Skip to main content
Topic: Which is the best lossless codec? (Read 362632 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #376
How was it determined that it doen't support replaygain?  So long as the format supports tagging, doesn't it boil down to the player?

Post #65
Quote
I think there's a mistak in the table : Monkey's Audio does have Replaygain support, I think
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Only in foobar2000, AFAIK, which is hardly a format feature and more of a player feature.

And [a href="http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=33226&view=findpost&p=275971]post #109[/url]:
[Pipe support is] different than, E.G, tagging or replaygain, IMO, because these features need to be supported everywhere that format is supported. No use if foobar supports replaygain with Monkey's Audio and Shorten. All other tools won't support it. With pipes, one implementation is enough.


BTW: in the very first available revision (21:22, 10 April 2005? Rjamorim (Initial commit converted from the HA post.)) only FLAC, OFR, TTA and WavPack were described as "ReplayGain compatible". (One can ask kurtnoise why one format supports RG and the other doesn't)

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #377
One doesn't have to ask either of them.  The rational doesn't make sense today, and likely didn't then.

I removed the row.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?


Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #379
I whole-heartedly apologize for the grave oversight.

In case it wasn't clear, my earlier questions were rhetorical.  Replaygain support depends on the way in which a player chooses to retrieve the metadata.  While this is often achieved through tagging, this doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Apple has chosen their own proprietary method of loudness equalization, though it has been demonstrated that this can be manipulated to accept 3rd-party gain adjustments.  Microsoft (AFAIK) doesn't employ loudness equalization in their media player.  These two are really the only exceptions and unless it is known that ASF absolutely cannot handle replaygain information, this issue of replaygain compatibility falls squarely on the two respective media players, not the formats themselves.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #380
Thanks for the fixes,...

...but I think there are some other inconsistencies there:

ALAC pros: "Open source (encoding and decoding via FFmpeg and CUETools, decoding only via a standalone decoder)". Reference open source codec isn't even mentioned, as well as refalac program that is based on its code.

Monkey's Audio: "Error handling = yes" in the table,  but "No error robustness" in APE cons.

TTA: "Password protection" in both TTA pros and TTA other features.

LA: "hasn't been updated for more than 10 years" but "backward compatibility is not guaranteed". A bit self-contradictory: what backward compatibility means if there are no new versions?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #381
and unless it is known that ASF absolutely cannot handle replaygain information


At least foobar2000, Winamp and AIMP write standart RG tags to WMA files.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #382
Why didn't you present those in your previous post?

I'll fix the MAC inconsistency.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #383
At least foobar2000, Winamp and AIMP write standart RG tags to WMA files.

That only strengthens my point.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #384
I was surprised to see in the "FLAC Other features":
Quote
Fits the Ogg, AVI[2] and Matroska containers

AVI! IIRC, AVI container doesn't support VBR audio very well.
So I tried. Yes, ffmpeg managed to remux a 20MB FLAC file into a 183MB AVI. Of course, this is much larger than 16bit uncompressed PCM stored in AVI. This is insane, and I don't think any use of it. Is it really worth mentioning?

BTW, ALAC also fits in Matroska container: http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/codecid/index.html

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #385
So I tried. Yes, ffmpeg managed to remux a 20MB FLAC file into a 183MB AVI. Of course, this is much larger than 16bit uncompressed PCM stored in AVI. This is insane, and I don't think any use of it. Is it really worth mentioning?

I read in the VLC changelog that VLC supported playing it, so I added it quite a while ago. I didn't know it was that useless. It should indeed probably be removed then.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #386
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?
Memento: this is Hydrogenaudio. Do not assume good faith.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #387
Probably it makes sense to simplify this page a bit.


Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #389
So what's stopping you?
Apart from two pages trying to get certain users understand that one should first get facts right AND establish consensus over what is important and what is not?

(FWIW, I also agree with @lvqcl that it makes sense to rewrite it.)

But heck, I removed the password feature from TTA pros (and left it in "other"). So, one down. The facts on the rest, anyone?



Memento: this is Hydrogenaudio. Do not assume good faith.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #390
WMAL decoding with FFmpeg should be bitexact. If not pleases provide sample(s).

 

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #391
In any case, seriously: should one move WMAL to the "other" formats section of the wiki? I see reasons against, but ...

WMAL decoding with FFmpeg should be bitexact.
At least the ticket was closed a couple of years ago.
(Which means that it is not *that* urgent to convert over those files out of fear of waking up to a Win10 update where WMAL is Zune'd forever. Well the chief reason why I am not worried over that, is that I don't have any such files.)

For "pros/cons", I have no idea whether this issue is still current status: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,92847.msg818055.html#msg818055
Memento: this is Hydrogenaudio. Do not assume good faith.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018