Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ringhunter
As I said before, FLACs are only superior when handling encoding corruptions, which is a non-issue with today's filesharing protocols.
Just a question... how do both relate? If a FLAC happened to be corrupted during compression and you created a torrent to upload it somewhere, your client wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and an error-free rip, and other peers would compare what they leech against the hash in the .torrent metadata (which is that of the corrupted FLAC). :unsure:
Unless you're talking about the files being corrupted while they download, which indeed wouldn't be a problem due to the very same reason you talk of. :)
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
anon-sbi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ringhunter
As I said before, FLACs are only superior when handling encoding corruptions, which is a non-issue with today's filesharing protocols.
Just a question... how do both relate? If a FLAC happened to be corrupted during compression and you created a torrent to upload it somewhere, your client wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and an error-free rip, and other peers would compare what they leech against the hash in the .torrent metadata (which is that of the corrupted FLAC). :unsure:
Unless you're talking about the files being corrupted while they download, which indeed wouldn't be a problem due to the very same reason you talk of. :)
I assume he's talking about random filesystem errors or localized hard disk failure. While I'm not that familiar with the error redundancy in FLACs (since I don't worry about that sort of thing), they do keep internal md5 sums of the audio data only (the FLAC "fingerprint"). You can test FLACs against their own fingerprints to check for file corruption. They also have verification built into the encoding process (though so do most encoders) with the -V flag.
Not really... you can't even tag WAV files (lol). Sound qualitywise they'll be identical. That's like saying RAR > AVI when the former is simply a compression of the latter.
Quote:
You're correct on the multichannel issue, but it's a trade-off as there's a java version of Monkey's Audio which can help it play on many different stereo (non 3.1/5.1/6.1/7.1) systems, that do not support FLAC but support java (example: most cell phones, natively).
I don't want to have to use a non-standard java based encoder/decoder to get a feature that should be native. Does APE support sampling rates higher than 48kHz btw? Aside from slightly better compression (we're talking a few MB tops here in most cases), which is achieved by having a slower decode/encode speed, what are the other advantages that actually matter?
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ca_aok
Not really... you can't even tag WAV files (lol). Sound qualitywise they'll be identical. That's like saying RAR > AVI when the former is simply a compression of the latter.
yes, but you seem to forget that wav audio files can be read on any player.
that's what makes the difference for me.
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Techno_FAN
for me TT
:rolleyes: :)
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cinephilia
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ca_aok
Not really... you can't even tag WAV files (lol). Sound qualitywise they'll be identical. That's like saying RAR > AVI when the former is simply a compression of the latter.
yes, but you seem to forget that wav audio files can be read on
any player.
that's what makes the difference for me.
I have to agree with him on this one as the flac players i use now arent as user friendly and often have bugs in them that i wouldnt experience with say WMP or something preloaded onto the computer...
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
What.CD is the best in terms of archive size.
Its closely followed by Pedro's as it has a mixture of new or mainstream music as well as old school stuff.
For Jazz, Classical and world.. E is pretty good.
//n00bEdit: Try to use the 'search' button next time.
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
It's highly dependent on your tastes, if you listen to mostly mainstream, or old popular music, what.cd or waffles should do great for you. Stay away from mediafires, rapidshares and the like unless you don't mind a few trannys here and there.
Re: Which is the best music tracker.
@n00bz0r, I did search before this. I dint any relevant searches. Maybe the reason is that I dint try hard enough. But yeah this tread has turned out to be productive I must say. Now I happen to have a small idea as to what encoder and stuff to use :D
Thank you anon-sbi and ca_aok.... maybe others will find this thread helpful too.
What.cd and waffle it is for now.
