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: Best lossless codec? (Read 8223 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Best lossless codec?

I am thinking of encoding all of my CDs to a lossless codec.  I am wondering which is the best to use.  I don't mean just in size, but also in usability and support (open source... hardware... commercial... etc.).

Any recommendations are welcome.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #1 –
Check the Wiki directory
especially this.

I would say AAC is your best bet as an overall codec because of its promise of future hardware support and high quality. If you will use your PC as your hi-fi player then MPC might be a better option because it's accepted to be higher quality at high bitrates with very fast encoding/decoding speed. It is also the most popular codec on HA board AFAIK, in case popularity means anything.

Edit: Ignore this post. I completely missed the word lossless.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #2 –
That question is almost the same as asking what lossy codec is best. It depends on what you want.

For usability, the most popular ones (FLAC, WavPack and Monkey's) are pretty much the same. Supported in several players, good tagging, etc. Some fetures may make a difference for you, like embedded CUE sheets, replaygain and lossy/hybrid encoding.

Source code is available for these three encoders.

IMO, the choice would boil down to specific features and speed vs. efficiency. Flac compresses the worst among these three codecs (not by far), and compression is considerably slow, but decoding is blazing fast. WavPack compresses better and a little faster, but decoding is slower. Monkey's Audio compresses best while remaining fast, but decoding is somewhat slow.


Regards;

Roberto.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #3 –
Quote
I would say AAC is your best bet as an overall codec because of its promise of future hardware support and high quality. If you will use your PC as your hi-fi player then MPC might be a better option because it's accepted to be higher quality at high bitrates with very fast encoding/decoding speed.

Are you on booze, my friend? 

Check the thread title!!!

Also, check Spase's post:

Quote
I am thinking of encoding all of my CDs to a lossless codec.

(my emphasis)

Best lossless codec?

Reply #4 –
lol!  This question has been asked more times than I care to count.  And I'm sure the answers have all been the same: find what is right for you.

Personally, I much prefer WMA9 lossless.  It is fast, widely supported, and fully integrated into the Windows OS environtment.  It also offers fast decompression and great compression ratios, often better than Wavpack by as much as 10-20 percent.

If you're not running Windows, or plan on using something else, then WMA is uselsess to you, and you might want to try out Wavpack as it's very easy to use in nearly any OS you choose, and is very straightforward.  Also, it's more versatile, as it allows you to create both a highly compact lossey file, and a "difference" file which will allow you to flawlessly recreate the original file.

Edit:  made a huge post regarding lossey compression before rereading the original post

Best lossless codec?

Reply #5 –
Quote
Are you on booze, my friend?  

Oops. Sorry.

Do a search. That has been discussed before. Monkey's Audio and FLAC is usually very popular and good with FLAC offering more error resilience/higher decoding support and platform independence whereas Monkey's Audio offers better compression ratios. Then there's WavPack and OptimFrog, but I think they're more interesting as nonperceptual lossy codecs (although now WavPack 4 has a perceptual feature?).

Quote
If you're using Windows as your OS, I personally think WMA9 wins, hands down. I can defend this point of view, if need be


  And please do. AFAIK it's compression ratios isn't that great. Yet I don't know what advantage it has if you're not using Windows Media Player.

Other relevant posts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #6 –
Ok i believe I will use FLAC becase the speed of decoding is important ( I achieve 88.4x on this machine... the next closest is WavePack at 22x)

Does EAC support FLAC though?

Also what are some things I might need to know about the format before trying to archive all of my CDs?

As an aside, I was wondering if it would ever be possible to make a lossless encoder that uses a hybrid mode (like WavePack or OptimFROG DualStream) that uses a format that is playable on some hardware device as the lossy part of the file (like mp3, aac, ogg, etc.).  At this point I feel like this is the only real use for such hybrid modes.  However I think I can easily transcode from FLAC at fairly good speed to another format for portables (MP3 most likely).

Best lossless codec?

Reply #7 –
It surprises me that someone that has been around for so long and with so many posts is asking one of the most frequently asked questions ever in the history of this board...
Heh, thinking about it, I would find it quite interesting to know which are the top 5 most repeated questions of all time. This one would probably be among them, at least if we only count the past year.

Anyway, IMHO, FLAC is great if you plan to transcode often and have loads of spare spase (pun intended) . If your collection is big and don't plan to transcode too often, I would say APE is the way to go, since after several albums you'll start noticing the higher compressions.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #8 –
Quote
It surprises me that someone that has been around for so long and with so many posts is asking one of the most frequently asked questions ever in the history of this board...
Heh, thinking about it, I would find it quite interesting to know which are the top 5 most repeated questions of all time. This one would probably be among them, at least if we only count the past year.

hehe yea.

I havent been paying much attention to the "scene" as it were, especially when it comes to lossless.  Most of my HA time is devoted to finding and trying out the latest coolest foobar2000 components.  Anyways.... I was excited about lossless a little bit when the various hybrid modes debuted, but then I realized they would only really be useful if they had hardware support. 

I have always been one for the MPC.  I had the idea for a lossless archive of my CDs the other day.  I don't remember why though.  I think because I was thinking of getting a portable MP3 player or the like, and I like the idea of having lossless copies of my CDs to transcode from.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #9 –
Quote
Does EAC support FLAC though?

Yes it absolutely does.

Check this, FLAC FAQ page or this.

Quote
Also what are some things I might need to know about the format before trying to archive all of my CDs?


You need to decide if you want to encode tracks into a single file or separate files. That's also discussed here several times. I favor single file approach because it's more consistent considering a CD is a single stream of bits, and this also ensures gapless playback. One of the above links has info about how to do this. If you choose this option you'll access individual tracks with APL files or through CUE sheet. Foobar2000 is very useful to access through either of them and for tagging purposes.
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #10 –
Few more questions:

1. Is replaygain really needed?  If so, why?  (I thought clipping was a result of lossy encoding techniques... am I wrong?)

2. Do I need a container format/are they recommended, and why?  (I like the idea of one file per CD, but do I get instant seeking without/with container, etc.?)

3. Are there any secret tricks or tweaks to get smaller file sizes?  Encoding time really is not and issue for me, expecially since the decoding speed is all the same.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #11 –
Quote
1. Is replaygain really needed?  If so, why?  (I thought clipping was a result of lossy encoding techniques... am I wrong?)

2. Do I need a container format/are they recommended, and why?  (I like the idea of one file per CD, but do I get instant seeking without/with container, etc.?)

3. Are there any secret tricks or tweaks to get smaller file sizes?  Encoding time really is not and issue for me, expecially since the decoding speed is all the same.

1)  Not really.  Except to bring everything to the same relative volume.

2)  No container is needed (you can put flac into an ogg container).  You will get instant seeking with foobar.

3)  Let someone else answer this.
"You can fight without ever winning, but never win without a fight."  Neil Peart  'Resist'

Best lossless codec?

Reply #12 –
Quote
1. Is replaygain really needed?  If so, why?  (I thought clipping was a result of lossy encoding techniques... am I wrong?)

doesn't hurt, it's just a tag.  you can easily add it later if you want with metaflac.

Quote
2. Do I need a container format/are they recommended, and why?

most formats that encode to files use some container.  see also faq.

Quote
(I like the idea of one file per CD, but do I get instant seeking without/with container, etc.?)

they're independent.  you get fast seeking with native FLAC or Ogg FLAC, even with 1-file-per-CD + CUE.

Quote
3. Are there any secret tricks or tweaks to get smaller file sizes?  Encoding time really is not and issue for me, expecially since the decoding speed is all the same.

stick with 'flac --best' for CD audio, until you understand the format, in which case you will know when you have a sample that can be optimized with certain parameters.

Josh

Best lossless codec?

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
3. Are there any secret tricks or tweaks to get smaller file sizes?  Encoding time really is not and issue for me, expecially since the decoding speed is all the same.

stick with 'flac --best' for CD audio, until you understand the format, in which case you will know when you have a sample that can be optimized with certain parameters.

That seems awfully complicated...

After a quick read of the specs and documentation, I have decided that maybe using...

Code: [Select]
-l 32 -b 4608 -m -e -p -r 0,16


should yield probably the best quality without going into sample-specific settings... probably pushing it past -8 settings.

Am I correct in this?

Best lossless codec?

Reply #14 –
flac and shorten win for me

reasons?
on linux
monkey's audio CLI sucks ****
flac has good support/tools/plugins/speed/ease-of-use
wavpack hasn't surfaced for *nix yet, iirc (in any form)

shorten as last resort for trading.
shorten has horrible compression (but huge support in trading communities + plugins/tools/ease-of-use)


/end rant

Best lossless codec?

Reply #15 –
Quote
After a quick read of the specs and documentation, I have decided that maybe using...

Code: [Select]
-l 32 -b 4608 -m -e -p -r 0,16


should yield probably the best quality without going into sample-specific settings... probably pushing it past -8 settings.

Am I correct in this?

Would a larger block size improve the compression?

eg -b 32768?

Best lossless codec?

Reply #16 –
How to get the absolute highest compression ratio with FLAC.

But this setting is very impractical.  We're talking about a range of ~0.35x encoding speed on my P4m 2.0GHz with 512MB of RAM, for a fraction-of-a-percent higher compression than simply using "--best" (which runs much faster).  This setting was created by the developer of FLAC as a parameter test for the very highest compression possible.  Not intended for "home use".  But it's there, and can be used if time is really no object. 

Best lossless codec?

Reply #17 –
Quote
How to get the absolute highest compression ratio with FLAC.

But this setting is very impractical.

no kidding!

Anyways, is there any easy way to get artists and song titles froma cue sheet into the flac file itself, or is it going to have to be "by hand" as it were.

What I mean is that if I use --cuesheet=filename it doesnt save the song titles and artist name.  Is that supposed to happen?

EDIT:  Just read this... nevermind then.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #18 –
my point was that you are unlikely to get any significant benefit above 'flac --best' unless you are exploiting a specific trait of a specific sample.  but there is no easy way do describe what the exploitable traits might be, except by understanding the format and how the encoder works; then you will know when you run across a sample if there is room for improvement.

Josh

Best lossless codec?

Reply #19 –
On Flac, it seems to me that there is not that much difference in output between medium and  high, but a huge difference in time.

If you are into the concert recording scene, flac and shorten seem to be the accepted formats... flac being better  on most counts, but shorten is there because a lot of concerts are already available in that format.  There's no reason for that to affect your choice on CD's though.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #20 –
FLAC here. nothing wrong with it, as long as you stay away from bug-prone features like oggflac and embedded cue stuff

Best lossless codec?

Reply #21 –
Quote
FLAC here. nothing wrong with it, as long as you stay away from bug-prone features like oggflac and embedded cue stuff

how bug prone is the embedded cue stuff?

Best lossless codec?

Reply #22 –
Whew, it seems like I let this post go too long without responding.  Basically, my post about defendnig WMA9 goes as follows:

1) It is the most fully integrated codec in the Windows operating environment.  If you use WMP, you get a fully organized media library, total control over your files, and if you're connected to the 'net, you're set.  You can even edit and update songs and albums you've downloaded through WMP, as it connects to the all music guide and attempts to organize things with data from there.  This isn't always perfect for obscure albums, though, and may require some manual interaction.
2) It's fast.  I can typically completely copy an album in about 5-7 minutes, using WMA encoding.  Lossless is almost as fast as I can rip.
3) It's supported by nearly every modern portable player, and would (at the most, and probably not) require transcoding to lossey WMA9 before being transferred to a portable.  Do you have a NetMD player/recorder?  You can use SonicStage to record tracks right off your HDD, due to the fact that it has WMA support.
4) At this point, Microsoft isn't about to abandon it's baby.  I see even greater support and more enhancements to WMA and the WMP online services.  Right now it functions like an integrated jukebox, but it seems to be evolving in a direction that will have it capable of replacing all media players on the Windows computer except those which play formats which are unlikely to be supported by WMP, such as sequenced sound (MOD, ST, etc) and formats that Microsoft deems unhealthy because it doesn't appeal to corporations.

The biggest problem with WMA, obviously, is that it is a Windows-only format.  If I'm incorrect here, someone tell me.  However, if you're using windows, it is the most widely supported, fast, and (generally) most compressed format available.  Other formats outperform it in specific situatoins, but it's other benefits make WMA a general winner in my book. The media library makes song selection, programming, and enjoyment easy and fast, and it's no hassle to rip a CD.  With modern drives you rarely have to worry about scratches that can be recovered (if they can't, the CD was bad to start with and EAC probably won't help you), and the speed (about 5-7mins per disc) can't be beat with any quality MP3 encoder (and is faster than most other lossey codecs, as well).

Best lossless codec?

Reply #23 –
Quote
(re wma lossless)
3) It's supported by nearly every modern portable player, and would (at the most, and probably not) require transcoding to lossey WMA9 before being transferred to a portable.

Can you name *any* portables that support WMA lossless?  It seems like there are lots of complaints floating around about people finding their "WMA" portable doesn't.

Best lossless codec?

Reply #24 –
Hi spase,

I made 2 short * for *-Lossless,

for FLAC & WavePack Hybrid.

* FLAC :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....o...hl=lossless

* Wavepack Hybrid :
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....o...hl=lossless

Monkey's Ape
WavePack (lossless only)
Optimfrog

are possible and useful lossless codecs, too,
just make it analogue to the 2 guides.
Look at case's page for eac commandline, with wapet.exe tool.

case's page is linked there in the 2 guides.


MOD: * no links or names of ripping groups please.