IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
FLAC 1.1.4, smaller, faster, better
jcoalson
post Feb 15 2007, 23:21
Post #51


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (jamesbaud @ Feb 14 2007, 22:28) *
Just wondering... If your collection is already archived in an earlier version of FLAC, is there any reason to transcode to a newer version, other than to save some additional space?

from 1.1.3->1.1.4 it's just compression improvements. from 1.1.2->1.1.3 support for album art was added.

QUOTE (Bourne @ Feb 14 2007, 23:04) *
does this new version fixes this bug here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....1287&hl=bug

no. I wouldn't call it a bug either, in that case flac is being passed an invalid wave file.

QUOTE (birdie @ Feb 15 2007, 14:52) *
How does flake compares to FLAC? Is flake format compatible to FLAC (I mean will FLAC play flake encoded files)?

flake is supposed to generate valid FLAC but it's still alpha and we have found format-related bugs. it's getting better but I would not use it for archiving yet.

QUOTE (smthmlk @ Feb 15 2007, 15:06) *
I would like to know how such a large decrease in encoding time was achieved (different data structure used, etc)

actually for -8, it was just a better algorithm for estimating encoded residual sizes.

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Demetris
post Feb 16 2007, 00:08
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 12-January 06
Member No.: 27057



Congratulations! The speed-up in -8 is impressive!

And thanks for the apodization fix. :-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
paulgj
post Feb 16 2007, 02:14
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 5-July 04
From: Bellevue, WA,USA
Member No.: 15075



Thanks for the update. Also I was wondering if this update would allow Rockbox FLAC decoding to burn less power? (I use Rockbox to play FLAC 1.1.2 -5 files on an iPod Video)

Also is it true that there is no difference in the overhead required to decode from a -5 or a -8 compressed file?

Thanks!


--------------------
Foobar 9.6.9, FLAC 1.2.1b, EAC 0.99 pb 5
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Feb 16 2007, 02:46
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



Only if they integrate the 1.1.4 decoding code into Rockbox.
And there's no real difference in decoding speed between the compression levels.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Feb 16 2007, 03:31
Post #55





Group: Banned
Posts: 232
Joined: 20-January 06
Member No.: 27228



Has 1.1.4 been tested well enough via a test suite and by users (i.e no known bugs) to use in production/archiving of master audio data?

This post has been edited by goodnews: Feb 16 2007, 03:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Feb 16 2007, 04:10
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



The best thing you can do is make it verify it and compare the MD5 of the audio data with the original audio data.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
whr
post Feb 16 2007, 07:06
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32150



I was transcoding from flac 1.1.2 to flac 1.1.4 using foobar converter, and noticed that while in most cases the size of the files got smaller, in other cases it grew.

As an example:

Various Artists - SUPER EUROBEAT presents Initial D Fourth Stage D Non-Stop Selection
compressed with flac 1.1.2
607.684.260 byte
compressed with flac 1.1.4
608.449.746 byte

It's rare that the flac 1.1.4 transcode ends up bigger than the flac 1.1.2 encode and for now it only happened for albums encoded as single tracks and not for albums encoded as an image (many tracks get bigger, while others get smaller) and all were encoded with the -8 setting.

This post has been edited by whr: Feb 16 2007, 07:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mjpartyboy
post Feb 16 2007, 11:59
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40663



Thanks for your time and effort and the great work!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Insolent
post Feb 16 2007, 12:33
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 274
Joined: 17-May 04
From: QLD, Australia
Member No.: 14136



Re-encoding now. wink.gif


--------------------
</signature>
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
paulgj
post Feb 16 2007, 22:03
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 5-July 04
From: Bellevue, WA,USA
Member No.: 15075



QUOTE (Insolent @ Feb 16 2007, 03:33) *
Re-encoding now. wink.gif

Just curious, what are you using to re-encode? I can't decide between Foobar and Synthetic Soul's .bat file mentioned earlier.


--------------------
Foobar 9.6.9, FLAC 1.2.1b, EAC 0.99 pb 5
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Feb 16 2007, 23:13
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 1194
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (paulgj @ Feb 16 2007, 21:03) *
QUOTE (Insolent @ Feb 16 2007, 03:33) *

Re-encoding now. wink.gif

Just curious, what are you using to re-encode? I can't decide between Foobar and Synthetic Soul's .bat file mentioned earlier.


I use Synthetic Soul's .bat file with the additions he mentioned. Works well smile.gif I'm also reencoding now...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Johncan
post Feb 17 2007, 00:00
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: 20-January 03
From: Atlanta, GA
Member No.: 4656



I am using Omni Encoder and Flac 1.1.4 to recode. It works well. I just copied the new 1.1.4 flac.exe over the 1.1.3 one in Omni.

John
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Teknojnky
post Feb 17 2007, 00:27
Post #63





Group: Members
Posts: 335
Joined: 12-April 06
Member No.: 29453



is this a bug?

CODE
J:\Temp>flac -t test1.flac

flac 1.1.4, Copyright © 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details.

test1.flac: ok

J:\Temp>


file tests OK

CODE
J:\Temp>flac -V test1.flac -o test2.flac

flac 1.1.4, Copyright © 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details.

ERROR: input file test1.flac has an ID3v2 tag

J:\Temp>


File fails to encode, but tested OK.

CODE
J:\Temp>flac -V -F -f test1.flac -o test2.flac

flac 1.1.4, Copyright © 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson
flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are
welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details.

ERROR: input file test1.flac has an ID3v2 tag

J:\Temp>


even forcing it fails.

I was able to remove the offending tag with mp3 tag studio 3.05, and it encoded fine then.

I thought for sure that 1.1.4 alpha was able to force encode through this problem but maybe I'm wrong.


--------------------
Last.FM Nodes for your library @ http://build.last.fm/item/356
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Feb 17 2007, 14:46
Post #64





Group: Banned
Posts: 232
Joined: 20-January 06
Member No.: 27228



FLAC filter updated for Adobe Audition/Cool Edit/Cool Edit Pro to include support for reading and writing of FLAC 1.1.4 format files. Thread with changelog and download link is located here.

This post has been edited by goodnews: Feb 17 2007, 14:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jamesbaud
post Feb 18 2007, 05:46
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 10468



QUOTE (goodnews @ Feb 14 2007, 04:45) *
Has anyone compiled an Intel (or Universal Binary) Macintosh version of this new FLAC 1.1.4 package?

Download link please. Thanks!


Is this what you mean?

http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.html

Thank John33!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Feb 18 2007, 07:17
Post #66





Group: Banned
Posts: 232
Joined: 20-January 06
Member No.: 27228



QUOTE (jamesbaud @ Feb 17 2007, 21:46) *
QUOTE (goodnews @ Feb 14 2007, 04:45) *

Has anyone compiled an Intel (or Universal Binary) Macintosh version of this new FLAC 1.1.4 package?

Download link please. Thanks!


Is this what you mean?

http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.html

Thank John33!

I see a WavPack version on Rarewares for Macintosh, but not an Intel Macintosh version listed there for FLAC 1.1.4. I checked there first but saw nothing, that is why I asked here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Khaine
post Feb 18 2007, 10:03
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 14-January 03
Member No.: 4563



Thanks for the great new release :-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sketchy_c
post Feb 19 2007, 14:42
Post #68





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 18-December 06
Member No.: 38800



Converted my FLAC filess to 1.1.4 from 1.1.3 over the weekend (-8 to -8), and the ones I reviewed showed a decrease in size of a few percentage points. Thanks for the update, and great work!!!

This post has been edited by sketchy_c: Feb 19 2007, 14:44
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Feb 21 2007, 01:39
Post #69


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (Teknojnky @ Feb 16 2007, 18:27) *
is this a bug?
...
I thought for sure that 1.1.4 alpha was able to force encode through this problem but maybe I'm wrong.

no, this came up before somewhere else and I gave the long explanation. anyway id3 on flac files is going to get less and less support as time goes on.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Feb 21 2007, 09:59
Post #70





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



oh, I just visited flac sourceforge page, and found out, that the download links for the flac windows installer link to flac1.1.3b , still.

edit: still after edit written in italics bold, so that it should be clearer, that I ask after 1 week of 1.1.4 being public, that the installer is updated for the broad public also. Obviously the techie HA guys know howto use and replace 1.1.3 against 1.1.4, but the JoeAverage out there might download the installer with high probability and get an outdated 1.1.3 with a locale-dot/comma bug. Especially because of this, the 1.1.3 versions should be replaced by 1.1.4 everywhere it is possible. It simply doesn't look nice or proper, if on 1 page is 1.1.4 and on other (even main download location), you get 1.1.3., and the news tell that 1.1.3 would be newest..
Nowhere in this topic is said why the installer isn#t updated yet, jcoalson said only in 1st post, that it isn#t updated yet.


Also the News could be updated, maybe even before the installer package smile.gif
Currently latest:
news
27-Nov-2006 :
FLAC 1.1.3 released


edited/added also smile.gif

my quick test:

Encoding Helge Schneider's Katzeklo song 3.05 min.s (yeah, the HA cat lovers biggrin.gif ) to Case's flac 1.1.3 (used because of the locale dot comma bug) and to flac 1.1.4 , on windows (xp).
from wav 44.1/16 to flac 1.1.4 -8 -V and to flac 1.1.3case -8 -V
size advantage ca. 0.3% , very nice, (this song compresses to ca. 0.6 of 1400kbit/s raw wave size)
speed advantage even more nice smile.gif on P3-800 MHz 1.1.3Case took 80s , 1.1.4 took 40s, so that the speedup is really great !!!
(Speed was measured 2-3 times each encoder and averaged.)


big edit 2007-02-23:
I found in flac sub-forum a topic http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=52863 referring to the sourceforge flac homepage problem. Obviously, it is due to sourceforge, that it is down, that no updates can be made to that page sad.gif

This post has been edited by user: Feb 23 2007, 13:06


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Feb 21 2007, 10:47
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 1194
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



If you read the thread it's been explained why it's not been updated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
clintb
post Feb 22 2007, 20:46
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 182
Joined: 4-July 02
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Member No.: 2472



Using Foobar 0.9.4.2 and a custom converter set for FLAC 1.1.4, this works for me.
CODE
-s -8 - -o %d


Ok, where'd the post I was responding run off to? huh.gif

This post has been edited by clintb: Feb 22 2007, 20:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
paulgj
post Feb 23 2007, 06:51
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 5-July 04
From: Bellevue, WA,USA
Member No.: 15075



QUOTE (clintb @ Feb 22 2007, 11:46) *
Using Foobar 0.9.4.2 and a custom converter set for FLAC 1.1.4, this works for me.
CODE
-s -8 - -o %d


Ok, where'd the post I was responding run off to? huh.gif


Hiya,

you may want to change the
CODE
-s -8 - -o %d
line to
CODE
-s -8 %s -o %d
as I have heard there are some issue with Foobar inserting too many seek points into piped FLAC conversions. See the topic here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=41287


--------------------
Foobar 9.6.9, FLAC 1.2.1b, EAC 0.99 pb 5
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wraithdu
post Feb 25 2007, 02:31
Post #74





Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: 20-December 06
Member No.: 38861



Two quesitons. First regarding this post -

QUOTE (paulgj @ Feb 22 2007, 23:51) *
QUOTE (clintb @ Feb 22 2007, 11:46) *

Using Foobar 0.9.4.2 and a custom converter set for FLAC 1.1.4, this works for me.
CODE
-s -8 - -o %d


Ok, where'd the post I was responding run off to? huh.gif


Hiya,

you may want to change the
CODE
-s -8 - -o %d
line to
CODE
-s -8 %s -o %d
as I have heard there are some issue with Foobar inserting too many seek points into piped FLAC conversions. See the topic here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=41287

Does the coverter have this bug if the custom setting is NOT used? IE if you just choose FLAC from the built in settings?

Second, has anyone had any problems with flac 1.1.4 replaygain tags not being read in foobar? I used REACT2 today to create an album image and had flac scan for replaygain. I know it did cause it warned me that it would create some padding even if --no-padding was used. After I loaded the file into foobar, the RG tags were nowhere to be found. However there was a tag citing the REPLAY_GAIN_REFERENCE was 89 db. So either the tags weren't written (although it seems like they were), or fb2k can't read them. Ideas?

This post has been edited by wraithdu: Feb 25 2007, 02:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Martin H
post Feb 25 2007, 03:08
Post #75





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



The four de-facto RG tags isn't shown in fb2k's "Properties" dialog, but fb2k still parses them and lists the gain and peak values in the "Properties" section of the "Properties" dialog. FLAC's ReplayGain implementation also sets a "REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS" tag in addition to the four de-factor RG tags and since fb2k dosen't recognice that tag as being a RG tag, then that tag is also listed among the other non-RG tags in the "Metadata" section of the "Properties" dialog.

This post has been edited by Martin H: Feb 25 2007, 03:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 25th July 2014 - 18:13