FLAC the new format to trade?

Started by dsanchez, August 30, 2005, 00:52:21

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dsanchez

Converting our shows to FLAC we can trade about 8 gigs in a DVD-R, this save lot of money in postage!

However, some people think FLAC makes lose some degree of quality. The truth is that FLAC just compress the original WAV file, but then we can get exactly the same original WAV as before!. Of course we HAVE TO use the "Exact audio copy" to get the most accurate copy of the gig.

And more about FLAC:

How can I be sure FLAC is lossless?
How much testing has been done on FLAC?

First, FLAC is probably the only lossless compressor that has a published and comprehensive test suite. With the others you rely on the author's personal testing or the longevity of the program. But with FLAC you can download the whole test suite and run it on any version you like, or alter it to test your own data. The test suite checks every function in the API, as well as running many thousands of streams through an encode-decode-verify process, to test every nook and cranny of the system. Even on a fast machine the full test suite takes hours. The full test suite must pass on several platforms before a release is made.

Second, you can always use the -V option with flac (also supported by most GUI frontends) to verify while encoding. With this option, a decoder is run in parallel to the encoder and its output is compared against the original input. If a difference is found flac will stop with an error.

Finally, FLAC is used by many people and has been judged stable enough by many software and hardware makers to be incorporated into their products.

Source: http://flac.sourceforge.net/faq.html#general__lossless_trust
2023.11.22 Lima
2023.11.27 Montevideo

lostflower4

You know David, after you made that trade proposal, I did more research on the format. I found the exact same info you listed. I want to believe it's true, but I still am a bit skeptical about how perfect it is. On the other hand, I realize we're talking about an infinitesimal difference, if any at all.

I even enjoy listening to and trading mp3's, but trading "lossless" brings the idea of perfection into the mix. So if you're striving for that, you might as well go all out. One test I did that first made me doubtful was that I took a wav, converted it to FLAC, and then back to wav. The second wav did not exactly match the file size of the original (a few bytes difference). This made me think that some sort of corruption had occurred. Then I converted the 2nd wav into FLAC and back to wav again. The 3rd wav did indeed match the 2nd wav. And from this point on, they continued to match. This made me wonder...

After seeking more info the other day, I came across a question in a FAQ regarding the initial two wav's not matching. The explanation was that the wav format was not made specifically for audio, and that some unneccesary information is contained in the file structure. This is removed by the FLAC encoding process, and this explains why the second wav file does not match.

In the meantime, here is what I believe the future of trading should be, and very well could be... Hard drives will continue to expand in size exponentially, getting into many terrabytes. High speed internet connections will become even faster and more common for everyone. Once all these things happen, people could e-mail each other wav files, and there wouldn't be a thing to worry about! :smt024

What I just said about computer technology isn't too far fetched. Back 1997 I had a 9 gig hard drive and a 56K modem. That was really awesome for the time. And look at things now! We're talking over a hundred fold difference in some cases. People are already doing wav trades, but for me, I have stupid bandwidth limitations... And this probably won't be the last time you hear about it. :twisted:  

Much information on FLAC can be found here, but I wonder about bias because it seems to be written largely by the developers of FLAC software.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/faq.html

bluewater

I'm sick of this EAC, EAC, EAC thing. The Only benefit EAC has is the log- file which is nice. It doesn?t make
any difference which software you use to rip your cd's IF you have a good DAE drive like some of the plextor?s or nec.

If you have a crappy DAE drive like the lite-on?s, EAC will freeze anyway
on scratched cd?s, so it?s even dangerous to use that program then.
Life's too short to listen to lossy music

lostflower4

Quote from: bluewaterI'm sick of this EAC, EAC, EAC thing. The Only benefit EAC has is the log- file which is nice. It doesn?t make
any difference which software you use to rip your cd's IF you have a good DAE drive like some of the plextor?s or nec.

If you have a crappy DAE drive like the lite-on?s, EAC will freeze anyway
on scratched cd?s, so it?s even dangerous to use that program then.

I just bought a Plextor PX-716A drive. It has error correction that I've heard is superior to that of EAC. And it's so fast! EAC is slooooow. :(

bluewater

That?s a very wise decision, Caley, you can be confident that you will
never need EAC with that drive.

To all, a simple rule:

Always prefer hardware to the software!

Buy a quality DAE drive like the plextors and use a simple and fast ripping
software like the excellent "audiograbber" (www.audiograbber.de).
Buffered burst mode will do the trick then.

I have a NEC nd-2510a and it rips anything perfectly, even
faulty pressed cd?s that won?t play on any cd-player.

However, if you have bad audio-extract drive like the lite-on?s, use EAC then. But beware, that program might freeze and freeze also your computer.

-bluewater
Life's too short to listen to lossy music

bluewater

There?s a problem with the eac settings on my drive. I Don?t
know how to solve them though. Buffered burst mode would probably
be the best for my drive but then there?s no need for eac anymore as
audiograbber uses b.b. also

-bluewater
Life's too short to listen to lossy music