72 posts / 0 new
Last post
MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 22 hours ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: FLAC or WAV?

fr0g wrote:

I use a freeware app and it's superb.

CDBurnerXP.

http://cdburnerxp.se/en/home

If it meets your needs then that's fine I guess. But compared to Nero, in terms of functionality, it, and similar freeware products, are lacking, depending on what you need it for of course. For a start, I've never come across any free software which allows you to drop track-markers (or index markers! remember those?) into one continuous WAV file, which is a very important feature if you want to guarantee seamless, gapless joins in a piece of music you have created. Nero also includes last-minute pre-burn mastering tools like normalisation and EQ, as well as a waveform editor.

I see that CD Burner XP can read Nero .nrg files, which is quite good for free software. 

Alec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 21 hours ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 21:06
Posts: 6079
RE: FLAC or WAV?

I liked Nero (Nero 6). It could edit tracks with half hour gaps before bonus tracks on them, ad fade outs for songs with long noodly outros like Blind Melon's Time...It could be adjusted to play nicely with 90min CDRs which was important to me at the time. I used WMP to make a demo disc a while back, and to make one or two compilations for friends, but if I wanted to make lots for myself again, I'd want something that has Nero's abilities, probably...

manicm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 01/05/2008 - 12:57
Posts: 2715
RE: FLAC or WAV?

I would only ever consider uncompressed audio which leaves WAV, uncompressed FLAC or AIFF.

I would lean toward the first 2.

Storage is cheap, no need to compress.

andyjm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 sec ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 11:49
Posts: 739
RE: FLAC or WAV?

manicm wrote:

I would only ever consider uncompressed audio which leaves WAV, uncompressed FLAC or AIFF.

I would lean toward the first 2.

Storage is cheap, no need to compress.

While storage is cheap, WiFi bandwidth is limited.  If you are running a WiFi streaming system, there are real benefits to keeping the bitrate as low as possible. Any lossless format which lowers bitrate is worth using.

By the way, what is 'uncompressed FLAC'?

BigColz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 18/06/2012 - 14:57
Posts: 304
RE: FLAC or WAV?

andyjm wrote:

manicm wrote:

I would only ever consider uncompressed audio which leaves WAV, uncompressed FLAC or AIFF.

I would lean toward the first 2.

Storage is cheap, no need to compress.

While storage is cheap, WiFi bandwidth is limited.  If you are running a WiFi streaming system, there are real benefits to keeping the bitrate as low as possible. Any lossless format which lowers bitrate is worth using.

By the way, what is 'uncompressed FLAC'?

 

I don't know if there is a COMPLETELY uncompressed FLAC option but when I rip my tunes I choose the minimum compression possible which generally leaves them around 900-1100 as opposed to 1410 for wav or aiff.. 

hammill's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 11:46
Posts: 2460
RE: FLAC or WAV?

BigColz wrote:

andyjm wrote:

manicm wrote:

I would only ever consider uncompressed audio which leaves WAV, uncompressed FLAC or AIFF.

I would lean toward the first 2.

Storage is cheap, no need to compress.

While storage is cheap, WiFi bandwidth is limited.  If you are running a WiFi streaming system, there are real benefits to keeping the bitrate as low as possible. Any lossless format which lowers bitrate is worth using.

By the way, what is 'uncompressed FLAC'?

 

I don't know if there is a COMPLETELY uncompressed FLAC option but when I rip my tunes I choose the minimum compression possible which generally leaves them around 900-1100 as opposed to 1410 for wav or aiff.. 

Why? FLAC is lossless so why not take advantage of the space saving?
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: FLAC or WAV?

 

[/quote]

While storage is cheap, WiFi bandwidth is limited.  If you are running a WiFi streaming system, there are real benefits to keeping the bitrate as low as possible. Any lossless format which lowers bitrate is worth using.

By the way, what is 'uncompressed FLAC'?

[/quote]

is that actually true as your steaming bits not audio?

currently I'm running 2 streaming devices ( flac via sqbox), 2 phones, 2 tablets, 3 laptops, PS3, 2 wireless home automation devices and a tv on a standard Orange supplied wireless router and don't suffer dropouts. The only thing I've done is to issue static ip adresses.

 

andyjm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 sec ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 11:49
Posts: 739
RE: FLAC or WAV?

Nogsk wrote:

 

While storage is cheap, WiFi bandwidth is limited.  If you are running a WiFi streaming system, there are real benefits to keeping the bitrate as low as possible. Any lossless format which lowers bitrate is worth using.

By the way, what is 'uncompressed FLAC'?

[/quote]

is that actually true as your steaming bits not audio?

currently I'm running 2 streaming devices ( flac via sqbox), 2 phones, 2 tablets, 3 laptops, PS3, 2 wireless home automation devices and a tv on a standard Orange supplied wireless router and don't suffer dropouts. The only thing I've done is to issue static ip adresses.

 

[/quote]

A single stream of CD quality data is about 1.4Mb/s, a good quality signal on Wifi will manage 54Mb/s, so at first sight there is no issue. However if signal is poor Wifi can drop back to as low as 1Mb/s, so keeping audio bitrate down can help. Even if signal is strong and you have multiple streams, or want to stream hires it is worth using FLAC. 

 

the record spot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 days ago
Joined: 13/10/2007 - 14:36
Posts: 9252
RE: FLAC or WAV?

jcbrum wrote:

Burning CDs is so yesterday.

 

Modern computers don't even have an optical drive.

 

JC

 

Albeit you're scuppered if the mastering you want (assuming that is important to you) isn't readily available on the download or streaming site of your choice and you might want for yesterday once more.

 

(Thanks Karen and Richard).   Smile

manicm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 01/05/2008 - 12:57
Posts: 2715
Uncompressed FLAC

Uncompressed FLAC is precisely what it says - EAC has an option to set the level of FLAC compression, and the lowest level is uncompressed - the file size will be of that around WAV. Thus the file will just have a FLAC wrapper i.e. header and footer etc and allow tagging.

andyjm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 sec ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 11:49
Posts: 739
RE: Uncompressed FLAC

manicm wrote:

Uncompressed FLAC is precisely what it says - EAC has an option to set the level of FLAC compression, and the lowest level is uncompressed - the file size will be of that around WAV. Thus the file will just have a FLAC wrapper i.e. header and footer etc and allow tagging.

I am not sure you are right.  Do you have a link that shows flac '0' is zero compression?.  The following link is to the sourceforge official documentation on the flac codec:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison_all_ratio.html

A flac setting of '0' gets around 57% compression in filesize on the music sample used in the comparison.

Increasing the number increases compression at the expense of processing time. '5' is often used as the best compromise between speed of encoding and filesize.

As has been mentioned many times, it doesn't matter what compression setting is being used for audio quality - when decoded, all files produce identical audio data.

 

Pages

Log in or register to post comments