What is a "local implementation?" Do you mean the hardware version number?
I think Pierre-Yves may be correct. There certainly were some changes to 24-bit support, and many of these problematic FLAC files are HD audio. In other words, they're not simply 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD audio converted to FLAC, but they are 24/96 or 24/192 audio in FLAC format. The only curious thing is that using flac 1.2.1 with --fast or compression level 0 is enough to make the hardware happy. In that case, are only the old Rice codings used for lower compression levels with 24-bit audio? You raise a good point, Nicholas. I would like to see manufacturers give specific information about what level of the FLAC format they support. The BDP-95 does not mention FLAC in the manual at all, and the web page only mentions FLAC twice - once in a bold heading, and again in the body of text. Neither mention of FLAC gives any details at all - they just put it in the list of formats. I suppose, in comparison, that MP3 players usually don't give any details about whether the hardware supports 320 Kb or multichannel or anything else. Perhaps we're reaching an age where nobody cares about the details. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Feb 6, 2011, at 15:24, Nicholas Bower wrote: > Version 1.2.1 of the standard/spec or the local implementation? > > I've not seen "FLAC 1.0/1.1 Compliant" or "FLAC 1.2 Compliant" on > the specs of hardware gear for example when FLAC is stated supported. > > Just a curious on-looker. > > > On 7 February 2011 02:34, Pierre-Yves Thoulon > <py.thou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Version 1.2.1 introduced new rice coding techniques that are used by >> the reference encoder for 24 bit files. An older version of the >> decoder will have trouble with frames that use this encoding... Maybe >> that's where the strange noises come from... _______________________________________________ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac