The Traders' Den  

  The Traders' Den > Where we go to learn ..... > Technobabble
 

Notices

Technobabble Post your general Need for Help questions here.
Lossy or Lossless?
Moderators

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 2005-04-15, 04:50 PM
dorrcoq's Avatar
dorrcoq dorrcoq is offline
Champion of the Silent
TTD VIP
581.53 GB/1.40 TB/2.47
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2Lynne
Do we have another Sara, or Sarah, around here?

You never know. I think that is the name Pig goes by when he picks up extra cash as a tranny hooker.
__________________
how can I obey the rule about no sexually explicit posts after seeing Lynne's back?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rider
I think Gray has all these grand plans and I'm sorry to bring it up when it came down to it he couldn't even sell t-shirts without fucking it up.

"please mind your own fucking business, you Looney cocksucker" - Freezer, 7/12/06
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #32  
Old 2005-04-15, 05:43 PM
h_vargas
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssamadhi97
I disagree. It's not. WavPack is better.
i like WavPack better, too, for the record. it's the compression method of choice, for all of my transfers.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #33  
Old 2005-04-15, 09:29 PM
uhclem
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfsljunkie
The only problem with FLACs is that if you use etree's md5check script and some idiot included md5s with their FLAC files, it will check both the md5s and the fingerprints, so it takes twice as long as it should to check the files. This is why you should never include md5s with FLAC files--just include a text file with the fingerprints.
One way to deal with this problem is by using a special feature found on most computers called the "Delete" button.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #34  
Old 2005-04-16, 03:25 AM
BassmanRon
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wicker Man
Why is a silent H necessary?
Why'd you put the second "s" in "necessary"? Why isn't the "c" an "s" instead, since it sounds that way?

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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #35  
Old 2005-04-16, 12:38 PM
feralicious's Avatar
feralicious feralicious is offline
dare to discover
63.44 GB/133.39 GB/2.10
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: occasionally
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssamadhi97
I disagree. It's not. WavPack is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by h_vargas
i like WavPack better, too, for the record. it's the compression method of choice, for all of my transfers.
Okay... STOP!!! I don't want any new things to learn!!! My brain hurts...

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.
__________________
feralicious goodies
Don't get even.
Get odd.

....
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #36  
Old 2005-04-16, 01:43 PM
Five's Avatar
Five Five is offline
TTD Staff
186.65 GB/588.32 GB/3.15
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Canada
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 EAC Config MakeTorrent WinAmp Config

Modern social theory casts a highly skeptical eye on any declaration that a group of persons is without conflict, and insists, on the contrary, that conflict is natural to groups, and even more, is essential to them. -Patrick Henry
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #37  
Old 2005-04-16, 03:39 PM
uhclem
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five
What's the advantage to WavPack?
I'm not an expert on this, but here's what I have personally noticed about wavpack that seems to make it as good as, if not better than, flac:
  • slightly better compression ratio
  • much faster compression speed
  • fast seeking
  • stores wave md5 signature just like flac fingerprint
  • APE2 tags
  • full FB2k support

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/
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #38  
Old 2005-04-16, 06:24 PM
Five's Avatar
Five Five is offline
TTD Staff
186.65 GB/588.32 GB/3.15
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Canada
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 EAC Config MakeTorrent WinAmp Config

Modern social theory casts a highly skeptical eye on any declaration that a group of persons is without conflict, and insists, on the contrary, that conflict is natural to groups, and even more, is essential to them. -Patrick Henry
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #39  
Old 2005-04-16, 06:46 PM
New Homebrew
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

No SBE correction on the frontend, sadly.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #40  
Old 2005-04-16, 06:54 PM
jazzbo jazzbo is offline
18.28 GB/38.30 GB/2.09
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five
as for allowing it here... what does everybody think?
One of the things that is unfortunate is that the feature that stores an md5 in the header is an option, and not the default from what I can tell.

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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #41  
Old 2005-04-16, 08:43 PM
uhclem
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Homebrew
No SBE correction on the frontend, sadly.
This is true, but FLAC would still be permitted here of course. People who don't know how to use shntool to fix SBEs could stick with FLAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzbo
One of the things that is unfortunate is that the feature that stores an md5 in the header is an option, and not the default from what I can tell.
This is true. I agree that md5 storage should be the default, but it's not. We should probably institute a rule that if you use Wavpack you must either store the md5 checksum or provide a list of the checksums (for situations where people got the files elsewhere and they didn't have the md5 in the metadata).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzbo
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.
This shouldn't be a problem since, as you point out, there is a verify function that confirms whether the files are lossless or not. Also, very few people actually use the hybrid format afaik so it's unlikely to appear (but that could change). I agree that a log should be provided showing that the files are lossless.

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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #42  
Old 2005-04-16, 09:05 PM
ssamadhi97's Avatar
ssamadhi97 ssamadhi97 is offline
meow.
87.81 GB/69.41 GB/0.79
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Old Europe
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhclem
I'm not an expert on this, but here's what I have personally noticed about wavpack that seems to make it as good as, if not better than, flac:
I took the liberty to break your list up little and comment on it
  • slightly better compression ratio
Gotta give it that much.

As for the rest, it's pretty much a tie.
  • much faster compression speed
  • APE2 tags
Much faster? No, definitely not in any case. If you let flac operate at its sweet spot (regarding the compression speed / efficiency tradeoff), which is -4, it only takes ~20% longer than WavPack at default settings. Of course at higher settings flac is pretty damn slow

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.
  • fast seeking
  • stores wave md5 signature just like flac fingerprint
  • full FB2k support
I'd say it's obviously a tie between wv and flac for these too

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhclem
I don't know of any portables that support it
There's no hardware support for WavPack whatsoever.

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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #43  
Old 2005-04-16, 09:34 PM
ssamadhi97's Avatar
ssamadhi97 ssamadhi97 is offline
meow.
87.81 GB/69.41 GB/0.79
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Old Europe
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzbo
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.
And guess what, same applies to Shorten Yes, indeed, Shorten does have lossy compression modes.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #44  
Old 2005-04-16, 10:24 PM
jazzbo jazzbo is offline
18.28 GB/38.30 GB/2.09
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhclem
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.
Good to know this, kinda I thought it was just my config that I couldn't get working with shntool and wavpack. I was going to use it to cross check the md5 support while I was checking the options with it.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
  #45  
Old 2005-04-17, 12:04 AM
uhclem
0.00 KB/0.00 KB/---
 
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.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes
Reply

The Traders' Den > Where we go to learn ..... > Technobabble


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forums


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - , TheTradersDen.org - All Rights Reserved - Hosted at QuickPacket
no new posts