FLAC vs other lossless formats among BT users.

In searching through various forums and BT sites, I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to a question I have had for some time now. Why is it that FLAC seems to have become the de facto lossless format among bit torrent users over all the other available lossless formats?

I ask becuase I have numerous albums in my collection that are in other lossless formats, such as APE or WavPack (WVs seem just as good or better than FLAC), and the quality seems to be at least on par with FLAC.

FLAC does not seem to be the most efficient format available nor is it the only open source codec available. Obviously some formats are better than others, but as long as the codec allows for a lossless archiving, then it matters little to me which codec was used. That, however, is only my opinion. I am curious how others feel on the subject. Thanks for any responses.

Explain to me how you're comparing the quality of lossless codecs... they should all be lossless, and therefore they should all sound the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quylui

Explain to me how you're comparing the quality of lossless codecs... they should all be lossless, and therefore they should all sound the same.

---

I agree that the various lossless formats should sound the same. But, not all lossless codecs perform the same nor do they all support the same features. For instance, when comparing the compression rates of various codecs, FLAC is significantly less efficient than the Monkey's Audio codec allowing APE files to be smaller than FLAC files. One could also compare available features, encoding flexibility, encoding/decoding speed, error handling, streaming capability, software/hardware support, etc, etc. So, all lossless codecs should be able to produce a lossless file that sounds the same across the board, but there are still numerous points in which some lossless formats fail. I'm really just curious why FLAC seems to have been chosen as the de facto lossless format for BT users. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against FLAC. In fact, I think it's a very good format...better than most. I'm just curious, that's all.

Why the popularity of FLAC over other lossless formats is a valid one though.

As explained by Wiki:

Quote:

---

FLAC is specifically designed for efficient packing of audio data, unlike general lossless algorithms such as ZIP and gzip. While ZIP may compress a CD-quality audio file by 10 - 20%, FLAC achieves compression rates of 30 - 50% for most music, with significantly greater compression for voice recordings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emperorIX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quylui

Explain to me how you're comparing the quality of lossless codecs... they should all be lossless, and therefore they should all sound the same.

---

I agree that the various lossless formats should sound the same. But, not all lossless codecs perform the same nor do they all support the same features. For instance, when comparing the compression rates of various codecs, FLAC is significantly less efficient than the Monkey's Audio codec allowing APE files to be smaller than FLAC files. One could also compare available features, encoding flexibility, encoding/decoding speed, error handling, streaming capability, software/hardware support, etc, etc. So, all lossless codecs should be able to produce a lossless file that sounds the same across the board, but there are still numerous points in which some lossless formats fail. I'm really just curious why FLAC seems to have been chosen as the de facto lossless format for BT users. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against FLAC. In fact, I think it's a very good format...better than most. I'm just curious, that's all.

---

FLAC is open-source, more stable, offers better multi-platform support and is still under development. APE has been abandoned, as far as I know. Wavpack encodes a little faster, decodes slower, and in my experience is less reliable.

Apple Lossless has even better quality/compression, if I remember correctly. Just saying.

I would say that FLAC just won the popularity contest as well as does anything the user wants.

First of all I don't think FLAC takes long to encode, so that point isn't valid. I spend maybe 5 minutes decoding an entire FLAC CD into .wav and making it into mp3 using Lame. As for Encoding it probably takes even less time than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Monkey’s Audio is suitable for distribution, playback and archival purposes. However, it is a proprietary software, it is often too slow to decode on portable audio devices, and it has limited/problematic support on software platforms other than Windows. There are alternatives that provide the user with more freedom and official support for more platforms, such as the FLAC format.

---

APE has been almost abandoned as mentioned above. Many other lossless formats have some kind of patent linked to them. FLAC has very good multi platform support, as well as good Vorbis comment support.

I mean it shows up in your player as well as an mp3. Even better than mp3 in many cases, since the idv tag in mp3 isn't standardised.

Oh and one last reason. The FLAC format and especially encoding is being continually worked on and improved. How many other formats can that be said about?

I'm not familiar with wavpack, but I know .wav does not have good tag support. Does wavpack?

I didn't know APE was the name for it. My bad, I'm a n00b and just remember reading about it somewhere a while back.

It isn't. APE is Monkey's Audio something or other. And I assure you Apple Lossless is not open source. And BTW a Lossless format cannot be more lossless than another, so how can quality be better? If it's better then the other format isn't truly lossless.

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

Yes, that is true APE has not been updated for some time now. However, there are a number of other reasons as to why it is inferior to FLAC or other lossless codecs. Personally, I prefer the WavPack codec over FLAC as it is has similar features, but offers better compression, more features and can also create a unique hybrid/lossy file that is relatively smaller in size and when combined with a correction file, provides a full lossless restoration. So, I guess I'm really wondering why the seeming strict adherence to FLAC among many BT sites. I've also noticed that a number of sites have a category for SHN files. Does anyone know why anyone would still use this incredibly outdated and useless(?) codec?

I suspect the answer to my initial question is simply that a standard lossless codec had to be chosen and FLAC was ahead at the time and perhaps Wavpack (my preference) will likely go the way of ogg. In any case, i suppose it really doesn't matter since converting between lossless formats shouldn't yield any degradation of quality.

I would say that in order to get the entire Lossless fanatic and BT community to embrace wavpack, the developers would have to come up with something truly extraordinary. I mean FLAC already does anything the user want. Lossless fans are not the least bit interested in a format that can have lossy files (hybrid or not).

Also I don't get that hybrid stuff. Can it be played on the computer (in real-time) as lossless without decoding first. If it can't then you just found your answer.

As for SHN. many older files that are unavailable now are in SHN format. Does anyone encode to SHN now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue_Skies

I would say that FLAC just won the popularity contest as well as does anything the user wants.

First of all I don't think FLAC takes long to encode, so that point isn't valid. I spend maybe 5 minutes decoding an entire FLAC CD into .wav and making it into mp3 using Lame. As for Encoding it probably takes even less time than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Monkey’s Audio is suitable for distribution, playback and archival purposes. However, it is a proprietary software, it is often too slow to decode on portable audio devices, and it has limited/problematic support on software platforms other than Windows. There are alternatives that provide the user with more freedom and official support for more platforms, such as the FLAC format.

---

APE has been almost abandoned as mentioned above. Many other lossless formats have some kind of patent linked to them. FLAC has very good multi platform support, as well as good Vorbis comment support.

I mean it shows up in your player as well as an mp3. Even better than mp3 in many cases, since the idv tag in mp3 isn't standardised.

Oh and one last reason. The FLAC format and especially encoding is being continually worked on and improved. How many other formats can that be said about?

I'm not familiar with wavpack, but I know .wav does not have good tag support. Does wavpack?

---

Checkout WavPack here: http://www.wavpack.com/

It's got all the functionality of FLAC and then some. So far, it only lacks hardware support.

It looks to be a pretty good codec and I like the fact that it is committed to being totally open and free, utilizing only only public domain techniques in its implementation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue_Skies

I would say that in order to get the entire Lossless fanatic and BT community to embrace wavpack, the developers would have to come up with something truly extraordinary. I mean FLAC already does anything the user want. Lossless fans are not the least bit interested in a format that can have lossy files (hybrid or not).

Also I don't get that hybrid stuff. Can it be played on the computer (in real-time) as lossless without decoding first. If it can't then you just found your answer.

As for SHN. many older files that are unavailable now are in SHN format. Does anyone encode to SHN now?

---

Yes, unfortunately there are still those who do encode in the SHN format. there are a lot on ZOMB, I can't figure out why.

I was only really asking about the use of lossless codecs because I still use emule to find alot of the music I listen to. I'm into death and black metal and most if not all lossless trackers don't have a significant amount of these available. But, emule has tons, but most of them are in APE, a few in WavPack and about a third in FLAC. So, I was just wondering why FLAC was embraced so readily, but i think it was, as you noted, a matter of standardization and FLAC's superiority over other formats. Thanks for the responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue_Skies

It isn't. APE is Monkey's Audio something or other. And I assure you Apple Lossless is not open source. And BTW a Lossless format cannot be more lossless than another, so how can quality be better? If it's better then the other format isn't truly lossless.

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

---

Thanks for the clarification. :)

To give you a very simplistic short answer? Flac is better due to the way it compresses and maintains the quality of a CD (Rip) or Vinyl (Rip).

Other loseless formats like ape and wavpak don't compress as well. Also right now EAC is the application of choice and flac seems to compress and maintain the overall quality better then the other loseless formats mentioned as far as ripping goes.

Ripping is the most important reason why bt trackers hold flac on it's rightful high horse. EAC with flac is the ultimate achivement of what we all call or consider (Perfect 1:1 copy).

Guess my answer wasn't short. Oh well who cares.. you get the jest of what i'm saying (I hope).

Yeah, I believe the compression thing is the main reason that the sites use FLAC instead of the other lossless formats.

It doesn't matter to me. It's all lossless. I guess I would rather use FLAC though because of the compression.

And to add to the above. EAC with Flac is the ultimate achievement when using the right ripping setting in EAC. Also configuring the Flac encoder frontend with EAC as well. Google for plenty of tuts to help you all achieve those settings.

http://xs126.xs.to/xs126/08142/trert911.png

WavPack will become a viable alternative when it's more widely supported. There is no distinct advantage that I can see FLAC has over WavPack other than widespread support.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....ess_comparison

Great link! FLAC pwns

sorry, did not study too deeply this question, maybe someone will correct me, i've read that flac is limited on multichannel audio, can't compress 5.1 24/96... while wavpack can

..ps what are the best tools for batch transcoding-tagging for lossless? and are there some program to auto correct file string in .cue file from .wav to .ape if it's been compressed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quylui

WavPack will become a viable alternative when it's more widely supported. There is no distinct advantage that I can see FLAC has over WavPack other than widespread support.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....ess_comparison

---

The whole problem is that wavpack has only limited hardware support and good software as flac has very good hardware and software support. until wavpack is widely supported which I doubt it will be unless people start listening to CD's made in 5.1 surround sound (Which won't happen for another 5-10 years or so, if it even happens). Flac will reign supreme.

I see no reason not to use FLAC.

btw, why does FLAC have so many compression levels? You can chose from 0 to 8, I mean, what is the point in 9 levels of compression? Is it really necessary???

Apple Lossless is great to.
WAV is best

I couldn't understand one aspect of FLAC... As written in Wikipedia, FLAC is codec with "releases", similar to an application, but as we all know FLAC is a codec. Latest release is 1.2.1, and let's say that I rip a CD using that version, and half a year later an new version comes along. Will I need to re-rip the CD? (regarding quality...)

No, if you have done it right the first time it is lossless and can't be better quality. What is being worked on is more how fast the encoding process, error correction, support between various formats, software, hardware etc.

If let's say the programmers come up with some different algorithm that is even more effective and fast, then it would be backwards compatible anyway.

Lossless compression is a compression methodology in which the result of the compression can be restored faithfully, i.e. bit-by-bit identical with the uncompressed data.

In a nutshell, it is somewhat like compressing a Waveform file with ZIP or RAR.

The difference between 'mere' ZIP/RAR is that lossless compression algorithms are especially tuned and designed for the characteristics of Waveform data, thus achieving compression far greater than can be achieved by generic compression utilities.

As lossless compression preserves all information of the original Waveform file, audio compressed with lossless compression will unavoidably be larger than audio compressed with lossy compression. However, this disadvantage is more than offset by lossless' ability to be transcoded to other lossless format without any quality degradation.

FLAC is always a winner... Because the quality really rocks... Wav is also very good format.. quite old one..

Wav is uncompressed audio file and I work mostly in that format cos that is the most common format that audio recording/mixing program uses. I really don't see much advantage in using Flac since an album is no more than 800mb. Compare that to vid file of a full length movie in HD format, a 800mg .wav file is tinny.

apparently the scene has some new rules regarding lossless music

i wish more dts 5.1 music was released :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-dye

i wish more dts 5.1 music was released :dabs:

---

wish to
but yet you have to rip or convert to flac

and i think flac is the best
i started to use and rip to flac since oink was live

i am not much of an audio geek , but i have tried every format including flac . the only real difference was when i downloaded some 5.1 dts from hdbits and to be honest it was awesome .

i was not able to tell any difference between flac and an mp3 (320) :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-dye

i am not much of an audio geek , but i have tried every format including flac . the only real difference was when i downloaded some 5.1 dts from hdbits and to be honest it was awesome .

i was not able to tell any difference between flac and an mp3 (320) :dabs:

---

you can be sure that are a difference between flac and mp3
especially if you make a cd collection

Of course there is a big difference between flac and mp3...u just need a real good set of 5.1 speakers to feel the pure details of a flac file.

by the way i have a 7.1 speaker system . i was talking about mp3 with high bitrates (320kbps)

yet not the same