[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif why use .wav when it creates the same exact output as shorten or flac (etc) and saves you about half, in disk space? also, wav does NOT have crc built in. you won't know if your file has bit errors (later). I believe flac and most other modern 'containers' have crc ability so you can run some checksum program on the file and know if its been bitflipped or not somewhere (see 'flac tester'). you really should consider converting your wav to flac. you won't lose a thing but you'll gain some nice utility.

In case you do not understand when you would need such a feature I will provide an experience I had not long ago. I have all my music stored in FLAC on a file server that has a scsi raid controller. Well the only thing on the array is the music. One day I was playing some songs and they were failing. So I manually ran the flac check on them and sure enough they were corrupted. I wrote a small bash script to check all my files and a large portion of my FLAC files were corrupted. What happened I thought, I check the last modifed date on the corrupted files and I noticed that was a date I did some metadata changes to a lot of files. I used metaflac to change the data on another uncorrupted file and bam it corrupted that file. Digging into my system logs I noticed I was getting all kinds of write errors from the raid controller. Turns out the controller went belly up. Like a good sysadmin I have backups and was able to restore. However I had to go pretty far back into my backups, if I had not had found it when I did I could have very well lost any good backup.

I now have a script that runs weekly that will email me if it finds any errors.

 

[gordolindsay]

So, it wasn't flac that was messing up, it was your raid controller right?

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gordolindsay /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, it wasn't flac that was messing up, it was your raid controller right?

right. sorry for the wall of text.

The fact that flac has CRC allowed me to quickly identify which files were corrupt. And it allows me to now verify if a problem arises and gives me the appropriate time to recover.

While data storage is getting cheaper, it still is not infinite so you can only retain backups so far. My current system allows me to keep a backup as old as 3 months. However large portions of my library do not get heard within that period could get corrupted and the backup eventually lost since the backup system would not know the file was corrupt.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk_guy182 /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLAC is a good format that offers a neutral sound unlike .wma. However, it all depends on how you rip your cds. Some FLAC files sound as bad as some 128kpbs mp3s.

Hmmmm, how is that?
FLAC is lossless, so it obviously can't be the reason for bad sound on par with 128kbps MP3's. Its either an insane bad record, or a rip gone bad. I would say...

 

[squall343]

ALAC for me..

due to ipod

 

[yepyep_]

flac

 

[punk_guy182]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmathis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hmmmm, how is that? FLAC is lossless, so it obviously can't be the reason for bad sound on par with 128kbps MP3's. Its either an insane bad record, or a rip gone bad. I would say...

FLACs have usually a lower bitrate than PCMs and their bitrate varries also. The bitrate variation occurs in the cd ripping process.

I have FLACs that go as high as 5000kbps (DVD-A) and others as low at 478kbps.

FLAC is just a format like mp3. It doesn't mean it is 100% lossless. That is how I understand it.
The best way around is too stick to true PCM that exactly match the source of the recording.

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk_guy182 /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLACs have usually a lower bitrate than PCMs and their bitrate varries also. The bitrate variation occurs in the cd ripping process. I have FLACs that go as high as 5000kbps (DVD-A) and others as low at 478kbps. FLAC is just a format like mp3. It doesn't mean it is 100% lossless. That is how I understand it. The best way around is too stick to true PCM that exactly match the source of the recording.

Here instead of me trying to explain it this is probably better:
FLAC - features

In case you are lazy the short answer is FLAC is lossless hence the NAME. Free LOSSLESS Audio Codec

Lossless means NO LOSS.

 

[Lunchbox2]

this is funny. I would use iTunes if it supported FLAC, but it doesn't, so I use media monkey.

 

[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk_guy182 /img/forum/go_quote.gif FLACs have usually a lower bitrate than PCMs and their bitrate varries also. The bitrate variation occurs in the cd ripping process. I have FLACs that go as high as 5000kbps (DVD-A) and others as low at 478kbps.

Sure!
But the bitrate on FLAC (and other lossless codecs) don't matter, as its lossless.

..and I have files with bitrates from 2kbps up to 6470kbps. Ok, I am using Apple Lossless, but same deal over there.
They are all lossless, and contain the same audio data as its uncompressed source.

Quote:

FLAC is just a format like mp3. It doesn't mean it is 100% lossless. That is how I understand it.

Then your understanding is wrong!
Its a codec, just like MP3. But there ends the similarities. MP3 is lossy, while FLAC is lossless. I suggest you read up on lossless...

 

[dmealsr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by abellaw /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't worry Reputator, you are not the only one who uses WMA lossless. I also use that format, mostly because i have a zune but so far i have had no problems with it

I use WMA Lossless also. Also because I use a zune. I have both an ipod nano and zune, use itunes and zune software on different computers. I personally prefer using zune software since for lossless I can use WMA lossless, and use the zune subscrip for all you can eat every month.
Oh, and the zune sounds better through the headphones out than ipods do (touche!).

But really, those bashing WMA lossless or anything but ALAC or FLAC, who cares. It's your personal choice. Yeah, maybe one codec works better universially or something, but that doesn't really apply to an individual's needs or preferences, like me, who I could care less if WMA lossless worked with anything else, since it works with what I use.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk_guy182 /img/forum/go_quote.gif F FLAC is just a format like mp3.

you are confusing this with the concept of a 'container'.

flac is not just a container but also an ecoding format.

Quote:

The best way around is too stick to true PCM that exactly match the source of the recording.

any lossless format expands back 100% to the original. the only issue is 'time' (but flac was built to be 'fast' to expand so its never a real problem).

 

[E.B.M.Head]

You can read up how Lossless Compression works. Try this:
Monkey's Audio - a fast and powerful lossless audio compressor, or http://www.wavpack.com/WavPack.pdf.

Another nice player that supports FLAC & WavPack (MP3 & Ogg Vorbis as well) is JavaTunes.

 

[gadgetman]

For lossless codecs, technically the lower the bitrate, the better their performance (as codecs) is.

 

[xbox2xbox]

wma lossless is good but i havnt see any portable player can suppot that..

i use ape/ flac

but those japanese anime music is often compressed as tta..

.....well i use flac more often than the other two