Have to admit I don't know anything about FLAC. Any
particular strengths or common uses (I don't have the
strength to Google it)?
.
SlimJim

Yeah. It's good.

_________________
"Life," said Marvin dolefully, "loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."

Well, for instance, the band Primus is selling recordings of all their live shows in 2003. You can download in two formats: MP3 or FLAC.

The MP3's cost $9.95 each whereas the higher quality FLAC 's will cost you $12.95 each.

See the link below for some details.

Primus LIVE

-DC-

Woah.
A Primus fan.
Primus sucks!

_________________
"Life," said Marvin dolefully, "loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."

Umm, live recordings, as in crappy sound from the beginning. Who would pay more for the same content, straaaange.

_________________
AMiGA

FLAC - Free Losless Audio Codec

lossless, but with bad compression (obviously)

_________________
#amiga.org @ irc.synirc.net

elektro_O wrote:
Quote:

FLAC - Free Losless Audio Codec lossless, but with bad compression (obviously)

Why do you say "bad compression (obviously)". Is it because you know it's bad? If so then don't read any further.

Or has it just slipped your mind that data compression and data reduction are two different things?

I didn't want to be a smart ass, but I think it's important to distinguish between reduction and compression.

_________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Well at least I know why now it is called lossless, it hasn't done any form of compression with the files, they are just as big as the orginals.

But with the way it works I have prob done something wrong! I'll stick with MP3 at least I know how that all works!

_________________

gemini Wrote:
Quote:

Well at least I know why now it is called lossless, it hasn't done any form of compression with the files, they are just as big as the orginals.

Why do you say that? Have you tested it yourself? I have not tested myself, but on the flac site you can read a comparison that says different!
Quote:

The input corpus currently consists entirely of CD music tracks. In the future it may include more kinds of input (like speech, other sample rates/resolutions, etc). There are 14 tracks whose genres range from rock to pop to death metal to classical to chant. Codec --------- Average compression ratio La 0.3c -------- 0.4986 flac ------------ 0.5459 RIFF WAVE ---- 1.0000

1.0000 means no compression.

But I could be wrong since I haven't verified myself.

And again, "lossless" is because it uses no data reduction.

_________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Because it is bad, only around 50%. I don't know whats your problem here.

_________________
#amiga.org @ irc.synirc.net

Quote:

Because it is bad, only around 50%. I don't know whats your problem here.

OK!

You obviously have knowledge about this so why not share?

What Codecs/formats (Non loosy) can compress much better than 50%?
How good compression ratio would you consider as "good"? I know now 50% is bad!

I happily accept any other info/links on this matter.

_________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Bad when compared to mp3, ogg,... not when compared to other lossless codecs.

_________________
#amiga.org @ irc.synirc.net

Quote:

Poster: elektro_O Date: 30-Nov-2003 15:53:17 Bad when compared to mp3, ogg,... not when compared to other lossless codecs.

Thats a bit like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

_________________
Kind Regards

Morten Strårup

When you do things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.

@fjudde

Yes i have tested it, that is where I made the observation from. I rarely say something about a product unless I have tried it myself.

FLAC does do data reduction (otherwise it couldn't make the file smaller ) But it doesn't lose the data like MP3, and when it is reconstructed it is the same as it was before.

FLAC works by looking at data that is the same and replaces it with a smaller version. Unlike MP3 which losses data (a bit like JPG) Flac doesn't (more like PNG), yet both make the file smaller.

Like I said I probably had missed a setting somewhere and it didn't activate the compression. Even so 50% isn't enough, I would rather lose the sounds i can't hear with MP3 and have a file that is only 10% of the original.

_________________

Thanks gemini for your answer.

But I think you misunderstood me at one point.

gemini wrote
Quote:

FLAC does do data reduction (otherwise it couldn't make the file smaller) But it doesn't lose the data like MP3, and when it is reconstructed it is the same as it was before.

When I said "data reduction" I meant that the data is reduced (thrown away, not retrievable) just like mp3 and jpeg. Yes I agree upon that the size of the file that the data is stored in is reduced. But "data reduction" is not the same as only reducing the file size, because compression does that to. I think that the right terms to use are:

data compression = lossless size reduction.
data reduction = lossy but much larger size reduction than data compression.

http://www.ictcompress.com/products_technology.html
Quote:

...Data reduction is not the same as data compression...

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug98/articles/datacompression.html
Quote:

...the more accurate description is data reduction...

http://www.informatik.fh-hamburg.de/~windle_c/Logologie/MP3-Gefahr/MP3-risk.html
Quote:

...during lossy data compression (data reduction) the original signal is not reconstructed 1:1...

http://www.visionengineer.com/comp/data_compression.shtml
Quote:

...Some purists even call it "data reduction" instead of "data compression...".

I hope you don't hate me forever for this.

_________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Snuden wrote
Quote:

Thats a bit like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

That's what I think to.

@elektro_O
I choose different formats for different purposes. Lossy and lossless formats to me are different and are complements to each other.

_________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Quote:

Thats a bit like comparing apples and oranges, isn't it?

It certainly is. I agree with you!

A big difference with data compression and data reduction is: no professional would ever consider a data reduction format, if you wanna use the data for further work.

On the other hand a data reduction format could be very handy for end users, where you wouldn't use the data for further work.

It's two completely different things.

Where did i claim it's the same?! the fact is flac and other lossless codecs have lousy compression but this is logical and thats what that 'obviously' meant. i never compared them in quality etc...

ffs

_________________
#amiga.org @ irc.synirc.net