Skip to main content
Recent Posts
3
General Audio / Re: Fake 24-bit FLAC?
Last post by greynol -
* * * If you can't tell I'm a bit annoyed.
If you don't understand WAV as container, you are not just annoyed... all you wrote is bullshit.
Try sometimes to read "bullshit" written by qualified people... maybe you can learn something... but probably not...
One of us understands that wav is a container that doesn't employ a compression algorithm.

Like I said: Dunning-Kreuger
5
General Audio / Re: Fake 24-bit FLAC?
Last post by Porcus -
If you don't understand WAV as container, you are not just annoyed... all you wrote is bullshit.
In contrast to your claim that WAV comes with a lossless compression algorithm?

And ...
Quote
Flac can decode PCM on the fly but loss in sound quality is enormous: nearly twice!
Suggestion: Bong today, Hydrogenaudio tomorrow. Not that much of both on the same night.
6
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: Which is the best lossless codec?
Last post by Porcus -
Some years passed, and TTA still has the password under "pros" AND under "other". And "Ultra low latency" with no other documentation than the dev explaining what measures were taken. (I mean, shouldn't one have measured that it actually accomplishes it?)

A few things generally: the wiki highlights some features that are common among all except the obsolete/oddball ones. Like tagging.
Container support is shared by most, and there is more that fits Matroska now than in old days. I'd say that *total* lack of containerfriendliness is a con. Meanwhile, in Apple-land, there is this thing called .caf. As much as I frown upon Apple's lock-in strategies, is that worth mentioning?


Some codec specific questions follow:

* ALAC.
Tagging support? "QT"? What is the difference between that and other MP4 atoms ... ?
Speaking of which: WavPack and OFR "cons" include "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)". Now look at https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111855.0.html ...
"Fits in the MP4 container". And Matroska. And .caf. 


* FLAC.
"developed by Josh Coalson". Still? Shouldn't there be an "initially"?


* Monkey
"Simple and user friendly. Official GUI provided." Well there are others that have front-ends too?
Under Cons: I'd say that it is a "Con" that it cannot be used in any container around.


* TAK
Still no mention of the open-source third-party decoder ... after six years.


* TTA, then. That does not look very tidy. The so-called "pros":
"Average compression". Yeah, could have been worse ... but a pro?
"Symmetric algorithm". Why is that a pro?
"Ultra low latency". Undocumented, isn't it?
"Password protection" was put under "Other", but is still under "pros".

Again, WavPack and OFR "cons" include "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)". TTA has at least the same tagging methods. Is it proofed against that ambiguity? It is full green in the table on top too.


* WavPack.
"Accept audio files bigger than 4GB". Is it alone about that?
(DSD is under "other". Compared to what is under "pros" for other formats ...)


* WMAL
Hardware support: are those devices still around? If they are not, then what? (WMAL cons: "Not much hardware support left, except for those thirteen Windows Phone customers who are left"? :-o)
And, is the ffmpeg open-source decoder really working as of now? In old days, it had severe limitations.



I would hope for Potter Stewart to guide me on the distinction between "hardware" support and "software" support.

Android is mentioned under "Hardware" I see. Well, for the consumer, the question is: can they use it on devices that are not personal computers? Right?
10
General Audio / Re: Fake 24-bit FLAC?
Last post by greynol -
Flac is a format in a minimalist container.  Flac, the tool, is also a codec.  Will Monkey's Audio be able to decode the compressed audio data inside the flac file?  I didn't think so.

Yes, the compressed audio data inside could be sourced from anything.  It is obviously not a guarantee of losslessness.  Sampling an analog waveform into digitized data is also not lossless for that matter.  The stuff that's encoded with a program like flac or flake and placed in a flac (or ogg) container is the very same stuff when it is pulled out of the container and decoded.  This process is lossless and there is no loss in quality; not this, "enormous, nearly 2x loss in sound quality" nonsense.

I'm also reading elsewhere more bullshit like this:
And, WAV is container too. With lossless compress-algorithm.
What's the point in calling sandwiched data in a container, in its raw uncompressed form, compression?

Let's not bog topics like this down through trivial and incorrect nitpicking and defending it in a Dunning-Krueger fashion.

If you can't tell I'm a bit annoyed.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018