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 1.1.1-beta1 released (Read 35489 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #50 –
Quote
Quote
I only added track numbers and genre information. It is possible that the tagging software and/or the method I used was the problem. However, it only was a problem for some of the FLAC files, not all. And all of them had the same type of tags to start with.

there's no way to get any closer to an explanation without knowing what tagging s/w you used.  if you had tags and padding already and you just added a track number it can't be a problem with FLAC.

Josh
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I know it happened with [a href="http://www.mp3tag.de/en/]MP3tag[/url], and I think it also happend with Tagger/Tag although, I am no longer certain of the latter.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #51 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
I only added track numbers and genre information. It is possible that the tagging software and/or the method I used was the problem. However, it only was a problem for some of the FLAC files, not all. And all of them had the same type of tags to start with.

there's no way to get any closer to an explanation without knowing what tagging s/w you used.  if you had tags and padding already and you just added a track number it can't be a problem with FLAC.

I know it happened with MP3tag, and I think it also happend with Tagger/Tag although, I am no longer certain of the latter.

bummer, no source available for MP3tag.  my guess is they're using the FLAC metadata interface incorrectly.  try submitting a bug and I'll help out with the fix.

Josh

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #52 –
Hello,

I have the same problem, so i have post the bug at the Mp3tag board.
I think Florian fix the bug in near future...

Greets
Lucky

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #53 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
I only added track numbers and genre information. It is possible that the tagging software and/or the method I used was the problem. However, it only was a problem for some of the FLAC files, not all. And all of them had the same type of tags to start with.

there's no way to get any closer to an explanation without knowing what tagging s/w you used.  if you had tags and padding already and you just added a track number it can't be a problem with FLAC.

I know it happened with MP3tag, and I think it also happend with Tagger/Tag although, I am no longer certain of the latter.

bummer, no source available for MP3tag.  my guess is they're using the FLAC metadata interface incorrectly.  try submitting a bug and I'll help out with the fix.

I always thought, that I was using the FLAC interface correctly. Here is what I'm doing right now:
  • create a FLAC__Metadata_SimpleIterator
  • look for FLAC__METADATA_TYPE_VORBIS_COMMENT or FLAC__METADATA_TYPE_PADDING
  • if one of above is found, no new block has to be inserted
  • create new FLAC__METADATA_TYPE_VORBIS_COMMENT block
  • resize this block FLAC__metadata_object_vorbiscomment_resize_comments according to number of metadata items
  • add FLAC__StreamMetadata_VorbisComment_Entries via FLAC__metadata_object_vorbiscomment_set_comment to this block
  • use FLAC__metadata_simple_iterator_set_block, if there already was one of FLAC__METADATA_TYPE_VORBIS_COMMENT or FLAC__METADATA_TYPE_PADDING
  • use FLAC__metadata_simple_iterator_insert_block_after, if there was no vorbis comment or padding block.
I also can't really reproduce the problems reported, but any help would be much appreciated, if there is anything wrong with the FLAC part of my tagger.

Thanks!

~ Florian

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #54 –
Ah, OK.  The simple iterator can only take advantage of padding that follows a metadata block, i.e. if you have STREAMINFO, VORBIS_COMMENTS, SEEKTABLE, PADDING, and the VORBIS_COMMENTS grow, it can't use the padding, but it could if you added seekpoints.

It's best in tag editing to use the other interface, which reads all blocks into memory and can move padding around.  It's documented here, and you can see examples of its use in the metaflac code.

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #55 –
Quote
padding is not always sufficient (i.e. when the amount of additionnal datas are really big).
I could imagine that three tagging format is a messy situation, but the two available tagging system are both located on the beginning, which is not the most conveniant place for the basic user (for streaming, it's another story).

For me, it's the worse aspect of flac :/
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230697"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I completely agree here - the only remaining reason why i still prefer monkeys audio is because of the slow tag-updating - since a flac album is much larger than i.e. an mp3-album, rewriting 300mb of data per album can be very annoying.

- Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #56 –
Quote
Ah, OK.  The simple iterator can only take advantage of padding that follows a metadata block, i.e. if you have STREAMINFO, VORBIS_COMMENTS, SEEKTABLE, PADDING, and the VORBIS_COMMENTS grow, it can't use the padding, but it could if you added seekpoints.

It's best in tag editing to use the other interface, which reads all blocks into memory and can move padding around.  It's documented here, and you can see examples of its use in the metaflac code.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232175"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


So, I'm not crazy after all?
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #57 –
Quote
...all I can say is that I was able to do the same task, on several THOUSAND Wavpack files, in about 20 seconds. No disc thrashing.

The FLAC files took about 20 minutes to do about half as many files on the same 7,200 RPM/8MB cache SATA drive, using the same tagging software, adding the same type of information.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=231871"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not disagreeing with your results, I'm simply claiming that I don't believe that the files had to be extended, and suggesting one possible reason for the disk thrashing.

I don't suppose that you have another set of flac files that haven't been modified yet that you could check the length (dir > file.txt from a cmd prompt) before and after modification, do you?
------- Rick -------
--------------------

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #58 –
Quote
Quote
...all I can say is that I was able to do the same task, on several THOUSAND Wavpack files, in about 20 seconds. No disc thrashing.

The FLAC files took about 20 minutes to do about half as many files on the same 7,200 RPM/8MB cache SATA drive, using the same tagging software, adding the same type of information.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=231871"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not disagreeing with your results, I'm simply claiming that I don't believe that the files had to be extended, and suggesting one possible reason for the disk thrashing.

I don't suppose that you have another set of flac files that haven't been modified yet that you could check the length (dir > file.txt from a cmd prompt) before and after modification, do you?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232211"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe that one (possible) cause has already been identified by the respective developers just a few posts up the page.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #59 –
Quote
I don't suppose that you have another set of flac files that haven't been modified yet that you could check the length (dir > file.txt from a cmd prompt) before and after modification, do you?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232211"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just had another thought.  If you didn't specify the padding size to flac.exe, then it used a default of 4096 bytes.  You can use metaflac to see how much of that is in use.  For instance, here's (a piece of) the metadata for a track:
Code: [Select]
METADATA block #2
  type: 4 (VORBIS_COMMENT)
  is last: false
  length: 442
  vendor string: reference libFLAC 1.1.0 20030126
  comments: 14
    comment[0]: Encoder=EAC v0.95pb4 (Secure with C2, accurat
ache) / FLAC 1.10 --best
    comment[1]: TITLE=So You Want To Be A Rock And Roll Star
    comment[2]: ARTIST=The Byrds
    comment[3]: ALBUM=Younger Than Yesterday
    comment[4]: DATE=1967
    comment[5]: GENRE=Rock
    comment[6]: COMMENT=CRC : D259E04A
    comment[7]: TRACKNUMBER=01
    comment[8]: RATING=5
    comment[9]: PLAY_COUNTER=15
    comment[10]: PLAY_DATE=040804
    comment[11]: PLAY_TIME=143111
    comment[12]: replaygain_track_gain=-3.79 dB
    comment[13]: replaygain_track_peak=0.662658
METADATA block #3
  type: 1 (PADDING)
  is last: true
  length: 3967

Ok, you can see that the vorbis comment block is 442 bytes long, and that immediately after it is the rest of the padding -- 3967 bytes worth.  Clearly, my comments never came anywhere near filling up the padding buffer.  If yours didn't, then (I don't think) the files were extended.
------- Rick -------
--------------------

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #60 –
Quote
I believe that one (possible) cause has already been identified by the respective developers just a few posts up the page.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232213"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I was composing my magnum opus. 

All my files are created with STREAMINFO->SEEKTABLE->VORBIS_COMMENT->PADDING.  I wonder under what conditions an alternate configuration would be created?
------- Rick -------
--------------------

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #61 –
Quote
Ah, OK.  The simple iterator can only take advantage of padding that follows a metadata block, i.e. if you have STREAMINFO, VORBIS_COMMENTS, SEEKTABLE, PADDING, and the VORBIS_COMMENTS grow, it can't use the padding, but it could if you added seekpoints.

It's best in tag editing to use the other interface, which reads all blocks into memory and can move padding around.  It's documented here, and you can see examples of its use in the metaflac code.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Josh, for pointing me to that mega-fast interface! I've just changed my tagger to use the level2 interface and released a new [a href="http://developer.mp3tag.de]Development Build[/url] of Mp3tag.

It would be nice, if someone can test the new version.

Best regards,
~ Florian

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #62 –
I'd be happy to give it some testing. I need to copy some FLAC files to my hard drive from DVD. I'll try to test some tonight.
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #63 –
I did a quick test.  154 files in 15 folders, for a total of 4.74GB, on a slower 26GB IDE drive.

The first time I added track numbers by generating new tags from the filenames. The second time I changed the artist name (AC/DC, can't have the slash in the filename). The third time I added the genre information.

Each change that I made only took about 3 seconds to apply to the whole 4.74GB.

By the way, I really like MP3Tag.

Edit: specs are P4 3Ghz, 1Gb Ram
flac > schiit modi > schiit magni > hd650

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #64 –
Hello,

yes the bug is fixed, on my 1,1 Ghz AMD Thunderbird is it fast, too.
Mp3tag also make no Tempfiles on edit a tag.
so have fun with Mp3tag (yes i like Mp3tag, too)

Greets
Lucky

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #65 –
On OSX G.5 dual 1.84g - I don't care about tags. I use Flac to compress sound fx to email to clients.
I've noticed no improvements really but have also had no problems except on decoding one small sample that decoded fine on another machine with 1.1 installed. It seemed a one off. The file did not originate with us and the guy who sent it to me hasn't responded to my questions. I suspect from the error codes that it had to do with tagging. I'm not very anal and don't use the tagging feature at all.

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #66 –
Quote
Each change that I made only took about 3 seconds to apply to the whole 4.74GB.

By the way, I really like MP3Tag.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232317"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quote
yes the bug is fixed, on my 1,1 Ghz AMD Thunderbird is it fast, too.
Mp3tag also make no Tempfiles on edit a tag.
so have fun with Mp3tag (yes i like Mp3tag, too) [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232334"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you both for testing the new build! Glad that the problem is fixed now

Best regards,
~ Florian

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #67 –
The individual track tagging in flac albums is going to be addressed in this new version of flac?

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #68 –
Quote
The individual track tagging in flac albums is going to be addressed in this new version of flac?

no.

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #69 –
Ok, thanks anyway for the new version
 

FLAC 1.1.1-beta1 released

Reply #70 –
Quote
Quote
The individual track tagging in flac albums is going to be addressed in this new version of flac?
no.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=233922"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Excuse me, but don't you mean "Not no, but hell no, not in this version, not in the next version and not ever!" :-)
----
[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']Moderation: removed long off-topic signature.[/span]
------- Rick -------
--------------------