy to understand command line. Plays gapless in Foobar.

EAC + Mareo (Flac for lossless, WMA 2pass VBR for lossy)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Jan 2 2007, 09:10
Post #72





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



Poll closed. Please take a look at the latest poll.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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 - 02:57