Talk:FLAC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Change "m4a" to "aac"?

In the intro text should 'm4a' be changed to 'aac' since 'm4a' isn't a compression codec, but rather a container that may contain lossless audio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.38.60 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 April 2005‎

Quality setting dependent on processor power?

"...a fast decode time that is independent of compression level." I was under the impression that the Quality field was for exactly that, to compress better or worse depending on the amount of processor power required to decode it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.131.66 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 25 June 2005‎

I may be wrong here (not having looked at the code), but no, the "quality" of a FLAC does not adjust the decode time. It adjusts the encode time. It takes 4-5x longer for a --best compression to happen. (Of course, since it's lossless, you're generally better off just letting it take more time.) But they all decode with pretty much the same CPU usage. Phil Bordelon 14:00, 2005 June 25 (UTC)

Files encoded at a higher compression level require slightly more CPU power to decode, I don't have a citation but you could easily fine one in the developer mailing list or hydrogenaudio or something. Maybe it's just semantics, but using the term "quality" here is misleading and inaccurate seeing as lossless is lossless. - 85.210.50.158 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple minor wonders.

1. Should "Xiphophorus (now called the Xiph.Org Foundation)" become "Xiph.Org Foundation (formerly the Xiphophorus Foundation)"?
2. Does Xiphophorus even bear mention? It seems to be real, but I can't find enough reference to it to even feel comfortably making the changed posited in $1 above. Didn't look a lot, but didn't readily find reference to the name change, at least.
3. Xiphophorus does not have a disambiguation page. It just goes straight to the fish, which could lend weight to not bearing mention, but could also of course just mean there's need for a disambiguation page.

Bits worth of wonder. -Ozzyslovechild 7 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)

xiph originally chose the name after the fish; from their website:

Xiphophorus helleri is a small aquarium fish (the common Swordtail). What's special about it? Not much, really. The Xiph.Org logo doesn't even look anything like a real swordtail, but it's a logo that's been in use a long time.

What the name *does* have is the minimum requirement of one letter 'X' for a technology-related organization. That fact that it's impossible to spell is an added bonus." --Morgajel 15:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

FLAC vs. TTA

How does FLAC compare to TTA, and vice versa? Guaka 17:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to do that as it is already well done at the HydrogenAudio Wiki linked in the comparisons section: [1] (section 10) VodkaJazz 03:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea

There should be a FLAC portable audio player. iRiver's next IFP line should support it. That would rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.77.19 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 September 2005‎

Look up JetAudio, ipod alternative, iaudio plays flac, ogg, mp3, wav, wma - iAUIDO X5L My sister and I have one, and it works quite well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.4.107 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 28 June 2006‎

Also be sure to check out Rockbox. --Luinfana (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

K9spud's TRAXMOD player just recently added support for 1024 blocksize FLAC playback on their homebrewed, open source portable player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresno (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lossless AAC?

Doesn't AAC have a lossless version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.85.35 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 24 January 2006‎

There is the recently-ratified MPEG-4 ALS codec. Information on it can be found here: [2] Aottley 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's Apple Lossless, which is not AAC at all. TMC1221 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph redundancy

Is it wrong that the first two sentences of the article are somewhat redundant? Would it be better to just link the expanded acronym, i.e. "FLAC is an acronym for Free Lossless Audio Codec?

Done.--Frenchman113 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Add trivia section?

I was thinking of adding a trivia section including the --super-secret-totally-impractical-compression-level option for flac. However it seems silly to add a trivia section with only one item. Perhaps someone knows of more trivia, or can think of a place to integrate this into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revision17 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2006‎

Wikipedia discourages the inclusion of trivia sections. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

cue and track shortcuts

Is FLAC capable of using a cue file to make shortcuts to individual tracks on a big .flac file, like with Monkey's Audio? Shawnc 13:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to other Lossless formats

I'd like to see some info about how FLAC compares to other loseless formats in regard to compression speed, decompression speed, gapless playback, and random access. --24.249.108.133 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

:What's wrong with the links that are there? --Mcoder 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Add Link Back?

I would like to see if anyone would object to me adding the link back to our site, The Lossless Audio Blog? Our site tries to bridge the gap between the forums and the various EAC Guides by providing information on getting started with lossless audio formats as well as current news and information. Because the Wiki pages for lossless audio formats are such a great place for those learning about the various formats I feel that our site compliments this and have heard from a lot of users voicing the same opinion.

We are also in the process of moving to our own domain, links are below. Our site was linked here for a few months but it was taken down sometime ago and I did not notice until a user notified me. Thanks for the consideration! Windmiller 11:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Old Site The Lossless Audio Blog New Site The Lossless Audio Blog

Link added back. This was discussed on the talk page. thanksWindmiller 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the ALAC article

Please check the talk page of the ALAC article. Some of the claims made by the article are in dire need of sources. For example I would assume ALAC has a faster decode time cf FLAC if I simply read the ALAC article. Looking at hydrogen audio wiki I don't think this is true but it would be a resonable assumption Nil Einne 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Command-line quibbles/questions

The example commands for flac include things like '-r 0,8' which seems to be unnecessary, as 0 is default if -r is specified and MIN isn't. '-r 8' should achieve the same thing. It also ignores the -{0..8} flags and --fast|--best options, which might be better for the objective. Not really knowing anything about flac, I dunno, but I note those discrepancies, FWIW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.125.16 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 December 2006‎

pistonsoft.com

Hello! I want to add link to the multi format audio converter.
Direct Audio Converter and CD Ripper - is a very useful tool that allows you to convert audio files between various audio formats and rip CD audio tracks directly to MP3, WMA, WAV, OGG, FLAC, Monkey's Audio APE or MusePack MPC.
Please tell me how can I do this?
Thank you.

--AudioMaster 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't. Wikipedia is not a place for product promotion. Femto 15:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Decoding, Encoding, Ripping sections clean-up?

Hi there,

I'm concerned about the fact that most tools for decoding, encoding and ripping listed under Linux (ogg123, mpd, CDDa2wav, CDParanoia, Mencoder) are in fact POSIX-like command shells which are compiled for most UNIX-like OSes (Including BSD-Based OSes, Linux, Mac OS X, etc.). iTunes is listed under Windows and not Mac OS X, and, quite generally, this section seems quite incomplete. I'll do what I can with what I know, but I don't think I'll be able to straighten it up all by myself... Anyways, keep up the good work!

Hara-Tiri 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WMA can be lossless

Deleted the false statement that said WMA is lossless: WMA CAN be configured to be lossless, as its own Wikipedia article says. F15x28 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article did that wrong... but I have a comment... why is this the only article that says a 40-50% rate? - 68.228.56.158 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Software header reorganization

I find the Encoding and the Ripping section to be confusing. From a FLAC perspective isn't ripping the same as encoding? I also notice that some pieces of software are listed multiple times under different headers, this makes it messier than is needed. I propose merging the Encoding and Ripping sections. I also propose creating a combined Decoding / Encoding section to separate the duplicate entries. What do you think? (Requestion 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Realtime encoding

I have a small question that I haven't seen related yet, can the flac implementation encode in realtime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.71.223 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 March 2007‎

Technical details discrepancy?

The article states this in one paragraph:

"It can handle any PCM bit resolution from 4 to 32 bits per sample, any sampling rate from 1 Hz to 1,048,570 Hz"

and this in another:

"FLAC allows for ... a wide range of sampling rates up to 192 kHz, in various bits-per-sample width."

Which is it?

MGlosenger 01:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Several errors need correcting

There are a few errors in this article. As the creator of flac I don't want to edit these myself to avoid any problems with bias, so I'll just list some things that are wrong (in order of appearance) and hopefully someone will investigate:

• the reference FLAC project itself contains only plugins for xmms and winamp (there are many other developed independently)
• our winamp plugin is LGPL
• the reason given for not supporting floating point is incorrect. it is possible for float data to be losslessly coded; FLAC doesn't support this due to little demand
• the max sample rate is 655350Hz. however this limitation can be worked around since the sample rate is not considered in the algorithm; FLAC simply stores it for use in playback at the right rate
• someone has a burr under their saddle about the api changes. they did not "break the compilation of all existing players" or make the software support list "inaccurate because of the changes" (driven home in 3 places in the text!). in fact I submitted patches to dozens of projects (all I could find) for the new api and published an exhaustive porting guide (http://flac.sourceforge.net/api/group__porting.html).
• the stream/seekable/file api layers have been collapsed. I'm not even sure describing the api organization is all that useful

Josh Coalson 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Compression level?

The article mentions up front that it compresses 40-50% -- is there any statistic to back this up? Most of my FLAC rips (highest compression) don't hit 50% compression or even close to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrightbill (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 July 2007‎

I just ripped a CD to FLAC with an average compression rate of 36%, with some individual tracks compressing by ~45% 76.120.68.121 (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ability to stream

Can this format be streamed from a streaming server? Might be useful to add a comment about streaming to the page? --Tomhannen 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can, icecast supports it. --213.196.170.72 (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

compression vs mp3

Do you think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article that CDs encoded to FLAC make files that are about 8 times larger than equivalent mp3s? At least, that's what I've found from my own experience. I just think it would be useful to know (it would have saved me a lot of time if I'd known this before I downloaded software to rip CDs to FLAC). Of course, it would be difficult to verify, but whoever wrote this article seems not to have put much importance on citing their sources anyway.

TheGreekMind (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the mp3 bitrate but my files are like 3 times larger than my mp3s (LAME VBR V0) l33tb0b (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio sources encoded to FLAC are typically reduced in size 40 to 50 percent (47% according to their own comparison) - this is pulled directly from the opening paragraph. Obviously, this level of compression is nowhere near MP3.

MP3, and other lossy formats, may compress a file to ~70% of its original size. (from a lossless source, such as a CD recording) Since FLAC is a lossless compression method, rates are much lower in order to preserve a 1:1 copy of the original source. To achieve a level of compression similar to that of an MP3, the data would have to be corrupted. (made lossy) MP3 encoding destroys the original recording's integrity in order to achieve these levels of compression, which can cause arificating and similar degredation in quality. So, FLAC = exact copy of original, but very limited compression; MP3 = bad quality rendition of original, but greater compression. That's the jist of FLAC versus MP3 for you. 68.209.235.149 (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

VLC info wrong?

http://wiki.videolan.org/FLAC (the wiki of the developers), says:

VLC can only decode [a FLAC] container, and cannot encode it. (Sometimes it can't do that either; I'm getting "flacdec: This stream uses too many audio channels" with 0.8.6c on Tiger)

So it should be moved, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.22.240 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A format or a codec?

Suggestions that it's a codec:

• it's called Free Lossless Audio Codec
• it's in Category:Audio codecs

Suggestions that it's a format:

• stated in the intro
• the paragraph on libFLAC. You don't get implementations of a codec - a codec is an implementation.

Can anybody explain the discrepancy? Was it named FLAC by somebody who doesn't know the meaning of the word, or was the name transferred from a codec to the format as a whole at some time in history? -- Smjg (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's both. A codec codes and encodes to and from a particular format. The difference is only whether you're talking about the storage or the streaming. 206.173.243.159 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So essentially, FLAC is a project that includes both the format itself and the implementation thereof. Looking at it, libFLAC is the codec within the FLAC project, and so the confusion lies in the whole project being named FLAC.

Still, should this really be in Category:Audio codecs? Maybe insofar as it contains some description of libFLAC, which doesn't have its own page, but still.... -- Smjg (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you don't get implementations of a codec"? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if you have multiple implementations of a given data format, then each of these implementations is a distinct codec of the format. To call them implementations of one codec is a contradiction in terms. -- Smjg (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lossy compression ratio

The article says this: "Lossy codecs can achieve ratios of 80% or more by discarding data from the original stream". This is misleading because you can really have just about any compression ratio with lossy codecs. You can encode it for example to 32Kbps or even 16Kbps and it would have a compression ratio of 44:1 or 88:1 (compared to 1411Kbps uncompressed stereo audio). I don't usually edit wikipedia so I just thought I would put this here if anyone else who has more experience feels it should be changed then they can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.47.27 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Asunder?

There seems to be no mention of Asunder in the Rippers/Encoders section. It's a multi-format ripper/encoder (it rips to/encodes MP3, OGG Vorbis, FLAC and optionally WavPack). It is designed for Unix-like operating systems. BlueJayofEvil (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Move "Software support" section to its own page?

That's quite the list of software that support FLAC. Perhaps this section should be moved to a new page such as List of software that support FLAC? -Matt (JVz) (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so. --Deleet (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Embedded Cue-sheets

What players support Flac with embedded Cue-sheets?--92.229.174.58 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Free Legal Advice Centres

The page FLAC was a dab page for this and the Free Legal Advice Centres, but almost all links where for this. I made FLAC a redirect here and added a redirect header here. ospalh (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No flac support on Onkyo TX-NR906

There is no flac support on Onkyo TX-NR906. See page 121 of Owner's Manuals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbeltrao (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound Quality Not Dependent On "encoding" Hardware ?

Something implied but not explicity stated in the article - am I correct in the following:

The FLAC encoder reads the bit pattern from the CD as digital data, not as music.
So, if using a PC to make a FLAC copy of an audio CD - the sound quality of that FLAC copy is not dependent on the quality of the ( probably cheap ) soundcard.
Playing the FLAC file through a high-end audio system will be indiscernable from the original CD played on the same system ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.123.3 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. The CPU is doing the encoding, the sound card doesn't enter into it. A decoded FLAC stream is bit for bit the same was whatever was passed to the encoder that created the FLAC. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support in DLNA certified products

I have just deleted this sentence from the compatibility list : "*Any UPnP A/V / DLNA Device - - e.g. Netgear EVA700, Netgear MP101, Roku Soundbridge or Xbox 360 (when transcoded data is streamed from applications such as TVersity, which uses ffdshow)" For me, it can not be "any" product with DLNA certification since FLAC is not specified in the DLNA's whitepaper. See that link : [3] Bktero (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

decoding support

It would be nice to know if encoding support includes cover art and embedded cue files.--92.228.206.217 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

aTunes?

shouldn't "aTunes" at the bottom be "iTunes" and then placed in correct ABC order? if so, someone else can do this.... sounds too complicated to me ha. - Todayishere (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

News?

Is there any news about a new version or any kind of change log? --blm07 05:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

+ yeah, I second that... it's about time for it. Is 62.143.58.78 (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apple products...

Just added a line about Apple compatibility, as it's the number one question asked in all music/audio forums anywhere ever! So a simple line clarifies the position to help end the repeated question, and is important enough for inclusion on this site. Jimthing (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not important enough for the lede section. You should work it into the hardware and software compatibility sections, as appropriate.—Chowbok ☠ 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 - Please remove from the first paragraph! (And I don't think alac is mp4-based.)--Regression Tester (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree completely. Apple's products dominate the market almost entirely in the West, and this is the number one issue people keep wanting to know about FLAC; thus lead-section is appropriate and allowed. Jimthing (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the opponents. This is an article about FLAC, the lead section in any article should mainly describe the topic (in this case, FLAC), generally and briefly, without explaining some specific details, especially when it's very detailed information about unrelated 3rd parties. This stuff just does not belong in the introduction. And since it's 3:1, we seem to have a consensus here, so I am boldly removing it again.—J. M. (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Apple should get off their iHighhorse and start supporting it. --blm07 06:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

More detail needed

How is it that the Q&A section on the Metallica website can tell me more about FLAC files than Wikipedia? I don't suppose someone in the music field could contribute some insight here... Brazekool (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem in Design section

"FLAC supports only fixed-point samples, not floating-point. This is to avoid the imprecision of floating point arithmetic so as to ensure the encoder is fully lossless." There is no citation for this being the reason to use fixed point samples. Use of floating point samples is mainly to ease in the editing process. All though its also generally more accurate due to its higher dynamic range. FLAC uses fixed point because it is mainly a playback format and fixed point DSPs are cheaper.

http://www.dspguide.com/ch28/4.htm

I'm a junior in computer engineering at the University of Kansas 24.124.49.149 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

More detail, continued

In my experience, FLAC files convert to cda files when ripped to a CD-R, but then 'bounce back into shape' and become FLAC files again (and thus lossless the whole time, I assume) when copied back to disc. If someone could explain that process a bit, that would be great. See the Compact Disc Audio track article, which should have similar info added to it. Thanks in advance. Anarchangel (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Android Support

The line "The Android operating system has supported native FLAC playback since version 3.1." Seems to imply that 3.1 was the first Android version to support FLAC. However, my current phone is running gingerbread (version 2.3x) which I assume is earlier than 3.1 and it supports native flac perfectly fine. Am I missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.105.189 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This may solve your doubts. --189.187.242.53 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality parameter

The article says: "FLAC allows for a Rice parameter between 0 and 16." I don't know what this means -- and it will be very obscure and unhelpful to the average reader.

It is important to offer readers a practical understanding of the quality parameter in common usage:

• stackoverflow.com/questions/14655678/does-the-flac-audio-format-have-multiple-quality-settings

"The quality parameter for FLAC refers to the quality of compression, not audio. The audio will stay lossless but you get a better compression with higher quality. Higher quality will take more time to compress however.

See docs http://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Encoding_Settings

Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC): FLAC is a popular lossless, freely available open source encoder. [2] Quality Settings: 0 - 8. Sets the quality of compression (and not sound, which is lossless), 8 meaning most compressed/time/effort."

These resources are relevant and helpful:

• www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=94187

What differences among CUETools outputs? libFlake/libFLAC/flake/FLACCL, Moderation—derailed into a verbose discussion about compression levels

• www.cuetools.net/wiki/CUETools_FLAC_encoders_comparison

" Compression levels

libFLAC has compression levels 0..8, where 0 is the fastest and 8 provides the best compression ratio. libFlake and FlaCuda are tuned differently, so libFlake -5 might in fact compress better than libFLAC -8. They also support additional compression levels 9-11, however their use is not recommended, because those levels produce so called non-subset files, which might not be supported by certain e.g. hardware implementations.

FLAC specifies a subset of itself as the Subset format. The purpose of this is to ensure that any streams encoded according to the Subset are truly "streamable", meaning that a decoder that cannot seek within the stream can still pick up in the middle of the stream and start decoding. It also makes hardware decoder implementations more practical by limiting the encoding parameters such that decoder buffer sizes and other resource requirements can be easily determined. flac generates Subset streams by default unless the "--lax" command-line option is used."

In sum, readers need to understand that the quality setting will affect how long the compression takes, will generally lead to a relatively small difference in compressed file size, have very little impact on decoding time, and not impact the "lossless" aspect at all -- unless taken to such an extreme that incompatibilities might arise. -96.237.4.73 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)