Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: FLAC (Read 3807 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC

 Hi Everyone.

This is my first posting.

I 'm using LAME 320mp3 at the moment but am considering switching to Lossless encoding.Probably .FLAC.

Could anyone give me a guide on what to download and how to set up EAC for doing this.I have Windows XP.

Is .FLAC the best .I've seen .SHN aswell but that seems restricted to live trading.

Look forward to any replies.
Thanks in advance,

PRB

FLAC

Reply #1 –
Simply visit http://flac.sourceforge.net/ - you'll find all info and tools you need there.

FLAC is considered by many (including myself) to be the best tool yet, mainly because it's widespread, fast and simple to use and can be used on basically any computer and OS you might have.

Cheers

FLAC

Reply #3 –
Quote
Is .FLAC the best .I've seen .SHN aswell but that seems restricted to live trading.

It is very good, but it is not the best, IMHO.  Monkey's Audio is probably the best compromise on speed/compression.  Flac is only good if you need speed and portability.

FLAC

Reply #4 –
I'm using EAC to rip, then FLAC frontend to encode.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there comments here regarding Monkey's Audio files being susceptible to corruption, and that FLAC was the better alternative?

FLAC

Reply #5 –
Quote
Monkey's Audio files being susceptible to corruption..

That depends of the "encoder" chosen. I think these issues have been fixed and no more (bad) corruptions - correct ME if i'mwrong...

I would absolutely choose Monkey's Audio (MAC) if having a need to switch to a lossless codecs - it makes smaller files than Flac still having nice "almost" PCM-alike quality and it's supported more (imo vs. experiense) and have many more ppl using that one.

Also most of the modern players can play MAC without external plugins, same cannot be said about FLAC. Many (unnamed here large jukebox) players cannot play them at all (and won't even have plugins to install).

If you use mostly winamp / foobar, flac is ok ...

(I use still those "lossy" formats just because they and their technology evolves all the time and have better quality year by year. Truth is that mp3 (+Pro) is getting outdated with it's many restrictions and quality issues.
My.fav is AAC (.mp4, .m4a, .aac) with high variable quality - making 50 megs wav about 6-8 megs in size. For me it sounds "lossless")  B)

FLAC

Reply #6 –
Quote
still having nice "almost" PCM-alike quality

Am not exactly sure what you mean by this.  All lossless codecs by definition produce exactly the same output as the encoded raw pcm data.  Hence the definition lossless.

Quote
and it's (Monkeys) supported more (imo vs. experiense) and have many more ppl using that one.


AFAIK that is exactly one of the major advantages of flac.  It's support is far more widespread then monkeys.  Including cross platform support and hardware support.

FLAC

Reply #7 –
Quote
Still having nice "almost" PCM-alike quality.....
Am not exactly sure what you mean by this...


Very sorry - that's why i sitated the word "almost" - that was just imo....

Btw - I have tested with sprectral analysis the flac and ape outputs vs. pcm and i can see some differences at high frequensies and fast peaks - maybe the converters are not "staying at speed" and this (maybe) can be related to PC-Speeds...

In my hearing-experiences i feel no difference related to the original pcm (or listening CDs) and afaik i've read the codecs should act just like f.e. winzip - compressing the file and when "unzipped back" here meaning the decoding process, all the data will be back bit by bit.!

I have maybe not read enough the specs of flac, whether this is true. If it is then we could make a simple test : encode a .flac file and decode it back to diff. name and make windows FC to compare if all is back.

(An Idea : i maybe do that and try to prove it - mostly for my own experience, because i just got inerested about this issue...)

FLAC

Reply #8 –
Quote
Quote
Still having nice "almost" PCM-alike quality.....
Am not exactly sure what you mean by this...


Very sorry - that's why i sitated the word "almost" - that was just imo....

Btw - I have tested with sprectral analysis the flac and ape outputs vs. pcm and i can see some differences at high frequensies and fast peaks - maybe the converters are not "staying at speed" and this (maybe) can be related to PC-Speeds...

In my hearing-experiences i feel no difference related to the original pcm (or listening CDs) and afaik i've read the codecs should act just like f.e. winzip - compressing the file and when "unzipped back" here meaning the decoding process, all the data will be back bit by bit.!

I have maybe not read enough the specs of flac, whether this is true. If it is then we could make a simple test : encode a .flac file and decode it back to diff. name and make windows FC to compare if all is back.

(An Idea : i maybe do that and try to prove it - mostly for my own experience, because i just got inerested about this issue...)

You make no sense. There can't be any difference if the encoder/decoder is not buggy. The output should be bit identical and thereofre they should be compared by using a bit comparing tool and not sprectral analysis.
 

FLAC

Reply #9 –
Sorry! my encoders could be buggy, because they are about 1 year old. so i won't have to do any tests (with those especially).

I have not used flac/ape much because my interests go to lossy codecs mostly...

ps. i have just read a lot about those both and considered which one to choose if making decision to change to lossless one day. (so at real world i'm a newbie too for using those)

So let us just imagine, that i have not said anything (reasonable) here. (i maybe delete that post off..)

Nowadays lossless is lossless just like the specs say, so i will get bit by bit representative output just like compressing / decompressing a file in general!

I just read some articles here about flac and changed my "imo" a bit. seems to me that flac is making it's way to be very considerable codec (and the missing player plugins come one by one, first ape - tomorrow flac...)

[But still : APE makes smaller files (with the Ultra High Compression preset) if one is considering that as a main factor - i cannot say whether they are "competiting at the markets" since both are free codecs - they just do have ppl behind other and others vice versa...]