Skip to main content

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: New FLAC frontend beta (Read 48639 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #75
Not sure if this is an outright bug, but it appears quite a bit dramaqueen-esque to report "FAILURE" when it recompresses to a ratio of 1,000? (Wasn't there a longer version/vendor identification string or something, that could trigger this behaviour?)
Edit: hm. Seems like 1.3.1 does not improve for all files anyway.  Maybe the build ...?

No, it is intended behaviour. Technically it is right: FLAC failed to make the file smaller. IIRC the code was altered slightly to trigger later with 1.3.1. You can always submit a patch to the FLAC codebase if you have a suggestion for improving this.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.


New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #77
it is intended behaviour. Technically it is right: FLAC failed to make the file smaller.


Actually, I made a mistake here: I thought the message was triggered even when files were identical, but it it turned out that I had compared outputs from different builds (of 1.3.1).
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #78
The application is not safe to use, not even with the verify option. 

I used it to recompress a larger number of files, and upon bitcomparing afterwards, I found a couple to be truncated by a few minutes; the new files were technically valid FLAC files though.
Fresh copies from the backup then recompressed just fine, and I was never able to reproduce the error as such.

However, I then tried to fill a drive completely and put the recompression at work. The application would then overwrite the old FLAC files with "empty" ones, destroying the music.

In addition, a few files were not successfully renamed. I found them by searching up the temporary files and fixing the file suffix, and then they were bit-identical.

Suggestion: "verify" by comparing new and old. (If one chooses to compare new and old MD5, then beware of a possibly fake MD5 in the old file).
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #79
The application is not safe to use, not even with the verify option. 

I used it to recompress a larger number of files, and upon bitcomparing afterwards, I found a couple to be truncated by a few minutes; the new files were technically valid FLAC files though.
Fresh copies from the backup then recompressed just fine, and I was never able to reproduce the error as such.

However, I then tried to fill a drive completely and put the recompression at work. The application would then overwrite the old FLAC files with "empty" ones, destroying the music.

In addition, a few files were not successfully renamed. I found them by searching up the temporary files and fixing the file suffix, and then they were bit-identical.

Suggestion: "verify" by comparing new and old. (If one chooses to compare new and old MD5, then beware of a possibly fake MD5 in the old file).
Shit, I had a lot of .ape albums that I transfered to flac, using first Monkey's Audio 5.59 to convert ape to wav, and then I used flac_frontend to convert the wav to flac.

I have the original wav md5 (the ripper ripped the Cd to wav and then converted it to ape, so I have both md5).

The best way -and only?- to check if the flac are 100% correct is uncompressing the flac I have now to wav and compare the md5 of the wav I get with the md5 of the original wav (I have it on a .txt). Right?

I used the newest flac_frontend, so maybe this problem you had only happened with the beat/early versions of the program and doesn't happen with the new one??

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #80
The best way -and only?- to check if the flac are 100% correct is uncompressing the flac I have now to wav and compare the md5 of the wav I get with the md5 of the original wav (I have it on a .txt).
Much easier: use a utility that decodes (not converts), like foobar2000 with the foo_bitcompare  component.

Except: The "problem" is, you have to know that you have precisely the same files in precisely the correct order. If you have five pairs of identical and shuffle them, foo_bitcompare cannot know.

Note, the checksum of the .wav file and the audio checksum are not the same. I don't know what you have stored. 
Also, FLAC is a checksummed format, which stores audio md5. If a FLAC file verifies, then the audio matches its md5 - but the problem about the front-end is that it created legal FLAC files, they were just cut short.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #81
Example of the wav's original md5.

https://ibb.co/TwPdxYZ


Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #82
I have installed it, but dont understand what I have to do.

I meant I have the original wav md5, not the original wav. So which 2 files I have to compare? I can only compare the md5, right?

Also, I have the flac's embeded with the cuesheet, so I have to select all tracks for check? :S

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #83
Also, I have the flac's embeded with the cuesheet, so I have to select all tracks for check? :S

You ripped CDs with cuesheets, using e.g. EAC? Then there is a fairly good way to verify at least the most common ones: CUETools and verify with accuraterip / CueTools' own database.

High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #84
Also, I have the flac's embeded with the cuesheet, so I have to select all tracks for check? :S

You ripped CDs with cuesheets, using e.g. EAC? Then there is a fairly good way to verify at least the most common ones: CUETools and verify with accuraterip / CueTools' own database.



I did not rip them, but yes, the CDs were ripped with EAC into wav. I have the md5 of that original (wav). Then the wav was converted to wv/ape, but I don't want wv/ape so I transformed the wv/ape to flac, (using monkey's audio or wavpack frontend to get new wav, and after that I used flac frontend to get the flac, which is the only format I have now of the audio). So I want something quick to verify if the flac I got is 100% true to the very original wav.

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #85
Quote
I have the md5 of that original (wav).
You have the md5 of the audio data within the wav or of the whole wav file?
example:
07 First Time.flac
5bef68f9db6657ea27a6997ae4d7693e (from original wav (audio only))
48599E01D1BDB41628900A8C604F4A68 (from original whole wav file including header)
5bef68f9db6657ea27a6997ae4d7693e (flac fingerprint from frontend (md5 of audio))

korth


Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #87
It was a rhetorical question to present the information in the example. Drag one of the flac images into the flac frontend window, press the "fingerprint" button and see if the result matches the md5 you have.
korth

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #88
I did not rip them, but yes, the CDs were ripped with EAC into wav.

Although the terms of service do not forbid discussion of tools useful for verifying files from sources like these, there is always the option to just shrug it off, and think that if you ever by listening encounter a file that stops short ...
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #89
Quote
I have the md5 of that original (wav).
You have the md5 of the audio data within the wav or of the whole wav file?
example:
07 First Time.flac
5bef68f9db6657ea27a6997ae4d7693e (from original wav (audio only))
48599E01D1BDB41628900A8C604F4A68 (from original whole wav file including header)
5bef68f9db6657ea27a6997ae4d7693e (flac fingerprint from frontend (md5 of audio))

Okey, I unpacked the flac into wav with flac_frontend, checked the md5 (with the program HashTab I can see the md5 of the wav, but I have to go one by one), and the md5 I got with that program is the same on the wav's md5 that I have in the .txt info file (I uploaded the image earlier) Dont know what md5 are those 2 that match of the options you told me). I can't compare the md5's flac because I only have the flac I created (plus it has a different tag now because I embeded a cuesheet), right?

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #90
Can you not just load all your FLAC files in to Foobar2000 and use the File Integrity Verifier plugin?

Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #91
Can you not just load all your FLAC files in to Foobar2000 and use the File Integrity Verifier plugin?

The application generated "technically valid" FLAC files with truncated signal:

I used it to recompress a larger number of files, and upon bitcomparing afterwards, I found a couple to be truncated by a few minutes; the new files were technically valid FLAC files though.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #92
@Porcus Keep the original wave file until it is no longer needed.  Simply run Bit comparator in foobar2000.  If no differences are found, it's safe to delete the original wave file.  If differences are found, then delete the FLAC and re-compress the original Wave file again and then check it again, until either you have a FLAC that is the same as the original Wave file or ready to write a bug report if one track or song is persistently not compressing correctly.  Either way, there's solutions to these of kind of problems that are simple and straight forward enough.

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #93
The problem is I already deleted the wav :S
@Porcus Keep the original wave file until it is no longer needed.  Simply run Bit comparator in foobar2000.  If no differences are found, it's safe to delete the original wave file.  If differences are found, then delete the FLAC and re-compress the original Wave file again and then check it again, until either you have a FLAC that is the same as the original Wave file or ready to write a bug report if one track or song is persistently not compressing correctly.  Either way, there's solutions to these of kind of problems that are simple and straight forward enough.

That's good but I did not have the wav's :(

 

Re: New FLAC frontend beta

Reply #94
@Porcus Keep the original wave file until it is no longer needed. 

Yes, and that is what I advocate, rather than deleting/overwriting.

My situation was that I used the FLAC frontend to recompress FLAC files - immediately overwriting the old ones, replacing some of them with technically valid but destroyed audio. Luckily - (don't) trust, but verify - I compared to my backups.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020