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: Flake (Read 19491 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flake

Has anyone tested this flac program?

Flake

Reply #1 –
i have. it works like a charm. currently, it can compress more efficiently than FLAC can(meaning less file size). although you do risk a 1 or 2 second decoding speed increase(compared Flake -12 with FLAC -8), i think that it's worth it.

Flake

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Mangix on
i have. it works like a charm. currently, it can compress more efficiently than FLAC can(meaning less file size). although you do risk a 1 or 2 second decoding speed increase(compared Flake -12 with FLAC -8), i think that it's worth it.


And is the quality good? I mean ( I know about those ABX tests): does everything seem ok?
How large is a CD ripped at 12x?

Flake

Reply #3 –
Quote from: cross on
And is the quality good? I mean ( I know about those ABX tests): does everything seem ok?

Look up the term "lossless". Theres absolutely no need to perform ABX tests, since data should be THE SAME! Decode and bitcompare to make sure everything was okay
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

Flake

Reply #4 –
Quote from: odyssey on
Quote from: cross on

And is the quality good? I mean ( I know about those ABX tests): does everything seem ok?

Look up the term "lossless". Theres absolutely no need to perform ABX tests, since data should be THE SAME! Decode and bitcompare to make sure everything was okay


Look up the meaning of the sentence "Insinuating that the poster is a lazy idiot and not presuming that it is in fact a guy who came to this forum for some friendly advice concerning how flake and flac match up".

Flake

Reply #5 –
Last I knew, there were concerns about the integrity of files made with Flake;  Josh Coalson doesn't recommend using it for encoding purposes, since it in many cases silently creates errors which result in functionally "lossy" files.

That is, unless something has changed since I read that.

Flake

Reply #6 –
Justin Ruggles(the developer of Flake) fixed that a couple of months ago.

Flake

Reply #7 –
Quote from: cross on
Look up the meaning of the sentence "Insinuating that the poster is a lazy idiot and not presuming that it is in fact a guy who came to this forum for some friendly advice concerning how flake and flac match up".

I already answered that.
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P
 

Flake

Reply #8 –
IMHO FLAKE is much better than FLAC 1.12 but since FLAC 1.14 was released there isn't any significant advantage

Flake

Reply #9 –
Quote from: cross on
Quote from: odyssey on

Quote from: cross on

And is the quality good? I mean ( I know about those ABX tests): does everything seem ok?

Look up the term "lossless". Theres absolutely no need to perform ABX tests, since data should be THE SAME! Decode and bitcompare to make sure everything was okay


Look up the meaning of the sentence "Insinuating that the poster is a lazy idiot and not presuming that it is in fact a guy who came to this forum for some friendly advice concerning how flake and flac match up".

Decoding errors, sample offsets...

Flake

Reply #10 –
Quote from: ggf31416 on
IMHO FLAKE is much better than FLAC 1.12 but since FLAC 1.14 was released there isn't any significant advantage

it still compresses better than FLAC 1.14 at -12.

Flake

Reply #11 –
I've heard some people in other forums mention that Flake created files (especially at the -12) do not playback properly in SlimDevices. Can anyone else verify that?

Flake

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Mangix on
Quote from: ggf31416 on

IMHO FLAKE is much better than FLAC 1.12 but since FLAC 1.14 was released there isn't any significant advantage
it still compresses better than FLAC 1.14 at -12.

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't but the differences I've seen are always a small fraction of a percent.

you can get the same effect with flac-1.1.4 by adding "-l 32 --lax" after -8 but I don't recommend it as any compression increase is very small and it's not in the FLAC subset.  flake -11 or -12 are not in the subset either and generally should not be used.  unfortunately these setting are available in the winamp plugin which people will naturally use without being notified of the disadvantages.

the reason they may not play in some hardware players is the high LPC order which increases the # multiply-accumulates per sample.

the next version of flac (current CVS actually) I think will have encoding speed in all modes on par with flake in all modes, maybe faster.

Josh

Flake

Reply #13 –
Quote from: jcoalson on
unfortunately these setting are available in the winamp plugin which people will naturally use without being notified of the disadvantages.

I believe Winamp 5.34 (now in beta) is currently using FLAC 1.1.4 code for both encoding and decoding (and has dropped using FLAKE). This should keep everyone using Winamp FLAC compliant, and avoid all pitfalls of people using -11 or -12 settings of FLAKE by accident.

Josh, glad to hear you have posted in CVS an improved version of the FLAC encoder. Hopefully the new FLAC encoder still produces files that are backward compatible for playback with older FLAC decoders also.

FYI, Mike Wren's site and cyberial.com domain are down. You might want to remove the download windows FLAC installer broken link to his site.

Keep up the good work!

Flake

Reply #14 –
yep, changes are backwards compatble.  fixed installer link.  also I almost have an installer done, should have something to try next week.

Flake

Reply #15 –
Quote from: jcoalson on
yep, changes are backwards compatble.  fixed installer link.  also I almost have an installer done, should have something to try next week.

Thanks Josh for the info. Is there a 1.1.5 version with the revised CVS encoder in the near future, or are you perhaps planning a 1.1.4a soon? If neither, that's OK, was just curious of your release schedule plans for any upcoming FLAC updates/bugfixes.
Also any news on the Mac Universal Binary for 1.1.4 download link on your site?

Flake

Reply #16 –
the installer will be for 1.1.4 first since the next flac version is not ready yet and I'm real short on time lately.

I still need to go over all the responses to brady's mac binary.  I don't have an x86 mac to test it on myself.