Skip to main content
Topic: Which is the best lossless codec? (Read 373623 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #376
How was it determined that it doen't support replaygain?  So long as the format supports tagging, doesn't it boil down to the player?

Post #65
Quote
I think there's a mistak in the table : Monkey's Audio does have Replaygain support, I think
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Only in foobar2000, AFAIK, which is hardly a format feature and more of a player feature.

And [a href="http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=33226&view=findpost&p=275971]post #109[/url]:
[Pipe support is] different than, E.G, tagging or replaygain, IMO, because these features need to be supported everywhere that format is supported. No use if foobar supports replaygain with Monkey's Audio and Shorten. All other tools won't support it. With pipes, one implementation is enough.


BTW: in the very first available revision (21:22, 10 April 2005? Rjamorim (Initial commit converted from the HA post.)) only FLAC, OFR, TTA and WavPack were described as "ReplayGain compatible". (One can ask kurtnoise why one format supports RG and the other doesn't)

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #377
One doesn't have to ask either of them.  The rational doesn't make sense today, and likely didn't then.

I removed the row.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?


Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #379
I whole-heartedly apologize for the grave oversight.

In case it wasn't clear, my earlier questions were rhetorical.  Replaygain support depends on the way in which a player chooses to retrieve the metadata.  While this is often achieved through tagging, this doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Apple has chosen their own proprietary method of loudness equalization, though it has been demonstrated that this can be manipulated to accept 3rd-party gain adjustments.  Microsoft (AFAIK) doesn't employ loudness equalization in their media player.  These two are really the only exceptions and unless it is known that ASF absolutely cannot handle replaygain information, this issue of replaygain compatibility falls squarely on the two respective media players, not the formats themselves.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #380
Thanks for the fixes,...

...but I think there are some other inconsistencies there:

ALAC pros: "Open source (encoding and decoding via FFmpeg and CUETools, decoding only via a standalone decoder)". Reference open source codec isn't even mentioned, as well as refalac program that is based on its code.

Monkey's Audio: "Error handling = yes" in the table,  but "No error robustness" in APE cons.

TTA: "Password protection" in both TTA pros and TTA other features.

LA: "hasn't been updated for more than 10 years" but "backward compatibility is not guaranteed". A bit self-contradictory: what backward compatibility means if there are no new versions?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #381
and unless it is known that ASF absolutely cannot handle replaygain information


At least foobar2000, Winamp and AIMP write standart RG tags to WMA files.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #382
Why didn't you present those in your previous post?

I'll fix the MAC inconsistency.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #383
At least foobar2000, Winamp and AIMP write standart RG tags to WMA files.

That only strengthens my point.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #384
I was surprised to see in the "FLAC Other features":
Quote
Fits the Ogg, AVI[2] and Matroska containers

AVI! IIRC, AVI container doesn't support VBR audio very well.
So I tried. Yes, ffmpeg managed to remux a 20MB FLAC file into a 183MB AVI. Of course, this is much larger than 16bit uncompressed PCM stored in AVI. This is insane, and I don't think any use of it. Is it really worth mentioning?

BTW, ALAC also fits in Matroska container: http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/codecid/index.html

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #385
So I tried. Yes, ffmpeg managed to remux a 20MB FLAC file into a 183MB AVI. Of course, this is much larger than 16bit uncompressed PCM stored in AVI. This is insane, and I don't think any use of it. Is it really worth mentioning?

I read in the VLC changelog that VLC supported playing it, so I added it quite a while ago. I didn't know it was that useless. It should indeed probably be removed then.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #386
Some years passed, and TTA still has the password under "pros" AND under "other". And "Ultra low latency" with no other documentation than the dev explaining what measures were taken. (I mean, shouldn't one have measured that it actually accomplishes it?)

A few things generally: the wiki highlights some features that are common among all except the obsolete/oddball ones. Like tagging.
Container support is shared by most, and there is more that fits Matroska now than in old days. I'd say that *total* lack of containerfriendliness is a con. Meanwhile, in Apple-land, there is this thing called .caf. As much as I frown upon Apple's lock-in strategies, is that worth mentioning?


Some codec specific questions follow:

* ALAC.
Tagging support? "QT"? What is the difference between that and other MP4 atoms ... ?
Speaking of which: WavPack and OFR "cons" include "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)". Now look at https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111855.0.html ...
"Fits in the MP4 container". And Matroska. And .caf. 


* FLAC.
"developed by Josh Coalson". Still? Shouldn't there be an "initially"?


* Monkey
"Simple and user friendly. Official GUI provided." Well there are others that have front-ends too?
Under Cons: I'd say that it is a "Con" that it cannot be used in any container around.


* TAK
Still no mention of the open-source third-party decoder ... after six years.


* TTA, then. That does not look very tidy. The so-called "pros":
"Average compression". Yeah, could have been worse ... but a pro?
"Symmetric algorithm". Why is that a pro?
"Ultra low latency". Undocumented, isn't it?
"Password protection" was put under "Other", but is still under "pros".

Again, WavPack and OFR "cons" include "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)". TTA has at least the same tagging methods. Is it proofed against that ambiguity? It is full green in the table on top too.


* WavPack.
"Accept audio files bigger than 4GB". Is it alone about that?
(DSD is under "other". Compared to what is under "pros" for other formats ...)


* WMAL
Hardware support: are those devices still around? If they are not, then what? (WMAL cons: "Not much hardware support left, except for those thirteen Windows Phone customers who are left"? :-o)
And, is the ffmpeg open-source decoder really working as of now? In old days, it had severe limitations.



I would hope for Potter Stewart to guide me on the distinction between "hardware" support and "software" support.

Android is mentioned under "Hardware" I see. Well, for the consumer, the question is: can they use it on devices that are not personal computers? Right?
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #387
Probably it makes sense to simplify this page a bit.


Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #389
So what's stopping you?
Apart from two pages trying to get certain users understand that one should first get facts right AND establish consensus over what is important and what is not?

(FWIW, I also agree with @lvqcl that it makes sense to rewrite it.)

But heck, I removed the password feature from TTA pros (and left it in "other"). So, one down. The facts on the rest, anyone?



High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #390
WMAL decoding with FFmpeg should be bitexact. If not pleases provide sample(s).

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #391
In any case, seriously: should one move WMAL to the "other" formats section of the wiki? I see reasons against, but ...

WMAL decoding with FFmpeg should be bitexact.
At least the ticket was closed a couple of years ago.
(Which means that it is not *that* urgent to convert over those files out of fear of waking up to a Win10 update where WMAL is Zune'd forever. Well the chief reason why I am not worried over that, is that I don't have any such files.)

For "pros/cons", I have no idea whether this issue is still current status: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,92847.msg818055.html#msg818055
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #392
I would like to edit Lossless comparison wiki page and add info about limitation of multichannel support of encoders (maximum channels allowed and support for waveformatextensible). Not in table of course.  Also, along the way, to make separated lines "support for multichannel" and support for "high resolutions" for all encoders where it is mentioned.
Also, i think it would be useful to add even more precise info about multichannel support for FLAC: undocumented option --channel-map=none is needed to encode some configurations (e.g. 4.1).
Is anyone against?

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #393
I would like to edit Lossless comparison wiki page and add info about limitation of multichannel support of encoders (maximum channels allowed and support for waveformatextensible)
[...]
Also, along the way, to make separated lines "support for multichannel" and support for "high resolutions" for all encoders where it is mentioned.
So that entries that now say "Supports multichannel audio and high resolutions" could say in two lines
"Supports multichannel audio (up to [xx channels])
Supports high resolutions (up to [yy/zz])"
?
No objection here. (I don't have the knowledge to say anything about the undocumented FLAC issue though.)


Not in table of course.
Why not? The cell could say "yes, 6" or whatever. If we agree that "--channel-map=none" is essential enough to mention, it could go in a footnote.
Then we should decide what it takes for dark green, but ... ?


I had a few other thoughts last year (on this page), dunno about consensus ... anyone?
For example, should the F footnote apply to WMAL too? (Which again I think we should consider relegating to abandonware ...)

But furthermore:
  • The tagging cells: WavPack and OptimFrog say ID3 or APEv2. TTA says ID3v1/2 or APEv2. Is there any difference here?
    (Also, do these "options" reflect defaults or ...? If ID3 is rarely found, then it could be better to write "APEv2" with a footnote that ID3vsomething is also supported.)
  • Under each format, as "pros" is listed "Tagging support". But all the popular formats have tagging, and as of today I don't think it qualifies as a "pro" - rather anything without it is "obsolete" (sorry, Shorten - your time is up).
  • TTA has seen some controversy here (not all resolved), but here is something that I think at least should be mentioned as "Other": the developers offer plug-ins for several players.
    But before adding that: who else does?
  • WavPack: I'd say that the "Ability to create self extracting files for Win32 platform" is an "Other", being special needs.
  • WavPack has Embedded CUE support listed as "other" while TTA has it as "pro". But how to improve it? My view: Proper cue sheet support (WV) is a pro, but limited (FLAC) is an "other".
  • I'd say checksum is a "pro", not an "Other". (In the sense that I think no checksum is a severe "con".)
  • Hybrid/lossy mode, is that a pro in an article about lossless audio? Or should it be relegated to "Other"?
  • MPEG-4 ALS: "has been as a ISO standard and there is a reference encoder/decoder, but like TTA, it does not have features that make it stand out from other codecs, nor backing by a large organisation, so it hasn't much software and no hardware support."
    I don't see why the comparison to TTA is much in place, and it is formally "backed" by both MPEG and ISO - but hardly actively supported.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

 

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #394
WavPack has Embedded CUE support listed as "other" while TTA has it as "pro". But how to improve it? My view: Proper cue sheet support (WV) is a pro, but limited (FLAC) is an "other".
There are two ways to embed cuesheet into a FLAC file:
a) via CUESHEET block (limited, almost useless)
b) via CUESHEET tag (proper cuesheet support)

I don't know what program (except metaflac) uses the 1st way to embed cuesheet into a FLAC file.  foobar2000 uses the 2nd way.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #395
There are two ways to embed cuesheet into a FLAC file:
a) via CUESHEET block (limited, almost useless)  b) via CUESHEET tag (proper cuesheet support)
I don't know what program (except metaflac) uses the 1st way to embed cuesheet into a FLAC file.  foobar2000 uses the 2nd way.
 
 
It's not pick one or the other; it's use both.  You could get away with only A but that has most of the useful details removed, so B is also needed.  FLAC decoding I don't see working without A.  It decodes fine without B but you don't have things like track names (or any text) from the .cue.

Code: [Select]
C:\flac\flac2112.exe ... "--cuesheet=Rolling_Stones-Jump_Back.cue" "--tag-from-file=CUESHEET=Rolling_Stones-Jump_Back.cue" ...

as in this

Code: [Select]
C:\flac\flac2112.exe -V -6 -f --replay-gain --padding=65520 "--tag=WAVS2FLACI=40th.com" "--tag=WAVS2FLACV=20180308" "--tag=WAVS2FLAC4=Created for Jukebox 2112" "--tag=TITLE=CD" "--tag=ALBUMARTIST=The Rolling Stones" "--tag=ARTIST=The Rolling Stones" "--tag=ALBUM=Jump Back" --tag=TRACKNUMBER=0 --tag=TOTALTRACKS=18 --tag=YEAR=2009 --tag=DATE=2009 "--picture=3||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\01_cover_jump_back.jpg" "--picture=4||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\02_back_jump_back.jpg" "--picture=5||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\03_inset_jump_back_01.jpg" "--picture=5||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\04_inset_jump_back_02.jpg" "--picture=5||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\05_inset_jump_back_03.jpg" "--picture=5||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\06_inset_jump_back_04.jpg" "--picture=5||||G:\music_flac_cds\stones\pics\jump_back\07_inset_jump_back_05.jpg" "--cuesheet=G:\music_flac_cds\stones\Rolling_Stones-Jump_Back.cue" "--tag-from-file=CUESHEET=G:\music_flac_cds\stones\Rolling_Stones-Jump_Back.cue" "--output-name=G:\music_flac_cds\stones\Rolling_Stones-Jump_Back.flac" "G:\music_flac_cds\stones\Rolling_Stones-Jump_Back.wav"


Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #397
So the FLAC cuesheet "limitations" are only in the reference metaflac?

(Well ... under OFR cons and WavPack cons (but not under TTA, the dev considers it a pro ...), I find "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)" And that is what messes up the FLAC cuesheet management?)

This page needs a minor cleanup too: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019