FLAC or WavPack? Or? 2006-12-12 14:59:27 Hi all,Speculating, yes! But what I'm wondering about are the chance to see the one or the other to become THE standard in lossless audio compression and in particular supported natively in commercial apps, such as audio editors etc... and also audio devices (car or portable) in the future. I've picked FLAC (at -5) and WavPack (at default). I think FLAC is on a good way for that.Both codecs with these settings are on par on the aspects suiting my needs: speed and compression ratio, though I've got a little preference towards WavPack, regarding compression - and speed - at default setting.Both codecs are cross-platform, widely supported. However FLAC seems advance compared to WavPack, regarding this aspect.Thanks to the developpers and community, the formats are supported in most populars players and apps at the time being. Also, FLAC more often natively than WavPack.But we've seen WavPack being implemented in WinZip recently...I'd pick FLAC.I've got a huge collection of audio samples on audio CDs that I need to archive.And I'm still hesitating which one to choose regarding this particular aspect: native support (I certainly mean: support as standard) that we can expect in the future and especially on Windows and Mac OS X platforms.Speculating too: Perhaps, this is a silly question as storage capacity is becoming cheaper and cheaper, we will certainly, in the future I'm thinking about, have no need of compressing audio (rather than video).And, maybe I go wrong and commercial lossless codecs such as Apple's ALAC or Microsoft's WMA will never let the way for those two codecs to become "standard". And so should I go for ALAC instead of FLAC for instance?Okay, this was just a (plenty of?) question. Alex.