Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
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
post Apr 23 2006, 13:56
Post #1

Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 1-September 05
Member No.: 24251

Please also state your reason why...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 14:09
Post #2

Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Birmingham, UK
Member No.: 23690

I use FLAC.

Simply because my old DAP (Rio Karma) supported it. Now I've got a iPod w/ Rockbox, but simply can't be bothered to convert them for the minimal space I'd save.

::.. www.senab.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 14:11
Post #3

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 22-December 05
Member No.: 26582

I use WavPack because of the smaller file size and the better encoder options "-h -m -w -d "CUESHEET=@*.cue"". Also I find it to be more actively developed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 14:25
Post #4

Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 5-September 05
From: Belgrade, Serbia
Member No.: 24323

WavPack because of good encoding/decoding speed and at the same time better compression.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 15:05
Post #5

Group: Members
Posts: 1549
Joined: 13-August 03
Member No.: 8353

Wavpack: higher compression
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 15:36
Post #6

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 14-July 04
From: VN Gaia
Member No.: 15455

FLAC, because my iAudio supports it. No other reason than that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 15:43
Post #7

Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 429
Joined: 5-September 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 16796

I used FLAC for quite a while, but I recently switched to WavPack (for the same reasons listed above).

Clowns love haircuts; so should Lee Marvin's valet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 15:45
Post #8

Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 7-February 05
From: Warsaw, Poland
Member No.: 19663

WavPack - because of better compression and hybrid mode.

Not really a Signature.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 16:00
Post #9

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

QUOTE (vitos @ Apr 23 2006, 03:45 PM) *
WavPack - because of better compression and hybrid mode.

My voice is for WavPack, but I have converted more than 1000 files into flac the last days (mostly to remove hybrid encodings I had and that don't arrange me anymore).

Garf's flac -8 often gives me a better compression ratio than WavPack -fx5. The difference is rarely important, excepted some case:
- some mono album (problem corrected with 4.4 which unfortunately break older decoder)
- some harpsichord albums
- few other ones.

This flac setting (-8) is also faster on the encoding side than (-fx5) [I recall that I never found one file that was smaller with -fx6], and offers a identical decoding speed on my Duron 800 (x60) but a significantly higher one on my Mobile Athlon (x120 vs x150).
I don't use the normal and the high profile of WavPack, because decoding speed is clearly lower (especially with -high).

But what I always hated with flac was the tagging format, which isn't really compatible with massive and constant tagging. With foobar2000 0.9, the problem is gone (at last), and tagging is now as fast as WavPack and all APEv2 based file formats. Nevertheless, the problem is still present with flac/cue files, and adding a new field takes a good minute with this format dry.gif

I'm still a WavPack user, because I still have 1500 hours of music in WavPack format. But EAC is currently set to use flac Both formats are great, but I prefer WavPack over FLAC for several reasons.

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Apr 23 2006, 16:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 16:02
Post #10

Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 9-April 06
From: Czech Republic
Member No.: 29311

I've used Wavpack lossy, but I've just acquired a new 120gb harddrive so nothing inhibits me from going lossless smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 16:06
Post #11

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

FLAC because it is universally accepted and compatible with shntool and Toast. If they ever do get around to incorporating support in Audacity, my cup will runneth over.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 16:11
Post #12

Group: Members
Posts: 304
Joined: 5-August 05
Member No.: 23715

I use both, for different reasons.

I use WavPack to rip to image w/ embedded cue, so if/when EAC adds test&copy for images, I will probably completely change over.

foobar2000 + EAC + Burrrn = Happiness
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 16:53
Post #13

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 23-December 05
Member No.: 26599

FLAC because of wide Linux support and embedded cuesheet metadata block (for my backups I prefer one .flac for one CD).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 17:34
Post #14

Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929

Between FLAC and WavPack I use FLAC for it's cross-platform compatibility.

However, newer rips I encode using OptimFrog --mode extranew.

So, there.

Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 18:45
Post #15

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

Other -->> Apple Lossless

Simply because its the only lossless format which is supported by the software and hardware I use. Like iTunes, AirTunes and iPod's.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Apr 23 2006, 18:51
Post #16

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

This is spooky. shock1.gif

I was going to start a new "Your lossless codec of choice" poll this morning. I was half way through setting it up, and ran out of time.

The last one started August 2004 I believe. I think it's about time for a new one.

WavPack BTW.

Edit: Sorry, a reason: better compression (my first choice was Monkey's Audio for the same reason); ease of use; the @ thing.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Apr 23 2006, 19:04

I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 18:55
Post #17

Group: Members
Posts: 1189
Joined: 19-May 05
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 22144

Wavpack -- I like the name better.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 19:03
Post #18

Group: Members
Posts: 365
Joined: 21-November 02
Member No.: 3830

Wavpack for the hybrid feature. I don't use lossless for listening, but for transcoding or if I need to burn an audio disc.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sebastian Mares
post Apr 23 2006, 19:15
Post #19

Group: Members
Posts: 3645
Joined: 14-May 03
From: Bad Herrenalb
Member No.: 6613

WavPack because it's faster.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 19:24
Post #20

Group: Members
Posts: 454
Joined: 31-March 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 29046

FLAC - more support, faster decoding.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 19:32
Post #21

Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 22-September 04
From: Moscow
Member No.: 17192

Wavpack: fast decoding, good compression, great support within fb2k and Rockbox, many useful features.
But honestly, if it wasn't for the last two points, I'd use YALAC (or however it will be called).

Infrasonic Quartet + Sennheiser HD650 + Microlab Solo 2 mk3. 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 19:34
Post #22

Rarewares admin

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

Wavpack. Partially because Bryant is a hell of a great guy.

Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 19:41
Post #23

Group: Members
Posts: 465
Joined: 2-May 04
Member No.: 13847

I use WavPack. I like the extra compression, although small. Also I make music it is normall 32-bit, which FLAC does not seem to support. The APEv2 tags are more convenient for me. Editing the vorbis comments on FLAC can be very slow sometimes. I still have a lot of FLAC's around, but I prefer wavpack. Encoding/decoding is only a very small amount slower, and if optimizations like MMX are included in the future that may change as well. smile.gif If I recall the license on the source is more open than FLAC as well.

EDIT: Thought I'd add I also love the -m function for storing MD5's in wavpack files. -hxm all the way. Especially now with the MMX optimized encoder. Can't wait to see what the future bring so for WavPack. Since both FLAC and WavPack are supported in everything I need them to be I still have both. In the end if one dies and the other doesn't I won't have as many files to convert at least. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Duble0Syx: Apr 28 2006, 03:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 20:01
Post #24

Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2391
Joined: 28-June 02
From: Argentina
Member No.: 2425

shouldn't you had inclided monkey, alac, yalac, wma lossless as choices?

MAREO: http://www.webearce.com.ar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Apr 23 2006, 20:01
Post #25

Group: Members
Posts: 899
Joined: 2-November 04
Member No.: 17951

Wavpack, better compression
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 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: 1st December 2015 - 22:30