Skip to main content

Poll

Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?

  • FLAC
    325 (55%)
  • WAVPACK
    222 (37.6%)
  • Neither, I use another losless codec
    44 (7.4%)

Total Members Voted: 718

Topic: Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK? (Read 70407 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Synthetic Soul
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #25
shouldn't you had inclided monkey, alac, yalac, wma lossless as choices?
In a poll called "Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?"?

However, I agree: a full "Lossless codec of choice: 2006" poll is well overdue.

This one is gripping though, and only goes to confirm my expectations: WavPack is getting more popular every day.  New members are seeing the benefits of the format, and even existing FLAC users are converting.

Kudos to David.
I'm on a horse.

Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #26
FLAC - partially because my copy of EAC is already set up for it; partially because it works well for me; and partially 'cause I just don't feel the need to try anything different right now.
voted 'Most likely to veer your thread' three straight years!

Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #27
WavPack

I like the compression ratio, the decompression speed and it's (slowly) increasing hard- and software support.
An other trait that I like is the -m switch. (-->Paranoid about corrupted audio files<--)
And it was my first (but not only) lossless encoder I've used and I'm still happy with it.
  • Last Edit: 23 April, 2006, 03:39:52 PM by Realityfreak

  • Alexxander
  • [*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #28
FLAC -8 because of the fast decoding speed and native tags. I don't care about 2-4% less compression.

  • Menollo
  • [*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #29
FLAC because:
1. it decodes faster.. (dont know the difference of my battery live of my iRiver with Rockbox)
2. it has better support..
3. the embedded cuesheet metadata block (one cd -> one flac, but Rockbox doesn't support that  )
4. it is streamable (wavpack isn't)
  • Last Edit: 23 April, 2006, 04:36:17 PM by Menollo

  • DreamTactix291
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #30
WavPack for a few reasons.
  • Faster compression speed with -h while being smaller than FLAC -8.
  • Not that much slower than FLAC to decode on my 2GHz CPU (definitely not enough for me to really notice).
  • Very well supported with Rockbox should I choose to use it on my H140.

FLAC is a fine format but WavPack has better suited my needs now since 4.1
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

  • CyberFoxx
  • [*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #31
Flac, mostly for the better Linux support.

Then again, I haven't even tried Wavpack out yet...
"It's the panties fault! The panties made me a pervert!"

Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #32
I saw an alternative at Ikea called FLATPAC

  • rehgf
  • [*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #33
WavPack, because of better size to decompression speed ratio and faster tagging. What actually pushed me to do the switch from Monkey's Audio was this extensive CLI for advanced use with EAC.

  • VCSkier
  • [*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #34
wavpack, largely because of the ability to embed cuesheets in my cd images.  another reason i like it so much is its the flexibility.  as my sig shows, i use rather specific and slightly extreme switches, because encoding time is irrevelent to me, but decoding speed is very important.  using the "-fx" switches, i can get pretty good compression w/ excellent decoding speed.
a windows-free, linux user since 1/31/06.

  • beto
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #35
I switched from Monkey's and FLAC to Wavpack.
Switched for better compression (from FLAC), error robustness and featurefull encoder. It seems to be more actively deleveloped also, though FLAC is more widespread.
  • Last Edit: 23 April, 2006, 09:59:59 PM by beto

  • jcoalson
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #36
can someone fill me in about this supposed "slowness" of FLAC tags?  guruboolez keep repeating it, but the reference encoder puts in 4k of padding by default, and you can change that in the unlikely event you really need more.  with proper padding all metadata edits are instantaneous.

Josh

  • kjoonlee
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #37
I think he needs (but doesn't want) 32kb~64kb (sic) of padding.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....4580&hl=padding

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #38
FLAC because:

4. it is streamable (wavpack isn't)



The official site and wiki say that it is streamable, so where are you getting this from ?
wavpack -b4hhj0s0.7cc

  • kjoonlee
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #39
No implementations, maybe?
  • Last Edit: 24 April, 2006, 02:26:47 AM by kjoonlee

  • sshd
  • [*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #40
I use both.

Wavpack for the handful of 192k/24bit DVD-A rips I have.
FLAC for the rest.

I have no issues with any of the programs. My mass encoding/tagging script is optimised for FLAC and I am too lazy to change it to Wavpack (and there really is no point).

  • user
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #41
I started Lossless with Flac some years ago,
went over to Wavpack,
and switched back to Flac some months ago.

Of course, without transcoding from the one format to the other, just keeping, what I had stored on DVD+R.

Both formats are very well !
So, the decision to use wavpack, or flac, well, both are so great,
yes, and especially bryant is a nice guy and jcoalson has been politely and always active here in forum also, maybe both seem to be an exception to the usual coders;)

So, why do I encode new rips these days to flac instead of wavpack ?
because hardware support will matter sooner or later.
VW (Volkswagen) will build in soon a car radio with flac support, i assume like Volvo the phatbox(or Keg?) or how it is called.
Volvo.
and all the other Flac devices.
So, as my feeling tells me, it is to expect, that in nearer future, sooner or later, every (cheap) device (which could play lossless) will be able to play Flac.
Unfortunately, this is less likely (to my feeling) for wavpack.
It would be great, if Wavpack would get more devices to be played natively.
Maybe, it is time for wavpack, not to concentrate even more on nice (encoding/decoding) software features (wavpack is already great!), but to get it accepted and built into even more hardware than today.

My encoding settings:

Wavpack:  -x -m
(great compression ratio with same/similar decoding speed as flac)

Flac: -8 -V
(best compression ratio of flac, though not as good as wavpack -x)

I won't use the -h option for wavpack, though the half decoding speed of -h would still be ok for fast PCs, but maybe unsafer to use in possible hardware devices regarding speed/decoding abilities & battery consumption.
And Wavpack -x & flac are very convenient&fast for transcoding to mp3/Lame eg., or if i ever should transcode to any Loslsess format, which might be played in future by hardware devices.
  • Last Edit: 24 April, 2006, 05:50:42 AM by user
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials

  • micimaci
  • [*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #42
WavPack - speed, warm fuzzy feeling

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #43
can someone fill me in about this supposed "slowness" of FLAC tags?  guruboolez keep repeating it, but the reference encoder puts in 4k of padding by default, and you can change that in the unlikely event you really need more.  with proper padding all metadata edits are instantaneous.

Josh

Hi,
the problem I mentionned is maybe a consequence of a bad support of padding in several application. It was the case in the past at least. For example, it's only after I complained about it three years ago that Case introduced padding support in the dedicated diskwriter component of foobar2000:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=126256
It also seems that foobar2000 improved tag editing inside flac, vorbis and mp3 - which should imply that previous versions where not so good (it has to be confirmed though). I also remember other applications I tested some time ago (was it Tag & Rename, I can't say anymore) which doesn't take advantage at all from existing padded area.
So if I'm not wrong, to be a working solution padding must be supported by tagging editors and it's (or was) not apparently always the case. Such issue doesn't exist with tags located at the end, even with poor tagging software.

I complained for another reason: I was used to add several tagging fields inside lossless encodings. In a not-so-old past, my favorite hobby was to add EAC's extraction log file as a dedicated field. Because .log files are 4...10 kb long the 4kb padding size was by far not enough. I finally leave this bad habit because it causes annoying issue on memory usage (foobar2000 took -database loaded in RAM- 120.000 Kb... and not all files were tagged or present in the library ).

Nonetheless, as I reported it in fb2k forum 2 days ago, there's a common (I'd say) situation where 4Kb is not enough: it's flac+cue situation in where one single file must endure the charge of information usually splitted in multiple tracks. For example, when I encoded two days ago a mono disc for testing WavPack 4.4, I did first in flac format as single albumfile and by using freedb information only. Here's the result (log by frontah):
Code: [Select]
FLAC, Vendor: sjeng.org libFLAC 1.1.2.1 20060107
513.583 kbit/s, 16 bit, 44100 Hz, Stereo
Length: 46:12.760

Filesize: 177 975 519 bytes  (169.73 MB)
Uncompressed: 466.29 MB (36.40%)

-------- Tags --------
Vorbis (207 items, size: 11 323 bytes)

Not only the file had to be rewritten just after the encoder finished its job, but if I add a new field to the basic ones, the file has to be written again for a third time because the padding reservoir is already vanished... That's why I suggested to foobar2000 developers to:
- use more than 4Kb padding when a user set the converter to "create a single file with cuesheet"
- add a new padding reservoir when the first one is full

A second situation where tags located at the beginning are possibly boring: adding cover (usually more than 10 kb) inside a file... Once embedded (and files rewritten), there's still no padding anymore and each tags revision implies a new happy moment of rewritting. With large storage capacity of modern HDD and with masstagging software, a simple revision of all files (i.e. convert "NUMBEROFCD to "TOTALDISCS") may took a complete afternoon, with possible corruption (if the app. crashes) but only 15 minutes with APEv2. You see the problem?

So I don't think people have to use tags in an extravagant manner to be annoyed by FLAC tagging system. But with foobar2000 0.9 I admit that my daily tagging experience is much more positive than in the past (excepted for CD image, to be avoided unless stoic patience )


EDIT: I'm using 16384 kb of padding with flac. Could you tell me if there's a limit for padding? I thought I read once 16 or 32 Kb as limit, but I didn't found the information again.
  • Last Edit: 24 April, 2006, 07:32:22 AM by guruboolez

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #44
I use wavpack. It is cutting edge technology, great to play with but it really does work practicaly. Amazing software and developer.
wavpack -b4hhj0s0.7cc

  • tpc
  • [*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #45
I use monkey and have been for the past few years, it was the 1st lossless format i used and just kept on using it.

  • Zergen
  • [*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #46
APE High - I use lossless for archive and listen MPC, and I encode to lossless in batches and write to DVDs - so encoding time  is important, and compression too. Decoding time isn't so important - I'll need this only if I lose my MPC or if I decide to re-encode to different format/settings.

  • yane
  • [*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #47
Recent convert to Wavpack.

I was using FLAC for overall performance and cross-platform compatiblilty, but after a few quick tests wavpack seems to perform a *little* better on compression and speed; most significantly wavpack is nicely integrated into Audition 2.0 (my editor of choice and habit) right out of the box. In addition Wavpack is the first lossless codec I've seen that can deal with Audacity's peculiar 32 bit float format without having to run the codec from within Audition (using the -a switch).

Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #48
I go for Wavpack. It's fast and has better encoding ratio. Flac might get more support on portable devices but I would use lossy instead.

If YALAC really join with Flac, I might consider changing.

  • laneling
  • [*]
Do you use FLAC or WAVPACK?
Reply #49
Wavpack is better,I think.