Skip to main content
Topic: FLAC v1.3.2 Final (Read 39990 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #75
Thanks for the build again, why is sox.exe included too now?

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #76
Thanks for the build again, why is sox.exe included too now?
A little mistake when adding the files to the archive....... ;) :D


Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #78
Hmm, I'm kinda wondering, if FLAC will ever be expanded beyond 8 channels. I was looking into shoe-horning more channels into FLAC, breaking the spec, but I've only seen projects that gave up.

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #79
Hmm, I'm kinda wondering, if FLAC will ever be expanded beyond 8 channels. I was looking into shoe-horning more channels into FLAC, breaking the spec, but I've only seen projects that gave up.
FLAC in Matroska?
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

 


Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #82
FLAC in Matroska?
Good call. I'll check it out if it works for me. Would be nice if more hardware supported Matrsoska, though.

Would be quite a scenario if your hardware does support FLAC and does support > 8 channels, but not Matroska ...
ffmpeg has experimental support for FLAC-in-mp4, but I don't know if anything would play it.
If WavPack is an option, then I see a list of 18 channels at http://www.wavpack.com/wavpack_doc.html

Should maybe the Lossless comparison wiki article be updated with channel limitations?
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #83
Would be quite a scenario if your hardware does support FLAC and does support > 8 channels, but not Matroska ...
ffmpeg has experimental support for FLAC-in-mp4, but I don't know if anything would play it.
If WavPack is an option, then I see a list of 18 channels at http://www.wavpack.com/wavpack_doc.html

Management decision, so to say. I use FLAC to save the panadapter section of my ham radio receiver. Using FLAC makes it relatively easy, because I can handle it like any other sound file in things like Audacity, and I can still use the 655MHz bandpass FLAC allows to encode the entirety of my 10MHz window maximum of baseband. Why the >8 Channels I hear you ask? Because I'm using up to 20 of these windows side-by-side (20 receivers). Putting them all into one file (as they're recorded simultaneously), is just more convenient.

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #84
Management decision, so to say. I use FLAC to save the panadapter section of my ham radio receiver. Using FLAC makes it relatively easy, because I can handle it like any other sound file in things like Audacity, and I can still use the 655MHz bandpass FLAC allows to encode the entirety of my 10MHz window maximum of baseband. Why the >8 Channels I hear you ask? Because I'm using up to 20 of these windows side-by-side (20 receivers). Putting them all into one file (as they're recorded simultaneously), is just more convenient.

Huh, now you made me read specs ... So FLAC has max 8 channels (so obviously not intended for multitrack recording, hm? To the level where they could not afford even a full byte?). Good news is that you can set the number of samples to zero for "unknown", since then you are not bound by the less-than-an-hour 2^36 samples for 20 MHz sampling rate.
WavPack on the other hand provides for custom sampling rates and 256 channels - but is not supported by Audacity. According to https://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/FFmpeg_integration#table , Audacity can read WavPack by way of ffmpeg - but not write. IDK whether that is an ffmpeg limitation, but the ffmpeg doc says it only supports WavPack encoding at 32-bits integer, and that was maybe not what you wanted.
But same source claims Audacity can read & write .mka by way of ffmpeg, so why not try your luck at FLAC ...
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #85
@Porcus Yeah, I thought I'd use MPEG-4 ALS, too, but it seems that there's very little software support. MPEG-4 SLS is a similar problem, also it seems the specs aren't fully determined.

I was looking into WavPack, too. 1Hz - 16.777MHz sampling rate, 256 channels.

The more obscure formates, like True Audio are a lot better: 0 (DC) - 4GHz sampling rate, up to 65535 channels (same specs as MPEG-4 ALS). Unfortunatelly, those formats are also not the best when it comes to software support. I mainly handle them in command line, too, as in this case latency isn't really much of an issue, etc. For Recording I use either FFmpeg or SoX.

Re: FLAC v1.3.2 Final

Reply #86
One other thing I forgot to mention in my previous post:

I prefer command line programs doing one thing but doing that rather convenient. I know FFmpeg is fully featured and everything, combines everything into one thing, nice, etc. but tbh. I prefer having a flac, opusenc, or an mkvmerge.

SoX is almost always my go-to solution, when something has to be rigged up there and then. I found myself numerous times having to fix something up, so it "just records" or "just converts" something. Having something "just stream" a video, I did that a couple times with FFmpeg. Some things I can only do with FFmpeg, short of using libavf and libavcodec in my own program.


 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018