Skip to main content

Topic: Comparing FLAC and Monkey's (Read 14134 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • witt
  • [*][*][*]
Comparing FLAC and Monkey's
Reply #50
Quote
Is there any frontend for MetaFlac?  I'm using WinXP, and the command-line box is hell to use when you're trying to apply replaygain to multiple files.

Foobar2000 can apply ReplayGain to mutiple files very easily.
foobar2000 Wiki for Japanese Users
http://foobar.s53.xrea.com/fbwiki/

  • Moguta
  • [*][*][*]
Comparing FLAC and Monkey's
Reply #51
Quote
Foobar2000 can apply ReplayGain to mutiple files very easily.


Thank you!  Foobar did it perfectly.

MultiFrontend seems to mess up ReplayGain.  Although it is still great for converting one format to another.

  • Frank Klemm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Comparing FLAC and Monkey's
Reply #52
Quote
APE gets you slightly smaller files, while FLAC is more of a standard and isn't as annoying to get to work under Linux.

I use APE.

Nonsense.

Here FLAC do not compile and MAC do compile.

Is there a list which tools and versions must be installed to compile FLAC?
--  Frank Klemm

  • Frank Klemm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Comparing FLAC and Monkey's
Reply #53
Quote
Quote
I use only WavPack for lossless and many times for lossy compression. It's very fast and when I compared it with FLAC, WavPack always ended with a bit better compression.

Default Wavpack is ~2x faster than default FLAC on encoding and gets about 1% better compression, but FLAC still decodes faster (~15%), which does matter on hardware players.  In any case, Wavpack's compression/speed and decompression/speed ratio is very good.  I have toyed with the idea of adding its method to FLAC now that their two licenses are compatible; I'm only worried about be more vulnerable to patent claims (not Bryant's, someone unknown third person's) since the method is more complicated.

Josh

BTW:

Me (and also at least 5 other persons) are searching for a FLAC which can be compiled on a
2 year old system  OR  for FLAC binaries which are linked against glibc 2.1 (and not glibc 2.2).
Update of these machines may be possible, but will end up in a replacement of nearly the whole
system.

And there is also at least a person searching for a libc5 version of FLAC. The machine
used is a AMD K-5/166 with 32 MB RAM. Modern Linux distributions do not start on these
machine.

Is there any chance to get these versions?
--  Frank Klemm

  • Frank Klemm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Comparing FLAC and Monkey's
Reply #54
Quote
Cool, I thought MAC was closed-source.  So both FLAC and MAC are open. 

And thanx for directing me to the plugin... I definitely overlooked it since the sourceforge page isn't unfamiliar to me.

One thing I would like to know that didn't get answered...
1) Does FLAC support surround-sound ( >2 channels)?

FLAC do support more than 2 channels.
APE, LPAC, OptimFROG, LA do not support more than 2 channels.
--  Frank Klemm

  • jcoalson
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Comparing FLAC and Monkey's
Reply #55
Quote
Quote
Quote
I use only WavPack for lossless and many times for lossy compression. It's very fast and when I compared it with FLAC, WavPack always ended with a bit better compression.

Default Wavpack is ~2x faster than default FLAC on encoding and gets about 1% better compression, but FLAC still decodes faster (~15%), which does matter on hardware players.  In any case, Wavpack's compression/speed and decompression/speed ratio is very good.  I have toyed with the idea of adding its method to FLAC now that their two licenses are compatible; I'm only worried about be more vulnerable to patent claims (not Bryant's, someone unknown third person's) since the method is more complicated.

Josh

BTW:

Me (and also at least 5 other persons) are searching for a FLAC which can be compiled on a
2 year old system  OR  for FLAC binaries which are linked against glibc 2.1 (and not glibc 2.2).
Update of these machines may be possible, but will end up in a replacement of nearly the whole
system.

And there is also at least a person searching for a libc5 version of FLAC. The machine
used is a AMD K-5/166 with 32 MB RAM. Modern Linux distributions do not start on these
machine.

Is there any chance to get these versions?


[argh, something goes seriously wrong between this forum and konqueror 3]

Frank, just what about the autoconf system does not work on these systems?

Josh
  • Last Edit: 14 April, 2003, 08:57:57 PM by jcoalson