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 1.2.1 released (Read 131996 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #50
Any news about a new version with the --replay-gain fix (1.2.2, or...)?
Meaning not just the 1.2.1b binary for MS Windows, but an updated source tarbal for use on any OS as well.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #51
Has 1.2.1's 24-bit problem been fixed yet?  Foobar2k won't play 24-bit flac files I made with 1.2.1 downloaded from flac.sourceforge.net last week...

I guess there are two ways to fix that:
Either a command-line switch for FLAC to disable the use of Rice2 codes or updating the FLAC libaries of fb2k to version 1.2.x

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #52
I haven't decided whether or not to remove the 1.2.x 24bit improvement from 1.2.2.  I don't want to add a switch since that affects the API.  the improvement is significant for some files and other software/devices already support it (including the squeezebox).

the --replay-gain + (no padding) fix will be in 1.2.2 which is probably a month away.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #53
updating the FLAC libaries of fb2k to version 1.2.x

Since FLAC decoding is a part of foo_input_std, you can't update it.

Put your update requests [a href='index.php?showtopic=57774']here[/a] and hope that Peter will have time and motivation.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #54

Has 1.2.1's 24-bit problem been fixed yet?  Foobar2k won't play 24-bit flac files I made with 1.2.1 downloaded from flac.sourceforge.net last week...

I guess there are two ways to fix that:
Either a command-line switch for FLAC to disable the use of Rice2 codes or updating the FLAC libaries of fb2k to version 1.2.x



I fixed it a third way:

decoded the files with 1.2.1, re-encoded with 1.1.4


FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #55
Put your update requests [a href='index.php?showtopic=57774']here[/a] and hope that Peter will have time and motivation.

FLAC 1.2.1 support is already in the internal 0.9.5 builds so it's only a matter of getting 0.9.5 out the door.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #56
FLAC 1.2.1 support is already in the internal 0.9.5 builds so it's only a matter of getting 0.9.5 out the door.

Wow! That's a joyous news!  Many thanks.


FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #58
Has 1.2.1's 24-bit problem been fixed yet?  Foobar2k won't play 24-bit flac files I made with 1.2.1 downloaded from flac.sourceforge.net last week...
I guess there are two ways to fix that:
Either a command-line switch for FLAC to disable the use of Rice2 codes or updating the FLAC libaries of fb2k to version 1.2.x

I fixed it a third way:

decoded the files with 1.2.1, re-encoded with 1.1.4
even easier, just do flac->flac with 1.2.0


FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #60
FLAC 1.2.1 support is already in the internal 0.9.5 builds ...

foobar2000 0.9.4.5 is just released .. is 0.9.5  next?
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #61
i'm pretty sure the "in_flac.dll" that comes with 1.2.1b has a bug where in winamp it bypasses the EQ.  it still responds to the pre-amp in the EQ, but not the band sliders.  or if it does it is VERY dull, and hardly noticeable.

i didn't upgrade winamp yet, still using an old 5.35 the only thing i've changed was the "in_flac.dll" file from my flac upgrade.  running xp if it means anything.

anyone else can recreate?  should i post this in a winamp thread too or not due to cross posting?

edit - i just rolled back to the "in_flac.dll" that comes bundled with winamp 5.35, all fixed.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #62
Which is the LASTEST FLAC version:
1.2.1a or 1.2.1b???

Thanks ahead of time to all of you for your help


FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #64
OK what's the deal here with FLAC and NERO8? I just installed the Frontend but it didn't install the dll for Nero. So does Nero 8 work with FLAC or not? If so, how does one go about running FLAC in Nero to create CDROMs from an FLAC file?


CLIPPED to UPDATE:

So anyway, is there a way to get FLAC to CD working with Nero 8?

Use Foobar. It works perfectly! It creates CDs from FLAC files, or you can convert the FLAC to WAV and use NEro, etc.

I just wanted to post this update so others who are wondering might see it.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #65
You represent about 1/10 of 1 millionth of a percent.
I would suspect that more than 6.6 people use FLAC......

btw, Nero is not the only package that you can use to create CD's from FLAC files.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #66
You represent about 1/10 of 1 millionth of a percent.
I would suspect that more than 6.6 people use FLAC......

btw, Nero is not the only package that you can use to create CD's from FLAC files.


6.6 poeple--lol.

Well, I installed Foobar and the burring plug in, since I have Nero 8 installed. it's burning right now .

I would not mind using another program to burn FLAC to CD besides Nero. I only use NEro to burn data and Music CDs anyway,m so I don't need ANYTHING it offers besides burning data and music, and less and less music CDs because I use an SD card for my car stereo and home stereo now.

Anyway, for what it is worth for those looking:

As stated in this thread, if you are wanting to burn FLAC to CD, and you have nero installed, install Foobar 2000, and then on the Foobar site, look for the "additional Componenets link:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/index.html

Then look for the component called: CD burning support and follow it's instructions to install in.
After you do that, start Foobar and open all the FLAC files you want to burn to a CD. Then, right click on the FLAC files and you will see a context menu item called "Burn CD." That's it. Very nice.

So anyway, what other program can I sue to burn FLAC to CD?

Thanks again!

--END OF POST, REPLIES BELOW:

Well, for some reason, a mod decided I should be suspended from posting until Dec 26th, but I have no idea why. Please let me reply here to the responses below:

imre_herceq
"The problem is that most software people are using for burning audio CDs do not wish to offer you all possible choices, they want to promote one or other format (WMP - wma, iTunes - ALAC and AAC, Nero - AAC). So your opinion of using wav is not entirely pointless."

Thanks. Yes, wav file is universally supported, although it's much bigger than the FLAC. I guess the board mods think differently than you do about the post.

---

Probbedb
"So did you actually want to ask a question or did you just want to come and insult all the FLAC users on here?"

Now this is what I would call a troll post, since the questions are clearly started in my post.

The questions are in the first paragraph of the post and the last sentence of the post. They end in question marks.

I didn't realize that commenting on the usability of FLAC for the general music enthusiast was insulting FLAC uses--of which I am one. I will continue to use FLAC EAC/REAC 2 because I like it and I admire the progress in this field. and it works for me. The post was simply pointing out that there is another way to rip and store files that is more universally accepted, and for most people, will result in easier conversion back to CDs, not to mention that your average computer simi literate person will never figure out EAC/REACT2 Foobar for FLAC, AAC, MP3 ripping and converting back to CD.

---

fbuser
"That is definitely wrong. The saving is about 40% for pop music and about 50% for classical music."

You're right. But I didn't say that wav files are only 15% bigger than FLAC files. I said, "The time spent trying to decode FLAC to CD is not worth the 10-15% space you will save over simply ripping to wav--which is universally supported by all software--and then squishing the wavs with RAR."

But this is wrong, really. If you can figure out that you need a different program, like Foobar, and then the Plugin that uses Nero, and you have Nero installed, it's very easy. But finding and cobbling these components--or others that will convert FLAC to CD-- will take most people some time.

---

Mr Bungle
"I'm not going to quote dwd but I must say that was a top quality troll. Good enough to get me to login to HA whilst on holidays, just to reply. Thanks for the laugh!"


As you can see by my replies, this is no troll post. I'm serious about what I have had to say here.

It has in it real and valid arguments about the usability of FLAC as compared to wav files regarding usability of FLAC and the general public. My problem with FLAC isn't with FLAC, since it simply is a great compression algorithm for music files--the best. My problem with FLAC is its implementation only.

I mean look at what a person would have to know and understand simply to use EAC/REACT to do specific things--they have to understand ini files and DOS cfg files for starters, and that is a very tall order to ask of people who have other things to do besides spend hours learning computer oriented scripting and so on.

That said, for sure the developers of the scripts and programs to help FLAC use, that being mainly Foobar, EAC, and REACT are commendable indeed. This is no flame, troll, or other undesirable post. It is simply saying that ease of use is the biggest problem I see with this entire project, and unless we all want it to stay as a sort of cult type audio compression converting club, then there has to be some way, for lack of better words, of tying together the usability of CD Ripping to FLAC --> AAC -->MP3 -->  then FLAC --> CD again. Do you disagree with that?

----

Also, I'm sorry that I could not respond in kind, but again, the board mod has scene fit to suspend my posting privilege for "trolling and being an asshat."  I guess it's for what I consider valid points I made above about the useability of FLAC to CD etc.

I really think suspending me for this post is childish--one of the mods even said "Enjoy your stay on HA while it last." Yeah that's cute. You have the power, so suspend people who you disagree with, even though they contribute useful information.

If taken seriously, it could have been a useful information link for those wanting information on FLAC to CD. Plus I posted a direct link to the FLAC/Foobar burning plugin that uses Nero calls, and took the time to explain how to use it/install it for those not as knowledgeable as most of you.

I'll probably get banned for sticking up for myself like this, but it's worth it to me. I don't like to be abused for trolling when I'm dead serious about this. It's not fair and I feel like it is an abuse of power. I was simply looking for information and at the same time sharing my frustrations with the project, and taking the time to explain to others how to use Foobar/Nero/FLAC to CD.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #67
You can use Burrrn, and for data CD-R/W and DVD±R/W/DL burning I suggest ImgBurn, both freeware and way less bloated'n Nero 7 or 8.
WavPack 5.6.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.80 -V 100

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #68
The time spent trying to decode FLAC to CD is not worth the 10-15% space you will save over simply ripping to wav--which is universally supported by all software--and then squishing the wavs with RAR.


Well, I am listening mostly to classical music where the Flac file is generally about 40-50% of the wav size. (I know that compression ratios with pop-rock music are different.)
Besides I use Linux and burn audio CDs with K3b. So using Flac is a valid choice for me. Indeed, I haven't burned an audio CD from wav for some time.

I know, however, that only few people burn classical music CDs, and few people use Linux.

The problem is that most software people are using for burning audio CDs do not wish to offer you all possible choices, they want to promote one or other format (WMP - wma, iTunes - ALAC and AAC, Nero - AAC). So your opinion of using wav is not entirely pointless.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #69
OK what's the deal here with FLAC and NERO8? I just installed the Frontend but it didn't install the dll for Nero. So does Nero 8 work with FLAC or not? If so, how does one go about running FLAC in Nero to create CDROMs from an FLAC file?

FLAC is great technology, but it's not supported smoothly enough to be a major player in CD to FLAC to CD conversions yet. I would suggest for most people to simply rip to wav file and use RAR to compress them. Sure, you'll save about another 10-15% using FLAC, but then you'll spend all your time trying in vain to convert FLAC to CDs without first converting them from FLAC to WAV.

The time spent trying to decode FLAC to CD is not worth the 10-15% space you will save over simply ripping to wav--which is universally supported by all software--and then squishing the wavs with RAR. Not only that, but FLAC continues to develop, so if you want the best archive copy you'll need to once again spend hours ripping to FLAC format. Well, forget compressing the wavs with RAR because a 750GB drive is not about 130.00 US. So who cares?

I seriously suggest, after doing all of this myself, to convert using WAV files, compress usign RAR, and then sitting on the wavs until FLAC is much better supported by plugins or natively and developed so you don't end up re FLACing your entire collection a year later. I would say FLAC will surpass WAV files for archiving CDs in about 3-5 more years.

I know people will disagree, but consider yourselves to be elite users of cutting edge converting software. You represent about 1/10 of 1 millionth of a percent. The general computer literate CD ripping person doesn't even know what FLAC is, much less how to use it. They do know what a WAV is and how to rip to wav and create CDs and MP3s from wavs, simply because wav -mps -aac - and wav to CD is supported well. Flac is not.

So anyway, is there a way to get FLAC to CD working with Nero 8?


So did you actually want to ask a question or did you just want to come and insult all the FLAC users on here?

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #70
The time spent trying to decode FLAC to CD is not worth the 10-15% space you will save over simply ripping to wav


That is definitely wrong. The saving is about 40% for pop music and about 50% for classical music.

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #71
I'm not going to quote dwd but I must say that was a top quality troll.  Good enough to get me to login to HA whilst on holidays, just to reply.

Thanks for the laugh!

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #72
FLAC 1.2.1 support is already in the internal 0.9.5 builds so it's only a matter of getting 0.9.5 out the door.



mmh, foobar2000 v0.9.5.1 doesn't playback 24 bit flac files properly here! foobar basically can read the file, but the output gets distorted!

here an example: http://www.outburst-audio.com/misc/24-bps.flac (1.2 MB)


FIXED (or at least a workaround got added in Foobar2000 0.9.5.2)



Reaper for example plays it fine!

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #73
deleted  (turned out to be a foobar issue)

FLAC 1.2.1 released

Reply #74
No problem here, with FLAC 1.2.1 and a 24bit/96kHz stereo file.
flac -t says the file is OK, and I can play it back fine.