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: FLAC or WavPack? Or? (Read 21153 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: maggior on
I recall reading someplace that Apple has plans to introduce FLAC support to iTunes (ability to import a FLAC file), and possibly iPod.  Has anybody else heard this?  Apple doesn't control mp3, but they support the format, so why not FLAC?

I agree that once a high-profile DAP company adopts a lossless format, it will gain support everywhere and become a "standard".  Personally I hope FLAC wins out.

Yep, Leopard (the next version of Mac OS X to come out next spring) is said to have native FLAC support. If the OS supports it, iTunes-on-OS X will as well. Whether the iPod or iTunes-on-Windows will get support is a different matter.
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: maggior on
Personally I hope FLAC wins out.

Why is it necessary for one format to win and for the others to lose?

To me this is logic is totally absurd.  Last time I looked, choice was a good thing.


My wording was a little extreme.  What I meant by "wins out" was that I hope FLAC becomes supported on a wider range of hardware.  It already has some support (the old Rio DAP and Slimdevices lineup, up-coming Mac OS), so it would be nice to see the trend continue.  If all lossless formats gain a broad range of support - great!  They already do in softwre.  But I think we'll be lucky to find one gain wide support.  That doesn't mean that the other formats "lost". 

Yes, choice is certainly a good thing.  And with tools like fb2k and dbPowerAmp, it's easy to switch from one lossless format to another with relative ease.

I hope for wide FLAC support only because that is what I am using to archive my CD collection.  Yeah, it's easy to switch, but it's easier yet to not have to transcode at all.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: maggior on
I hope for wide FLAC support only because that is what I am using to archive my CD collection.  Yeah, it's easy to switch, but it's easier yet to not have to transcode at all.

The easier is for sure having nothing to do after once it is encoded.
I have a very large bunch of CD I decided to archive, and that was the very purpose of this thread, meaning which lossless format is the more likely to free me from further tasks...  "right-out-of-the-box" support
And that are news we're glad to hear:
Quote
Leopard (the next version of Mac OS X to come out next spring) is said to have native FLAC support. If the OS supports it, iTunes-on-OS X will as well.


I made several tests for my particular usage and I'm revising my statement: I stick with Wavpack!
Even Flac -8 can't compete with Wavpack at default with at best 5% less compression (at least with those CDs with 50-90 short tracks of audio samples).
Moreover, the 10x encoding speed of -8 -on my machine- is really a handicap when you're ripping and encoding directly from CD, where you're expecting at least 20x-30x  Flac -5 offers the expected encoding speed >30x but 6-10% less compression and that matters!

So, staying with Wavpack, finger crossed for its future. (At worst I'll transcode  )

PS: TAK seems really impressive 

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #28 –
WavPack. I do not need support in devices other than my computer. For use on a DAP, I would certainly transcode my files to mp3 or aac. You cannot have too much space ever!!

Cheers
audiomars
Reason is immortal, all else mortal
- Pythagoras

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: don_pipo_corleone on
Even Flac -8 can't compete with Wavpack at default with at best 5% less compression (at least with those CDs with 50-90 short tracks of audio samples).

I would like to see those samples.  in my experience and in every comparison I've seen, the difference is +/-0.5% (sometime wavpack is smaller, sometimes FLAC)

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: jcoalson on
Quote from: don_pipo_corleone on
Even Flac -8 can't compete with Wavpack at default with at best 5% less compression (at least with those CDs with 50-90 short tracks of audio samples).

I would like to see those samples.  in my experience and in every comparison I've seen, the difference is +/-0.5% (sometime wavpack is smaller, sometimes FLAC)

I agree: 5 percent seems far too much. It is possible, if you are compressing some selected samples with properties favouring one compressor. But on average (on sample sets i would consider as quite representative) i have never seen such a big difference.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote from: jcoalson on

Quote from: don_pipo_corleone on
Even Flac -8 can't compete with Wavpack at default with at best 5% less compression (at least with those CDs with 50-90 short tracks of audio samples).

I would like to see those samples.  in my experience and in every comparison I've seen, the difference is +/-0.5% (sometime wavpack is smaller, sometimes FLAC)

I agree: 5 percent seems far too much. It is possible, if you are compressing some selected samples with properties favouring one compressor. But on average (on sample sets i would consider as quite representative) i have never seen such a big difference.

I originally ripped the discs using WavPack. I started to transcode to FLAC -5 and stopped after seeing that I was loosing about 5 to 10% per disc, then I switched to -8, and sorry, -8 didn't reached the level of compression of Wavpack default on 3 discs I tried: I made a rapid calculation and the result was 5% more.
Sorry, but I have no time to make further tests. -8 failed for me on 3 discs. I assume I'll be better on average on the full collection but encoding time of -8 is a pain (for me).
Samples are real sounds effects.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #32 –
Out of curiousity, how well does Monkey's Audio compress these samples?

Edit: Using the High (-c3000) setting and using the Extra High (-c4000) settings.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #33 –
Quote from: don_pipo_corleone on
Quote from: TBeck on

Quote from: jcoalson on

Quote from: don_pipo_corleone on
Even Flac -8 can't compete with Wavpack at default with at best 5% less compression (at least with those CDs with 50-90 short tracks of audio samples).

I would like to see those samples.  in my experience and in every comparison I've seen, the difference is +/-0.5% (sometime wavpack is smaller, sometimes FLAC)

I agree: 5 percent seems far too much. It is possible, if you are compressing some selected samples with properties favouring one compressor. But on average (on sample sets i would consider as quite representative) i have never seen such a big difference.

I originally ripped the discs using WavPack. I started to transcode to FLAC -5 and stopped after seeing that I was loosing about 5 to 10% per disc, then I switched to -8, and sorry, -8 didn't reached the level of compression of Wavpack default on 3 discs I tried: I made a rapid calculation and the result was 5% more.
Sorry, but I have no time to make further tests. -8 failed for me on 3 discs. I assume I'll be better on average on the full collection but encoding time of -8 is a pain (for me).
Samples are real sounds effects.

To make it clear: i have no doubt that your findings are correct! But they are very untypical. At least for real music.
Quote from: don_pipo_corleone on
Samples are real sounds effects.

Would it be possible to get 2 or 3 of those samples showing this behaviour? I would like to try them with my TAK compressor. I am always interested into tuning it for untypical samples.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #34 –
I tested one album(Bach - 710MB) with practical settings.

Code: [Select]
        RATIO   ENC     DEC
WV -hh  69.59%  34.52x  42.05x
WV -hx  69.73%  22.38x  49.97x
WV -h   69.95%  40.96x  50.54x
WV      70.30%  54.09x  64.40x
FLAC -8 70.51%  11.89x  75.85x
FLAC -5 70.80%  39.13x  74.82x
SSE  -5 70.80%  44.76x  83.07x

FLAC v1.1.3 and gharris999's optimized compile
WavPack v4.40

WV's advantage on compression ratio is less than 2%, which is negligible small for me. I'd pefer faster and fixed decoding speed. FLAC -5 is my choice of lossless for the foreseeable future.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Would it be possible to get 2 or 3 of those samples showing this behaviour? I would like to try them with my TAK compressor. I am always interested into tuning it for untypical samples.

The discs I was archiving are "The Hollywood Edge" sound effects library. I won't post them here but tell me if you need some. They are short sounds and long ambiences.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #37 –
hello everyone. I am new on this forum and I can't make a decision, which lossless codec is suitable for me. I made test with FLAC 1.1.4 and Monkey's Audio 4.01. In all cases Monkey's audio have better compression, but in insane mode is useless, because CPU usega (on my Athlon 64 3200+) is relatively high and before player (Winamp) starts playing new song, computer freeze for aproximatelly 2-3 seconds.
FLAC is much faster (in -8 mode too), but compression is aproximatelly 3% worse.
But I haven't tried WavPack yet.
So as I can see that most of you are for FLAC. On second place is Wavpack but Monkey's Audio isn't mentioned a lot. Please tell me some advantages and disadvanteges of most known lossless audio formats.
Thanks for helping.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #39 –
FLAC is the best lossless encoder for people on this forum (a lot of you as I can see). The others are for Wavpack and just a few for Monkey's audio. Why are for example most albums on eMule (just looking!!) in ape format (amongst lossless)?
And for me is important:
- decoding speed (encoding speed isn't so much!)
- the best balance between DEcoding speed and compression level

So for decoding speed are the best for me FLAC and WavPack, but Monkey's Audio has relatively much better compression level and has still averange decoding speed. But FLAC is on the other hand more "opened".

Probably, I will transcode my ape collection in flac.

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #40 –
thanks for the update...

seriously tho, why worry about this stuff?  wavpack and flac are obviously good choices and are essentially future-proof. when the-new-trendy-lossless-format comes out just transcode.

i think wavpack will gain a lot of support in the next few years.


later

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #41 –
So, all my music collection is now in WavPack format. 

FLAC or WavPack? Or?

Reply #43 –
FLAC -4