|
Technobabble Post your general Need for Help questions here.
• Lossy or Lossless? Moderators |
|
Thread Tools |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
You never know. I think that is the name Pig goes by when he picks up extra cash as a tranny hooker.
__________________
DON'T MESSAGE ME FOR RE-SEEDS. I DO NOT DO THEM! AND UNLESS THEY WERE RECORDED THAT WAY, THERE WILL BE NO MORE 16 BIT VERSIONS. No members have liked this post.
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
Why does "Wicker" have both the "c" and the "k"? Wouldn't just a "k" be enough? The answer to all of these questions, including your "Sarah" challenge: That's just how it's spelled. No members have liked this post.
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
Quote:
I took a peek at WavPack and I think it looks a bit involved, but then I didn't install it, just looked at the website and a few posts about it. No members have liked this post.
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
(forgive me...)
What's the advantage to WavPack? Is it supported on portables (like FLAC)? Does it compress smaller (like APE)?
__________________
Checksums Demystified | ask for help in Technobabble thetradersden.org | ttd recommended free software/freeware webring shntool tlh eac foobar2000 spek audacity cdwave vlc Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
I don't know of any portables that support it, but I don't have a portable so I don't keep up on that area. If I did have a portable, I wouldn't use a lossless format with it anyway. We should seriously consider allowing the wavpack format here at TTD. Here's the link to the wavpack website: http://www.wavpack.com/ No members have liked this post.
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
incredible... 32bit float support and audition filter, support for winamp and foobar2000.
This is exactly what I need for multitrack archiving, thanks so much for the tip. as for allowing it here... what does everybody think?
__________________
Checksums Demystified | ask for help in Technobabble thetradersden.org | ttd recommended free software/freeware webring shntool tlh eac foobar2000 spek audacity cdwave vlc Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
No SBE correction on the frontend, sadly.
No members have liked this post.
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
I also think if the format was allowed, proof should be required for any torrents that the files are in fact lossless. wavpack is a hybrid format and it is possible to create lossless files. It is even possible to do 'stupid' things with it like create 'lossy' files at 600kbps that are nearly as big as the lossless compressed version, but will unpack differently than the original file. Luckily, it is very easy to check using wvunpack if the file was compressed in a lossless or lossy fashion. No members have liked this post.
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Both of these situations can be taken care of by providing an output from wvunpack.exe with the -mv argument, which tells wvunpack to calculate the md5 and verify the integrity of the data. This is very similar to the FLAC verify function, but it also shows whether the files are lossless or lossy. Currently the only downside I can think of is that it appears that shntool no longer works with the newest version of wavpack that just came out (v4.2) (except perhaps by using the 'custom' work-around). Hopefully shntool will be updated in the near future to deal with this. No members have liked this post.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
As for the rest, it's pretty much a tie.
Also note that WavPack decodes a bit slower at standard settings - and its decoding speed actually decreases if you use better compression settings (as opposed to FLAC) As for tagging, FLAC uses VorbisComments for metadata, which are just as powerful as ape2 tags.
Quote:
As for other pros/cons and supported platforms, check this out: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....ess_comparison Generally both FLAC and WavPack are feature-rich and widely supported formats. Personally I see nearly no reason why only one should be allowed here. Of course, despite being an excellent format it's not very well known among consumers yet, meaning that we'll probably see quite a lot of "omg wtf how do I play wv files?" posts here after introducing wv to the masses. But I'm all for supporting it, wv sure deserves to be more well-known. No members have liked this post.
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
Quote:
No members have liked this post.
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?
I did some testing and shntool is able to produce output in wv format using the new wavpack.exe, but it's no longer able to handle input from wv files using the new wvunpack.exe.
No members have liked this post.
|
The Traders' Den |
|
|