IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
FLAC 1.2.0 released
benski
post Jul 27 2007, 16:41
Post #51


Winamp Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 670
Joined: 17-July 05
From: Brooklyn, NY
Member No.: 23375



QUOTE (imre_herceg @ Jul 27 2007, 11:33) *
How can you use the new libFLAC.dll with CDex? I use CDex version 1.70b2 unicode version, and with new libFLAC.dll it crashes, just as it did with libFLAC.dll 1.1.4.
Any suggestions?


That's because the API changed in 1.1.4. The CDex author will need to update the code to use the new FLAC API.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AngelGR
post Jul 27 2007, 18:14
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 296
Joined: 9-June 02
From: Asturias - Spain
Member No.: 2252



Thanks very much John. smile.gif
I'll keep using the external encoder option until they fix it. sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kluyg
post Jul 27 2007, 19:53
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-May 06
Member No.: 30567



Can anyone tell me please which compile is better: MSVC8 Compile (433kB) or ICL9.1 compile (557kB)? Or there is no difference? I mean in speed (I have Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 CPU).
Edit: ups, what quality I was talking about when discussing lossless? smile.gif

This post has been edited by Kluyg: Jul 27 2007, 20:39
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post Jul 27 2007, 23:05
Post #54





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



i'm missing the part where you can't do that yourself for some reason.


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Saoshyant
post Jul 27 2007, 23:58
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 68
Joined: 26-July 05
From: Portugal
Member No.: 23539



There's also a change on FLAC, which isn't based on new version but came out at the same time. Developers may be interested to know that Ogg FLAC file extension is now .oga and the MIME type audio/ogg. FLAC on native encapsulation format will remain .flac and application/flac. This is per the MIME Type and File Extensions proposal, which has now become an official Xiph policy.


--------------------
Join //spreadopenmedia.org to promote Vorbis, FLAC, Speex, etc
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Jul 28 2007, 09:02
Post #56





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



To clear up compatability questions about this new FLAC 1.2.0 version:

1. Are FLAC 1.1.x encoded files going to play OK with all FLAC 1.2.x decoders (1.2.0 and later) to ensure compatability? (i.e. they will never need to be re-encoded, right?, as the older encoded files won't ever stop playing in new FLAC decoders.)

2. Are FLAC 1.2.x files going to to play OK in FLAC 1.1.x decoders OK? Will a FLAC 1.2.0 encoded file play OK (without a decoder update) in an app using a FLAC 1.1.2, 1.1.3, or 1.1.4 decoder.

Just wanted to clear up these 2 questions regarding compatability, as I plan on releasing FLAC files of my music masters for people to use/enjoy on the Net. I need to know if I should distribute masters encoded with 1.1.4, or if I should upgrade them to FLAC 1.2.0 for maximum future (and present) compatability, as I know there will be app makers that may never upgrade their FLAC decoders (some still are using 1.1.2)?

Also thanks for the MIME Type and File Extensions clarification:
QUOTE (Saoshyant @ Jul 27 2007, 16:58) *
Ogg FLAC file extension is now .oga and the MIME type audio/ogg.
FLAC on native encapsulation format will remain .flac and application/flac.


This post has been edited by goodnews: Jul 28 2007, 09:07
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Egor
post Jul 28 2007, 10:51
Post #57





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



QUOTE (goodnews @ Jul 28 2007, 15:02) *
To clear up compatability questions about this new FLAC 1.2.0 version:

1. Are FLAC 1.1.x encoded files going to play OK with all FLAC 1.2.x decoders (1.2.0 and later) to ensure compatability? (i.e. they will never need to be re-encoded, right?, as the older encoded files won't ever stop playing in new FLAC decoders.)

Yes, all future FLAC decoders will surely decode 1.1.x.

QUOTE (goodnews @ Jul 28 2007, 15:02) *
2. Are FLAC 1.2.x files going to to play OK in FLAC 1.1.x decoders OK? Will a FLAC 1.2.0 encoded file play OK (without a decoder update) in an app using a FLAC 1.1.2, 1.1.3, or 1.1.4 decoder.

1.2.0 files will play OK in 1.0.x and 1.1.x software. Though future 1.2.x releases (e.g. 1.2.1) may require at least 1.2.0 decoder, so developers are encouraged to update decoders to 1.2.0 now.

QUOTE (goodnews @ Jul 28 2007, 15:02) *
I need to know if I should distribute masters encoded with 1.1.4, or if I should upgrade them to FLAC 1.2.0 for maximum future (and present) compatability[...]

You don't need to upgrade your 1.1.4 files, they will be compatible with present and future decoders.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Jul 28 2007, 10:55
Post #58





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



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jul 25 2007, 19:16) *
QUOTE (Fandango @ Jul 25 2007, 17:35) *
Wow, two new versions of lossless codecs released within half a day.

That calls for an updated comparison chart... biggrin.gif
Tell me about it.

I'm hoping to run my tests this weekend, when I know the PC will be free.
New figures are there. FLAC 1.2.0 is approximately 8% faster encoding and decoding than 1.1.4.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Jul 28 2007, 11:28
Post #59





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



Thanks for all the great info Egor! I greatly appreciate it. It answered my questions about this new FLAC 1.2.0 version.
QUOTE (Egor @ Jul 28 2007, 03:51) *
Yes, all future FLAC decoders will surely decode 1.1.x.

1.2.0 files will play OK in 1.0.x and 1.1.x software. Though future 1.2.x releases (e.g. 1.2.1) may require at least 1.2.0 decoder, so developers are encouraged to update decoders to 1.2.0 now.

You don't need to upgrade your 1.1.4 files, they will be compatible with present and future decoders.


This post has been edited by goodnews: Jul 28 2007, 11:29
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Jul 28 2007, 18:02
Post #60


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (bawjaws @ Jul 27 2007, 07:50) *
I don't suppose there's been any communication with Apple to ensure the FLAC support they will (apparently) be shipping with Leopard has the necessary support for this. It'd be a shame for them to ship something that had just become outdated. Particularly as they seem to 'lose focus' on a lot of projects, so any future updates are hardly guaranteed.
I sure would like to talk to them, but I think with maybe just one exception, no one at apple has ever even replied to any of my emails, including conversations they themselves started. I don't know anyone there but if someone else can hook me up, PM me.

QUOTE (Saoshyant @ Jul 27 2007, 17:58) *
There's also a change on FLAC, which isn't based on new version but came out at the same time. Developers may be interested to know that Ogg FLAC file extension is now .oga and the MIME type audio/ogg. FLAC on native encapsulation format will remain .flac and application/flac. This is per the MIME Type and File Extensions proposal, which has now become an official Xiph policy.
yep, missed this for 1.2.0 but it will be the default in 1.2.1. until then the name can be overriddend with -o

Egor answered the compatibility thing pretty well; one more thing to add is that I don't plan on releasing encoder changes that older decoders can't play until the 1.2.x decoder has propagated out enough to not be a problem for users. this may take a while.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Jul 28 2007, 22:43
Post #61





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



James Chapman just released his updated FLAC filter for Adobe Audution and his updated AudioTester app, both now with FLAC 1.2.0 support. He also updated the Ogg Vorbis support to 1.2.0 as well.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=56462
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DOS386
post Jul 29 2007, 04:10
Post #62





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 16-June 07
Member No.: 44412



> You don't need to upgrade your 1.1.4 files, they will be compatible with present and future decoders.

In fact 1.2.0 files (all ?) are byte identical with 1.1.4 ones except date and version string. wink.gif

> until the 1.2.x decoder has propagated out enough

What about a simpler (decoder) source ?


--------------------
/\/\/\/\/\/\
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jamesbaud
post Jul 30 2007, 08:05
Post #63





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



QUOTE (Kluyg @ Jul 27 2007, 11:53) *
Can anyone tell me please which compile is better: MSVC8 Compile (433kB) or ICL9.1 compile (557kB)? Or there is no difference? I mean in speed (I have Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 CPU).
Edit: ups, what quality I was talking about when discussing lossless? smile.gif


I'm interested in the answer to Kluyg's question too. John33? (I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 2.4 Ghz).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Egor
post Jul 30 2007, 09:15
Post #64





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



QUOTE (jamesbaud @ Jul 30 2007, 14:05) *
I'm interested in the answer to Kluyg's question too. John33? (I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 2.4 Ghz).

The answer from another topic:
QUOTE (john33 @ Jul 28 2007, 21:46) *
The Intel compile may be slightly faster, but there will be no difference at all with regard to the quality. I only post the MSVC compiles as some people feel more comfortable with them. I may get around to compiling a P4 specific Intel version, but that will be of no use to you. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kluyg
post Jul 30 2007, 10:33
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-May 06
Member No.: 30567



Egor Thanx
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Jul 30 2007, 10:37
Post #66





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



Josh,

Any success on releasing an Intel Mac OS X compile of FLAC 1.2.0?

Surely, someone out there knows how to compile it for Mac OS X 10.4...

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ffooky
post Jul 30 2007, 11:21
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 8-July 04
Member No.: 15184



QUOTE (goodnews @ Jul 30 2007, 10:37) *
Josh,

Any success on releasing an Intel Mac OS X compile of FLAC 1.2.0?

Surely, someone out there knows how to compile it for Mac OS X 10.4...

Thanks!
While we're waiting for that, the latest build of XLD has been updated to 1.2.0.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Aug 6 2007, 21:45
Post #68


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (goodnews @ Jul 30 2007, 04:37) *
Any success on releasing an Intel Mac OS X compile of FLAC 1.2.0?

Surely, someone out there knows how to compile it for Mac OS X 10.4...
not yet, I don't have a machine but Brian Willoughby might have one soon.

P.S. I revamped the comparison page, now results are sortable by column, and for both encoding and decoding there are 2 time columns, one for total process time and one for just cpu time (no I/O).

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Aug 6 2007, 22:25
Post #69





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



This seems a suitable time and place to mention that, following some advice from Josh, I ran some tests on my corpus using FLAC 1.2.0 encoding with no MD5 sum.

The results are not part of my core data, as I'm still currently of the opinion that 'default' settings should be compared, but they (and some others) can be viewed by appending ?all=1 to the URL.

I have to say, the increase in speed is impressive. I was confused by the associated increase in decompression speed, but Josh has confirmed that is to be expected.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Aug 7 2007, 10:41
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 1213
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Jul 26 2007, 18:58) *
QUOTE (probedb @ Jul 26 2007, 03:47) *
Excellent smile.gif Now I'd best dig out that script someone posted to run through and reconvert all my FLAC files from 1.1.4.....
no need this time, compression will be the same.


Ahh ok, thanks for the info on this smile.gif Saved me a job.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gharris999
post Aug 16 2007, 03:44
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 13-January 04
Member No.: 11204



Josh: thanks for adding the --no-utf8-convert option to FLAC. I'm finding that a straight MSVC2005 compile of your latest CVS code, using your selected compiler optimizations, really can't be improved upon. I've tried all kinds of other compiler optimizations and also tried the ICL9 Intel compiler. None of the other compiles that I tried were faster on my hardware. Congrats, and thank you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Aug 16 2007, 19:02
Post #72


FLAC Developer


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



that's kind of a relief, after messing with it so much! another interesting thing I found was that the build using old MSVC6 was a little faster still at decoding, but a little slower encoding, at least on the machines I tested with, so that's the one I ended up distributing. but maybe on some newer machines the VS2005 one might be a little better overall.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tebasuna51
post Aug 21 2007, 03:15
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-July 06
Member No.: 32807



Seems Flac 1.2.0 (also 1.1.3 and 1.1.4) have problems reading WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE header by STDIN.

I'm using W XP sp1 and this work:

flac stereo_standar_or_exten.wav
flac multichan_exten.wav
type stereo_standar.wav | flac - -o output.flac

I know these new versions need WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE for multichannel:

flac multichan_standard.wav
ERROR: WAVE has >2 channels but is not WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE; cannot assign channels

But with:

type stereo_or_multichan_exten.wav | flac - -o output.flac

I get:

WARNING: skipping unknown sub-chunk ' '
WARNING: skipping unknown sub-chunk ' '
...
ERROR during read while skipping unsupported sub-chunk

Also work:

type multichan_standard.wav | flac - -o output.flac --channel-map=none

Then the problem is only with WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE header by STDIN.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Aug 21 2007, 18:29
Post #74


FLAC Developer


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



hmm, can you make a small version of the problem wave files and host or upload them?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tebasuna51
post Aug 22 2007, 11:46
Post #75





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-July 06
Member No.: 32807



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Aug 21 2007, 19:29) *
hmm, can you make a small version of the problem wave files and host or upload them?

The problem is for all WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE headers, not for ones in particular.

With the samples in http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/Documents/Au...VE/Samples.html
we can see than work:

flac M1F1-int16-AFsp.wav -o stereo_standard.flac
flac M1F1-int16WE-AFsp.wav -o stereo_extensible.flac
flac 6_Channel_ID.wav -o multichan_extensible.flac
type M1F1-int16-AFsp.wav | flac - -o stereo_standard.flac

And don't work:

type M1F1-int16WE-AFsp.wav | flac - -o stereo_extensible.flac
type 6_Channel_ID.wav | flac - -o multichan_extensible.flac

These wav's have some extrachunks well detected in direct mode, but using the most simple WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE header the problem is the same:

-: WARNING: skipping unknown sub-chunk ' '
...
-: WARNING: skipping unknown sub-chunk ' E'
-: ERROR during read while skipping unsupported sub-chunk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: 22nd August 2014 - 18:42