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 14015 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

best lossless codec ?

i was never really that interessted in that lossless world but as i want to backup my ripped files now with a lossless compressor (simply because a 80min audio is more than 700mb in wav files and not burnable to one cd-r) i want to know which one is the best codec. i think mokey's audio is very easy to use but i would also use a command line encoder if it is better... i don't care to much about some kilobytes or 10seconds of encoding time. i just want exact results and no broken files. simply an EXACT result.

thanks

best lossless codec ?

Reply #1 –
Well, if you don't care about compression ratio or encoding/decoding speed, then really you need to compare features. They're all lossless.

Some things to consider (depending on what's important to you) are tagging support, operation with your favorite player or platform, seeking, streaming, open source issues, cuesheet support, replaygain support, etc.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #2 –
i think ape and flac are the most popular codecs. is there any documentation or comparison about those two doecs ?

best lossless codec ?

Reply #3 –
I think probably the best overall balance of speed, compression, source availibility, and GUI is Monkeys.
But it all depends on the specefic features you value most.
Cross platform?
Highest compression?
Open Source?

The unusual features of WavPack are neat.
Hybrid Mode (lossy with a lossless restore file.)
Self Extracting Mode
Fast
Good Compression

FLAC used to be the "official" HA sample format. Not sure if it still is.

Seems like LPac used to be used all the time, maybe that was somewhere else...

Lots of old timers still "swear by" Shorten.

Last time I checked OptimFrog was the highest, but that could have changed.

Usually the highest compression ratios are pretty slow.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #4 –
One thing to add to this discussion could be the latest developments in Flac. The new release will be able to store lots of meta data alongside the actual audio, for example tags, cuesheets, replaygain info....
If you believe you need this, it could be inetersting for your purpose. Read other threads on this to learn more.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #5 –
The thing I like about FLAC is that it uses very little CPU power to decompress the files, so if you are on a bit of a slower system playing them or seeking doesn't eat up a lot of CPU cycles.  It's open source and with the latest beta supports replaygain too.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #6 –
hm cuesheet implementation is great

best lossless codec ?

Reply #7 –
Yes, then it comes down to features.

It may be biased but the FLAC comparison page is the only one that I know of that includes detailed feature comparisons.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

If there are any inaccurracies let me know and I will update the page.

Josh

best lossless codec ?

Reply #8 –
mac cli encoders and stuff are @:
http://www.geocities.com/feedthedead/index.htm
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung

best lossless codec ?

Reply #9 –
is OGG Flac the same as FLAC ? just another name because it joined xiph ?

best lossless codec ?

Reply #10 –
Quote
is OGG Flac the same as FLAC ? just another name because it joined xiph ?

No, Ogg FLAC is FLAC files wrapped in an ogg container... That's all...

best lossless codec ?

Reply #11 –
Quote
is OGG Flac the same as FLAC ? just another name because it joined xiph ?

No, FLAC is a codec with a very thin transport layer.  Ogg FLAC is FLAC frames wrapped in Ogg packets.

By rough analogy, FLAC is to Ogg FLAC what Vorbis is to Ogg Vorbis.

Josh

best lossless codec ?

Reply #12 –
Quote
Quote
is OGG Flac the same as FLAC ? just another name because it joined xiph ?

No, FLAC is a codec with a very thin transport layer.  Ogg FLAC is FLAC frames wrapped in Ogg packets.

By rough analogy, FLAC is to Ogg FLAC what Vorbis is to Ogg Vorbis.

Josh

hm are the encoders the same ? which one will be used in the future ? ogg flac or flac. i don't know if only the decoders changed because of the ogg container format or the flac file itself too.

i guess they will have the same extention then (.ogg). how does winamp know if it is a vorbis or flac file ?

best lossless codec ?

Reply #13 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
is OGG Flac the same as FLAC ? just another name because it joined xiph ?

No, FLAC is a codec with a very thin transport layer.  Ogg FLAC is FLAC frames wrapped in Ogg packets.

By rough analogy, FLAC is to Ogg FLAC what Vorbis is to Ogg Vorbis.

hm are the encoders the same ? which one will be used in the future ? ogg flac or flac. i don't know if only the decoders changed because of the ogg container format or the flac file itself too.

They're not different, they're layered.  That is, the Ogg decoder layer extracts FLAC frames from the Ogg FLAC stream and passes them on to the FLAC decoder.  If you took the FLAC frames extracted from the Ogg packets and concatenated them all together you would have a regular FLAC stream.

As to which will be used in the future, I would say both, for different things.  Native FLAC is fine for say, storing and playing back CDs.  Ogg FLAC is useful when muxing together with other codecs in an Ogg container, or streaming throug Ogg-aware tools.

Quote
i guess they will have the same extention then (.ogg).

The extension for native flac is .flac (or .fla in 8.3 filesystems).  The extension for Ogg FLAC is just .ogg.

Quote
how does winamp know if it is a vorbis or flac file ?

That part I'm a little fuzzy on, but Xiph is very clear about using .ogg for all Ogg streams regardless of the contents.

Josh

best lossless codec ?

Reply #14 –
Quote
That part I'm a little fuzzy on, but Xiph is very clear about using .ogg for all Ogg streams regardless of the contents.

Josh

Isn't that inconsistent with the use of .ogm?

best lossless codec ?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Quote
That part I'm a little fuzzy on, but Xiph is very clear about using .ogg for all Ogg streams regardless of the contents.

Isn't that inconsistent with the use of .ogm?

Yep.  Xiph doesn't like the use of ".ogm".

best lossless codec ?

Reply #16 –
Quote
The thing I like about FLAC is that it uses very little CPU power to decompress the files, so if you are on a bit of a slower system playing them or seeking doesn't eat up a lot of CPU cycles.  It's open source and with the latest beta supports replaygain too.

Those are the issues that have just about convinced me to pick FLAC for ripping my 1,200+ CD collection now that disk space is down to $1 / GB.

Low CPU use could it much easier to put FLAC support into PDAs and portable players, and I believe the FLAC site lists a PocketPC decoder as already available.

If I had a little more spare time it would be fun to write a Windows mini-server app and PocketPC client to allow browsing server folders and have the server stream tracks to the PocketPC in FLAC format. 

Having source code and an open license means even if I don't get to it, other people probably will.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #18 –
Quote
Low CPU use could it much easier to put FLAC support into PDAs and portable players, and I believe the FLAC site lists a PocketPC decoder as already available.

Added to this Rio Receiver, Dell Digital Audio Receiver, Excelon Music Keg, Music Keg & the PhatBox Digital Media Player already supports FLAC.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #19 –
Quote
simply because a 80min audio is more than 700mb in wav files and not burnable to one cd-r

A CDR holds 700mb of data in CDROM format (a data format with more error detection and correction than CD Audio). 

It will hold 80 minutes of CD Audio, as with less error correction bits there is more room for your audio.  Also, digital audio is WAV on your hard drive but CDA on the disc, it has the same audio data but is not an identical file format (CDA is smaller).  So - ignore the file size, you can burn 80 minutes of audio to an 80 minute disc. 

(So maybe you don't need this after all ...)

best lossless codec ?

Reply #20 –
People often neglect to mention that FLAC is superior to most other lossless codecs for one simple reason: it is streamable.  One may never stream the file but the benefits far exceed that capability.  Lossless audio is intended as an archival medium, however corruption is the most likely source of data-loss (and thereby the loss of your precious archived audio).  FLAC's stream support allows it to be more resilient to corruption, especially in regards to the longevity of many types of popular storage media.  With FLAC, corruption may only cause the loss of a few frames, but not the entire archive!  Corruption with archives using other non-streamable codecs can cause the loss of all data at the first instance of the corrupted bytes to EOF.

I find it odd that people value a net savings of 2-3% in file size as more important than an archive's ability to remain resilient and survive even mild amounts of corruption.  The FLAC developers rightly recognized that the increased overhead (and thereby slightly larger file size) from extra frame headers would lead to a more robust format that would endure the passages of time.  Partial data-loss is always preferable to total and catastrophic data-loss.  FLAC offers that insurance where other codecs do not.

You use a lossless codec because you wish to preserve the entire recording--completely and efficiently.  Certainly an otherwise intact recording, except for a few incorrect bytes that are imperceptible to the human ear, or perhaps merely a muted "click", is preferable to no recording at all.  For those idealists who argue that the corruption of even a few bytes is unacceptable, and thereby resiliency matters little if the file is not in perfect form, face a difficult reality. 

Many of you use ATA/IDE HDDs to store your precious recordings.  ATA/IDE HDDs used to have a warranty of 3 years, but many manufactures have reduced this warranty period to 1 year because the service costs became increasingly prohibitive in the highly competitive desktop HDD market.  Last year, IBM announced (and then later retracted under consumer outrage) a recommendation of 333 power on hours (POH) monthly, which constitutes about 11 hours daily of mostly idle time (but not continuous accesses).  This was in the wake of massive failures among the 75GXP and 60GXP family of drives (my hypothesis is imperfect manufacturing with AFC media["pixie dust"] in its infancy).  Characteristically, the 75GXP and 60GXP would rapidly develop bad sectors, and left unnoticed, would lead to total failure in a short period of time (but not before corrupting most of the data across entire platters). Arguably, both the 75GXP and 60GXP should have been recalled, but the cost would have bankrupt the HDD division of IBM (note: IBM recently handed their unprofitable HDD division to Hitachi).  It's worth noting that IBM still faces a class action suit for the 75GXP failures.  Whether ATA/IDE or even SCSI, majority of all HDDs are mechanical devices that will eventually fail regardless of manufacture; it's simply a question of when.  Most failures begin with the development of bad sectors--areas where if occupied by a file, those portions become unreadable.  Remember, industry MTBFs figures are drivel.  AFR is a wonderful figure if you can actually get it.  Very few manufactures offer this figure unless it is stellar high as in Seagate's X15-36LP's 0.7% AFR (most ATA/IDE drives are considerably higher).

Initial tests of various types of re-writable optical disc mediums (CDR/W, DVD-R/+RW, etc) appeared very promising for archival purposes.  Estimates were as high as 212 years!  In practice, the longevity of such media performed very differently from initial estimates.  Optical mediums are in fact prone to corruption in the course of months (not even years) if not handled correctly (and more rarely even if they are).  Ultraviolet light (e.g., sunlight), heat, rapid changes in temperature, and physical wear can quickly degrade optical media to the point where large portions of the data become corrupted.  Sometimes the reflective layer is poorly bonded to the substrate and begins to separate (sometimes this cannot be seen with the naked eye).

Any time the archive is passed from device-to-device, corruption can occur.  Within your computer and withstanding a HDD failure, the probability for corruption is astronomically high (although recently a thread on this forum revealed extreme corruption occuring from an improperly cooled chipset).  However, exchanging data over the "internet", whether FTP or HTTP, frequently leads to small amounts of corruption.  This may matter little if you have a highspeed connection and an MD5 to confirm the file integrity, but you won't always have the luxury to simply "try again".  Even passage over local area cat5 there is the potential for problems, even if remote.  With the passage of 400++ million bytes that compose your lossless archive there is the potential for loss en route to its destination.

My point is very simple.  We live in an imperfect world where the mediums available to store our valuable data will eventually fail.  If this writing seems pessimistic, and you nor your friends have experienced data-loss or corruption, then count yourself among the lucky.  Nevertheless, rest assured that your time will come.  Backups offer the best level of redundancy, but considering the amount of space lossless archives consume, backups can be difficult and expensive for many users.  Certainly FLACs resiliency cannot replace a good backup strategy, but it does offer some protection when you are in it for the "long haul".  It also adds additional protection when the archive is transfered.

The streamable feature may seem minor, but it is in fact very important to the longevity and overall integrity of your data.  You will be thankful you have it when in the unfortunate event you need it most.  After all, particularly in the case of lossless compression, the sole purpose of the archive is to endure... especially when it's one of few copies in existence.

Support FLAC

best lossless codec ?

Reply #21 –
I found a way to keep lossless files intact for a thousand years.

FLAC it. Then print it. (all 200 pages.) Use Courier New, and make sure it prints Hex digits that can be scanned and OCR'd. Then laminate each page.

I also found a hack to make it last a few more thousand years. Instead of printing, have it engraved. Something the equivalent of a CD-Rom the size of your average olympic swimming pool. The pits, grooves, islands can be seen with the naked eye.

Now, just make sure to store it in a nice place that won't be prone to earquakes or to extreme temperatures that could melt your media.


But to be serious: how about ROM chips? They'll realistically last as long as you don't fry them.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #22 –
Quote
FLAC it. Then print it. (all 200 pages.)


LOL.  Compressed to about 400 million bytes as typical for 74 minutes of music, you're looking at a lot more than 200 pages.  If each page held 4,000 chars(bytes), it would be 100,000 pages! 


Quote
how about ROM chips?

I assume you mean RAM and not ROM because ROM chips are not a consumer writable media (unless you own a facility to produce them to spec). Non-volatile "flash" RAM is expensive.  It's also slow in currently available forms (STR).  Sony recently announced plans for MemoryStick Pro, which will be capable of addressing up to 32GB, but the cost, speed and availability are yet to be determined.  Depending on how flash RAM is packaged, it can be extremely vulnerable or nearly invincible.  In its current state, it is impractical and too prohibitive for the storage of typical lossless compression file sizes and even many lossy ones (although that hasn't stopped some manufactures from selling 64MB MP3 players).

best lossless codec ?

Reply #23 –
or just buy a few drives in raid configuration.  the odds that they will all fail at the same time would be extremely small.

best lossless codec ?

Reply #24 –
Quote
as typical for 74 minutes of music, you're looking at a lot more than 200 pages.  If each page held 4,000 chars(bytes), it would be 100,000 pages!  :o


Well, I was talking about a 20 second sound sample. ... hehehe..

how about ROM chips?
Quote
I assume you mean RAM and not ROM


I did mean ROM.. for the simple reason that nothing can destroy the data on them short of frying them. Or maybe EPROM (assuming adequate protection from UV light.) Not practical but indestructable as far as resilency is concerned.

I wasn't even thinking of price, since 100,000 pages of letter or even A4 is expensive. hehe. Regarding that Sony RAM chip? Slow? It's fast enough to stream 16/44.1 PCM audio isn't it?

Most practical solution I've seen anywhere is the turn-off-able hard drive. Back up your stuff to a hard drive and disconnect its power when you're not using it. Hook it up to your "turbo" switch so you have something cool. It should last you much longer than the average 3 to 5 year lifespan of hard drives, and by then you can relatively safely transfer your stuff to a bigger drive when you upgrade. Not to mention you have stuff like SpinRite and Norton something-or-other to keep the offline drive healthy every few months.