Re: [Flac] FLAC: re-encoding
Harry, I wrote a little command line utility for this in C# - the lib it uses is a little overkill for the task but it does work. As Josh noted there is no compression gain, so I wouldn't bother unless you have FLAC's encoded with older versions. I also think Josh said there's a .BAT file out there that does the same thing. Here's the file: http://idsharp.com/download/reflac02.zip It creates backups and shows encoder/decoder windows by default, you can turn these off with -nb (no backups) and -nw (no windows). Have flac.exe in the same directory as the tool and run something like: reflac -8 -r "c:\flac" Which will reflac all .flac files in c:\flac, revursively (-r), with compression level 8 (-8). The source is available if you're interested. On 7/25/07, Josh Coalson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi > > I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC > 1.2.0.: > > - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the > FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? yes, flac can take FLAC files as input, but there is no compression advantage going from 1.1.4 to 1.2.0 > - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any > other > 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 > encoder? yes, if they are FLAC compliant Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: general question
Perhaps a more important question is how much electricity is required to decode FLAC, and how much heat is generated - for embedded CPUs of course. FLAC might not become popular for portable players if it shortens their battery life significantly. While there is the problem that .flacs take up more Flash drive space than lossily compressed tracks, portable players with larger capacities are more widely available now, and cheaper than they used to be, so I expect the use of flac on portable players to become more widespread. Best, Mike Crawford aka Rippit the Ogg Frog [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oggfrog.com/ ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] Bug: flac --replay-gain thinks that I used --no-padding
Josh Coalson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Scott F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I use flac to encode with the --replay-gain > > option, I get a warning about the --no-padding > > option... > > > > "NOTE: --replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with > > --no-padding" > > > > ...even though I'm not using --no-padding. And the > > file does end up with a small padding block, so > > changing tags is slow. > > hmm, I can't reproduce that warning unless I use --no-padding or > -P0, are you using any padding option? can you post the entire > command-line? With an unmodified flac 1.2.0, here's everything I can tell you: $ uname -a OpenBSD acquiescent4 3.9 GENERIC#0 i386 $ file robot.wav robot.wav: Microsoft RIFF, WAVE audio data, 16 bit, stereo 44100 Hz $ flac --replay-gain robot.wav NOTE: --replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with --no-padding flac 1.2.0, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details. robot.wav: wrote 1195530 bytes, ratio=0.898 $ metaflac --list robot.flac METADATA block #0 type: 0 (STREAMINFO) is last: false length: 34 minimum blocksize: 4096 samples maximum blocksize: 4096 samples minimum framesize: 14 bytes maximum framesize: 16394 bytes sample_rate: 44100 Hz channels: 2 bits-per-sample: 16 total samples: 332800 MD5 signature: baa7a6600e90050735e6e52437fca10f METADATA block #1 type: 3 (SEEKTABLE) is last: false length: 18 seek points: 1 point 0: sample_number=0, stream_offset=0, frame_samples=4096 METADATA block #2 type: 4 (VORBIS_COMMENT) is last: false length: 223 vendor string: reference libFLAC 1.2.0 20070715 comments: 5 comment[0]: REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS=89.0 dB comment[1]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN=-12.88 dB comment[2]: REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_PEAK=1. comment[3]: REPLAYGAIN_ALBUM_GAIN=-12.88 dB comment[4]: REPLAYGAIN_ALBUM_PEAK=1. METADATA block #3 type: 1 (PADDING) is last: true length: 7 $ Regards, Scott ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] metaflac
--- Christopher Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi List, > > I am writing an audio player that exclusively plays FLAC sound files, > with CUE sheets. It is written in Python, so it is cross-platform, > and > it is working very well so far. The soundfile IO is handled by the > Audiere library. For metadata (aside from the CUE sheet), I make > system > calls to metaflac to do things like extract album art for display, > and I have a question concerning metaflac. > > Is there a way to check for the existence of a tag before retrieving > it? > When I try to get an image from a FLAC file, if it does not exist, > FLAC > returns an error. This is really not a big deal, because my program > runs fine through the error, but it does show up in my programs > output, > and anyway it seems like the more proper way to do it is to first > check > to see if the tag is present before retrieving it. Not really a big > deal, I just wanted to know if I overlooked something, because I > don't see how to do it. not sure I understand... is the image in a tag? if you do "metaflac --show-tag=TAG" and TAG does not exist, metaflac prints nothing and the exit code is 0. if it does, it prints the matching tags and the exit code is 0. so how are you getting the error? images are now supposed to be stored in the dedicated PICTURE block and that should be accessed via libFLAC http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html#metadata_block_picture http://flac.sourceforge.net/api/group__flac__metadata__level0.html#ga3 you can check for the existence of a PICTURE block with "metaflac --list |grep ..." or with libFLAC using the metadata iterators. Josh Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] Bug: flac --replay-gain thinks that I used --no-padding
--- Scott F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I use flac to encode with the --replay-gain > option, I get a warning about the --no-padding > option... > > "NOTE: --replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with > --no-padding" > > ...even though I'm not using --no-padding. And the > file does end up with a small padding block, so > changing tags is slow. hmm, I can't reproduce that warning unless I use --no-padding or -P0, are you using any padding option? can you post the entire command-line? Josh Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] Re: FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
--- Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/7/25, Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Hi > > > > I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode > it to > > WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch > > So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message > above > > still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exe > doesn't > > want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature > mismatch, or is > > this not possible at all? if that is the only error given even when decoded with -F, then it got all the samples back. they are also highly likely to be the same samples that were encoded. most likely they were encoded on a machine with bad hardware (bad ram, aggressive overclocking), less likely is that the file was corrupted or tampered with. > An additional question: what happens if you re-encode a FLAC file, > that > gives the error message 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' while trying > to > decode to WAV, to another FLAC file using a later version of the FLAC > encoder? I tried this and it seems to work, but I'm wondering if the > audio > data is still the same in the new file as in the old file? Or what > happens > in the re-encode process when such a input FLAC file is re-encoded to > another FLAC file? the audio data is the same, otherwise it is highly likely that you would get other errors along the way decoding. the MD5 is just a hash of the audio data. whether the audio was corrupted during the original encoding takes some investigation to figure out. Josh Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC 1.2.0 released
--- Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Awesome! Is this new version already stable or still a testing > version? > (sorry for this probably stupid question but I'm still a FLAC newbie > :) ) yes, all releases pass the exhaustive test suite on several different architectures. rarely I put out alphas or betas but then it will be clearly labelled as such. Josh Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: re-encoding
--- Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi > > I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC > 1.2.0.: > > - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the > FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? yes, flac can take FLAC files as input, but there is no compression advantage going from 1.1.4 to 1.2.0 > - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any > other > 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 > encoder? yes, if they are FLAC compliant Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] Re: FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
2007/7/25, Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2007/7/25, Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi > > I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode it to > WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch > So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message above > still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exedoesn't want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature mismatch, > or is this not possible at all? An additional question: what happens if you re-encode a FLAC file, that gives the error message 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' while trying to decode to WAV, to another FLAC file using a later version of the FLAC encoder? I tried this and it seems to work, but I'm wondering if the audio data is still the same in the new file as in the old file? Or what happens in the re-encode process when such a input FLAC file is re-encoded to another FLAC file? Here is the metaflac --list of the input and output FLAC file, the input file is the file that gives the 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' error when decoding to WAV. The output file is the newly re-encoded FLAC file when using the input file as an input to the FLAC encoder: metaflac --list input_file.flac METADATA block #0 type: 0 (STREAMINFO) is last: false length: 34 minimum blocksize: 1152 samples maximum blocksize: 1152 samples minimum framesize: 0 bytes maximum framesize: 4768 bytes sample_rate: 44100 Hz channels: 2 bits-per-sample: 16 total samples: 20527080 MD5 signature: 5f00690064003d005000200020002000 METADATA block #1 type: 4 (VORBIS_COMMENT) is last: false length: 287 vendor string: Flake SVN comments: 11 comment[0]: TITLE=Dido (Armin Van Buuren's Universal Religion Mix) comment[1]: ARTIST=Aria comment[2]: ALBUM ARTIST=DJ Tiësto comment[3]: ALBUM=Summerbreeze comment[4]: GENRE=General Trance comment[5]: DATE=2000 comment[6]: DISCNUMBER=1/1 comment[7]: PUBLISHER=Nettwerk comment[8]: COMMENT=Ripped by Winamp comment[9]: TRACKNUMBER=1 comment[10]: ENCODED-BY=Winamp 5.34 METADATA block #2 type: 1 (PADDING) is last: true length: 3826 ** metaflac --list output_file.flac METADATA block #0 type: 0 (STREAMINFO) is last: false length: 34 minimum blocksize: 4096 samples maximum blocksize: 4096 samples minimum framesize: 14 bytes maximum framesize: 14043 bytes sample_rate: 44100 Hz channels: 2 bits-per-sample: 16 total samples: 20527080 MD5 signature: 4478d07a5f9acaae35cdef1f1753c764 METADATA block #1 type: 3 (SEEKTABLE) is last: false length: 846 seek points: 47 point 0: sample_number=0, stream_offset=0, frame_samples=4096 point 1: sample_number=438272, stream_offset=1010333, frame_samples=4096 point 2: sample_number=880640, stream_offset=2027118, frame_samples=4096 point 3: sample_number=1318912, stream_offset=3048483, frame_samples=4096 point 4: sample_number=1761280, stream_offset=4067062, frame_samples=4096 point 5: sample_number=2203648, stream_offset=5063693, frame_samples=4096 point 6: sample_number=2641920, stream_offset=6081493, frame_samples=4096 point 7: sample_number=3084288, stream_offset=7139986, frame_samples=4096 point 8: sample_number=3526656, stream_offset=8223226, frame_samples=4096 point 9: sample_number=3964928, stream_offset=9324016, frame_samples=4096 point 10: sample_number=4407296, stream_offset=10366547, frame_samples=4096 point 11: sample_number=4849664, stream_offset=11436008, frame_samples=4096 point 12: sample_number=5287936, stream_offset=12491977, frame_samples=4096 point 13: sample_number=5730304, stream_offset=13715044, frame_samples=4096 point 14: sample_number=6172672, stream_offset=14963345, frame_samples=4096 point 15: sample_number=6610944, stream_offset=16294043, frame_samples=4096 point 16: sample_number=7053312, stream_offset=17663068, frame_samples=4096 point 17: sample_number=7495680, stream_offset=19027520, frame_samples=4096 point 18: sample_number=7933952, stream_offset=20380473, frame_samples=4096 point 19: sample_number=8376320, stream_offset=21739699, frame_samples=4096 point 20: sample_number=8818688, stream_offset=23101828, frame_samples=4096 point 21: sample_number=9256960, stream_offset=24461617, frame_samples=4096 point 22: sample_number=9699328, stream_offset=25856237, frame_samples=4096 point 23: sample_number=10141696, stream_offset=27254435, frame_samples=4096 point 24: sample_number=10579968, stream_offset=28648219, frame_samples=4096 point 25: sample_number=11022336, stream_offset=30041445, frame_samples=4096 point 26: sample_number=11464704, stream_offset=31425625, frame_samples=4096 point 27: sample_number=11902976, stream_offset=32813313, frame_samples=4096 point 28: sample_number=12345344, stream_offset=34237869, frame_samples=4096 point 29: sample_number=12787
[Flac] Re: FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
2007/7/25, Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode it to WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message above still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exe doesn't want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature mismatch, or is this not possible at all? An additional question: what happens if you re-encode a FLAC file, that gives the error message 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' while trying to decode to WAV, to another FLAC file using a later version of the FLAC encoder? I tried this and it seems to work, but I'm wondering if the audio data is still the same in the new file as in the old file? Or what happens in the re-encode process when such a input FLAC file is re-encoded to another FLAC file? thx in advance! thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
Hi I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode it to WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message above still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exe doesn't want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature mismatch, or is this not possible at all? thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: tool to re-encode (win32)
Hi i'm looking for a tool (it must run in win32) to re-encode existing FLAC files to a newer version of FLAC. I tried the FLAC frontend (included in the FLAC 1.2.0 installer) but this tool doesn't allow this (it only allows encoding of WAV files to FLAC files, re-encoding of FLAC files to FLAC files isn't supported). So I'm looking for a tool that can re-encode existing FLAC files without having manually to decode them to WAV. I tried to do this in the windows command prompt several times but there are too many problems with that windows prompt (no wildcard support if you use flac.exe, ...) so I prefer a graphical tool. I hope maybe somebody can help me thanks in advance ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: FLAC frontend
Does anybody know where the official website of the FLAC frontend (for windows) is? I think this is it. http://mikewren.com/page.php?2 ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC 1.2.0 released
Furthermore, there's no upgrade risk, as the API is still compatible. FLAC is backwards and forwards compatible. Just to clarify this - I asked about compatibility for 1.1.4 files a few months ago and below is the response I got. Perhaps this needs clarification? The middle number has changed. Will the v1.1.2 build still decode these new 1.2.0 files? -- Forwarded message -- From: Graue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: May 23, 2007 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [Flac] 1.1.4 FLAC's in 1.1.2 To: flac@xiph.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brad Leblanc" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quick question - if I use 1.1.4 to encode some files and send them to a friend who is using 1.1.2 - is it possible he won't be able to decode them? No. I can't find the thing on the FLAC website that says this, but if I recall right, all versions of FLAC are forwards-compatible unless the middle version number changes. So if it was, say, 1.1.4 versus 1.0.1, you might, possibly, have a problem. Both versions 1.1.x? No compatibility issue. Regards, Graue ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: FLAC frontend
hi, Does anybody know where the official website of the FLAC frontend (for windows) is? If you look here http://members.home.nl/w.speek/ you can see the FLAC frontend is not longer maintained by Speek but in the FLAC installer there is still and update to the frontend (version 1.7.1 vs. version 1.7 on Speek's website). So I was wondering where the official site for the FLAC frontend is located now. thx in advance ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: general question
Harry, Another thing to consider is the balance between CPU efficiency and disk speed. On some of my systems, decoding a FLAC file to AIFF (or WAV) uses 100% of the CPU. That's because the drive is faster than the CPU, so the CPU is constantly working. Moving to a 4-processor system, I can run 4 FLAC decodes at the same time. At first, that would not use 400% (100% of all 4 CPUs) because the disk was not fast enough to read 4 files and write 4 files at once. But as soon as I upgraded to a faster drive on a faster bus, I am back to 400% CPU usage when decoding. I use FLAC to back up original multi-track recordings. Then I burn the FLAC files to CD-R or DVD-R. Whenever a client needs the originals for a mixing session, I have to pull all the FLAC files from optical media and decode them, since nearly all mixing software uses AIFF (even the ones that allow FLAC will convert the files from FLAC to something else on disk). In order to respond to the client as fast as possible, I want to decode the FLAC files as fast as possible, so I have experimented with faster machines and faster drives. In other words, I'm not sure that you can make any solid conclusions from a comparison table, even if you could find one, because it would always be possible to recompile flac, or upgrade the CPU, or upgrade the disk, or add additional disks to spread the load. There is no single answer to your question. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:21, Harry Sack wrote: Maybe somebody knows some comparison tables with some measured values like the ones available for encoding times? (so now I'm looking for the decoding CPU power loads) thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC 1.2.0 released
Pleas learn how to snip uneeded text from your posts. Version 1.2.0 is a stable release, which had some earlier beta revisions. I'd say it was quite well tested. Furthermore, there's no upgrade risk, as the API is still compatible. FLAC is backwards and forwards compatible. -Ivo ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] Re: FLAC: re-encoding
2007/7/25, Harry Sack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: hi I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC 1.2.0 .: - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any other 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? To be a bit more clear: I mean of course re-encoding the FLAC files without decoding them to WAV files manually, so by letting the FLAC encoder do all the work. thx thx in advance! ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: general question
Harry, Keep in mind that the processor load will be different for every processor model. PowerPC G4, G5, and then all the implementations of x86. Processor load does not depend upon clock speed - all that clock speed determines is how fast the operation can be done, and particularly whether it can be done in real time. Back to your question: The CPU load will be determined by the efficiency of the instruction set for the processor running the program, as well as how well the compiler maps the C source to those instructions. Any comparison table you might find could be irrelevant if your processor model was not tested, and if the compiler options are changed when you build FLAC, then that might change the efficiency as well. I point this out because FLAC is not always going to be "better" or "worse" than other formats. We're talking about several moving targets here, all of which influence each other. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:21, Harry Sack wrote: 2007/7/24, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 7/24/07, Greg M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ivo, Harry is asking about CPU usage of the DEcoder, > not the ENcoder. Sorry, my bad. I believe that FLAC's decoding is somewhat faster than most other lossless formats, as FLAC is a much less complex format. Maybe somebody knows some comparison tables with some measured values like the ones available for encoding times? (so now I'm looking for the decoding CPU power loads) thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC 1.2.0 released
2007/7/25, Josh Coalson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: FLAC 1.2.0 is out. There are a few new features and some speedups and fixes, but more importantly, there are some small changes to the decoder to pave the way for possible future compression improvements, so applications developers are encouraged to upgrade (the API has not changed). The changelog has all the details, but in summary: - automatic SSE OS detection at runtime (so no need to specifically enable SSE at compile time) - small encoder and decoder speedups - new --ignore-chunk-sizes option in flac will help with fb2k piped encoding to flac.exe Awesome! Is this new version already stable or still a testing version? (sorry for this probably stupid question but I'm still a FLAC newbie :) ) thx http://flac.sourceforge.net/changelog.html#flac_1_2_0 http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=13478 MD5: dbbb7d40fcaeef684afea5165a1c974b flac-1.2.0-devel-win.zip 7b07ac65b8c8530ad56c9930913a3d62 flac-1.2.0-linux-i386.tar.gz cec82a7a173f593ede022eb61a3114a6 flac-1.2.0-win.zip ea176bfb291707b46a537b091c226ae7 flac-1.2.0.tar.gz 42958e8d508a13a56b517acf35a377a4 flac-1.2.0a.exe SHA1: b712611a2902a5a165a1ef205a7b3ebe9695b560 flac-1.0.2-src.tar.gz c2f211f736acefb745100891256e3a764cd848d5 flac-1.2.0-devel-win.zip ae3cf142d27fdd7a45745b0d08d6ed7105b92d6a flac-1.2.0-linux-i386.tar.gz dafcde7b2b44096090c3284c3e772aa74cad4a0c flac-1.2.0-win.zip 019f50a71a755b2d4247cae8f9fb2264de61916d flac-1.2.0.tar.gz 40b1813b3926a3dc311d7f635ccb2a276fd8adc7 flac-1.2.0a.exe Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: re-encoding
hi I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC 1.2.0.: - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any other 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? thx in advance! ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: general question
2007/7/24, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 7/24/07, Greg M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ivo, Harry is asking about CPU usage of the DEcoder, > not the ENcoder. Sorry, my bad. I believe that FLAC's decoding is somewhat faster than most other lossless formats, as FLAC is a much less complex format. Maybe somebody knows some comparison tables with some measured values like the ones available for encoding times? (so now I'm looking for the decoding CPU power loads) thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] Bug: flac --replay-gain thinks that I used --no-padding
If I use flac to encode with the --replay-gain
option, I get a warning about the --no-padding
option...
"NOTE: --replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with --no-padding"
...even though I'm not using --no-padding. And the
file does end up with a small padding block, so
changing tags is slow.
I'd fixed this bug in my own copy of flac 1.1.4,
but forgot to submit the patch... I just noticed
when I upgraded to 1.2.0, this bug reappeared! :)
At the end of my email is the way I changed it;
also works for 1.2.0.
Thank you Josh for doing a bang-up job on FLAC. I
look forward to the improved 24-bit compression
that your decoder changes will allow.
Regards,
Scott
--- flac-1.1.4/src/flac/main.c.orig Mon Feb 5 22:32:16 2007
+++ flac-1.1.4/src/flac/main.c Thu Jun 28 16:00:05 2007
@@ -413,7 +413,10 @@
* tags that we will set later, to avoid rewriting the
* whole file.
*/
- if(option_values.padding <= 0) {
+ if(option_values.padding == -1) {
+ /* Leave it alone; use the default. */
+ }
+ else if(option_values.padding <= 0) {
flac__utils_printf(stderr, 1, "NOTE:
--replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with --no-padding\n");
option_values.padding =
GRABBAG__REPLAYGAIN_MAX_TAG_SPACE_REQUIRED;
}
___
Flac mailing list
Flac@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
