In the same painting, thanks, Digisurfer. 8400 files is quite a solid testimony
From my point of view an error is bad no matter which format one uses, and when encountered should be erradicated immediately either by re-ripping the album in question, or by restoring from a clean backup copy.
Do I give up anything really other than some space (which I can afford to give up)? What about tagging? Are the two basically the same? I've read that APE tagging is considered excellent.
I even thought about just going back to WMA 9 Lossless but no one seems to like it (though it has a LOT of hardware support).
what makes you say that? I've found very few things that support WMAL, a lot less than FLAC.
compare http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#hardware vs. http://www.google.com/notebook/public/1751...QiXSwoQ_ayZ_PAh (reference)actually I think more things support even APE than WMAL due to the chinese portables.
Uh, those lists are extremely lacking. The Zune, 360 and Xbox aren't even listed there. Sqeezebox and Roku also support WMAL and they're not there. That's just off the top of my head. I wonder what else is missing for both of them?
the zune should be on that list though, so +1 for WMAL.
Encoder Comp Enc DecOptimFROG Mode Extranew 62.565% 3 4Monkey's Audio Extra High 63.062% 21 21OptimFROG Mode High 63.183% 11 15OptimFROG 63.386% 17 23Monkey's Audio High 63.507% 36 34TAK Extra Max 63.527% 7 87TAK High 63.684% 28 96Monkey's Audio Normal 63.793% 41 38TAK Normal Max 63.795% 25 110TAK Normal 63.875% 45 109TAK Fast Extra 63.963% 50 113OptimFROG Mode Fast 64.068% 23 32TAK Fast 64.145% 66 112WavPack -hhx3 64.378% 4 54
I transcode with pipes and find that MAC at the compression that I use decodes no slower than the speed at which my lossy encoder encodes.
I have been an OptimFROG lover... but yes I teeth at its veeeery slow decoding.When TAK solidifies more, I think I'll switch over to TAK High.
Quote from: spoon on 23 September, 2006, 06:05:59 AMThe whole idea about lossless is either it is perfect or it is notNope, the idea is also about archival. And being able to recreate most of your music is better than not being able to recreate anything. That's the problem with Monkey's.
The whole idea about lossless is either it is perfect or it is not
Quote from: rjamorim on 23 September, 2006, 12:35:24 PMQuote from: spoon on 23 September, 2006, 06:05:59 AMThe whole idea about lossless is either it is perfect or it is notNope, the idea is also about archival. And being able to recreate most of your music is better than not being able to recreate anything. That's the problem with Monkey's.\Anyone know of a good way to convert Monkey's audio files to WavePack without going through .wav format?
Anyone know of a good way to convert Monkey's audio files to WavePack without going through .wav format?
' date='May 2 2007, 10:48' post='489678']Quote from: greynol on 02 May, 2007, 11:04:22 AMI transcode with pipes and find that MAC at the compression that I use decodes no slower than the speed at which my lossy encoder encodes.Isn't that enough to ring a bell? decompressing MAC as complex ( CPU-time wise ) as encoding of a lossy format.Compare this to FLAC and TAK, which can be decompressed at 100x realtime with current PC's.This implies that encoding from flac/tak to lossy, takes not much more than encoding directly a .wav, while for MAC/optimFrog/LA, the time actually doubles, or more.
Once TAK is more "stable" and more feature rich, using Monkey's Audio would make very little sense; you can get approximately the same compression levels upto "high" without the decompression penalty. True, MAC is still better at compressing than TAK at levels like Extra High and Insane, but at those points, using OptimFrog at its most lax setting might make more sense. One gripe about TAK though is the lack of support for piping... having to decompress to wave every time i want to "transcode" to TAK is just such a nuisance.
Not just Extra High and Insane, but High as well, at least according to Synthetic Soul's data. This data also shows that MAC High encodes over five times faster than TAK's closest compression level (p4m) for as little as that may be worth to you.