[Mxsmanic]

I'd like to compress the WAV files in my archive to something lossless but
compressed. I've read about FLAC a lot, how widely is it supported? Or is
there another format that's better still? I'm using Sound Forge.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
I'd like to compress the WAV files in my archive to something lossless but
compressed. I've read about FLAC a lot, how widely is it supported?

FLAC, WAV, and uncompressed AIF seem to be the most widely supported.

Or is there another format that's better still? I'm using Sound Forge.

FLAC would be a good choice.

[Preben Friis]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
FLAC would be a good choice.

Agreed .... unless you ever want to use it in a Apple software.... In that
case the best choice is Apple Lossless (ALAC).

/Preben Friis

[John Williamson]

Preben Friis wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
FLAC would be a good choice.

Agreed .... unless you ever want to use it in a Apple software.... In
that case the best choice is Apple Lossless (ALAC).

Unless, that is, you ever intend to use it on anything other than an
Apple machine. Apple lossless is purely an Apple file format.

FLAC is open source, and should have support for quite a while. There is
even a player for FLAC files available for Macs, as well as number of
free converters.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

I'd like to compress the WAV files in my archive to something lossless but
compressed. I've read about FLAC a lot, how widely is it supported? Or is
there another format that's better still? I'm using Sound Forge.

For you I recommend mp3 at 48kbs. It;s lsssless and compressess very well
and removes all the hissssssssssssss.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:32:34 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

I'd like to compress the WAV files in my archive to something lossless but
compressed. I've read about FLAC a lot, how widely is it supported? Or is
there another format that's better still? I'm using Sound Forge.

I would strongly recommend you simply buy a bigger hard drive.
Actually I would be amazed if you could even get close to filling a
moderately sized drive. Do you really need to compress, or do you just
feel you should?

The less you compress, the better is the error recovery if the odd bit
goes bad.

d

[Mxsmanic]

Preben Friis writes:

Agreed .... unless you ever want to use it in a Apple software.... In that
case the best choice is Apple Lossless (ALAC).

I'm not likely to be using any Macs any time soon, but just out of curiosity,
who else supports this ALAC format besides Apple?

[Mxsmanic]

John Williamson writes:

Unless, that is, you ever intend to use it on anything other than an
Apple machine. Apple lossless is purely an Apple file format.

OK, I can scratch that off my list (if Sound Forge supports it--I'm not sure).

FLAC is open source, and should have support for quite a while. There is
even a player for FLAC files available for Macs, as well as number of
free converters.

FLAC it is, then.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

For you I recommend mp3 at 48kbs. It;s lsssless and compressess very well
and removes all the hissssssssssssss.

I'm not aware of any variation of MP3 that is lossless. It wouldn't compress
very well at all if it were lossless.

[Mxsmanic]

Don Pearce writes:

I would strongly recommend you simply buy a bigger hard drive.
Actually I would be amazed if you could even get close to filling a
moderately sized drive. Do you really need to compress, or do you just
feel you should?

I use the same drive for both audio and video files, and the video files are
huge, so I was just thinking of saving some space. As long as it's a lossless
format, I'm not really sacrificing anything.

The less you compress, the better is the error recovery if the odd bit
goes bad.

Even with a lossless format? They shouldn't be too sensitive to dropped bits.
Then again, if I'm dropping bits on a hard disk drive, I have much more
serious problems to worry about, such as imminent failure.

I did lose a gigantic (500 MB) film scan in TIFF on a CD-R a few days ago. The
CD-R is ten years old and the TIFF file is no longer readable, although the
10-times-smaller JPEG on the same CD was readable when I put the CD in the
same drive that burned it.

[nebulax]

On Apr 16, 8:32*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
I'd like to compress the WAV files in my archive to something lossless but
compressed. I've read about FLAC a lot, how widely is it supported? Or is
there another format that's better still? I'm using Sound Forge.

There's another open-source lossless format called WavPack, but I
don't see it in use as much as FLAC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
WavPack

-Neb

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:15:24 -0700, John Williamson wrote
(in article ):

Unless, that is, you ever intend to use it on anything other than an
Apple machine. Apple lossless is purely an Apple file format.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

Not any more. Apple released Apple Lossless as open source about five months
ago. Licensing is now free, so anybody can use the source code at no charge.

--MFW

[geoff]

Mxsmanic wrote:
I'd like to compress the WAV files in my archive to something
lossless but compressed. I've read about FLAC a lot, how widely is it
supported? Or is there another format that's better still? I'm using
Sound Forge.

Technically all equal. So what is most standard and likely to 'survive' ?

Probably FLAC.

But as FLA=C only gives around 50%,and hard drives are huge/huger/cheap/etc,
why bother ? Why not straight vanilla LPCM ?

geoff

[geoff]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Don Pearce writes:

I would strongly recommend you simply buy a bigger hard drive.
Actually I would be amazed if you could even get close to filling a
moderately sized drive. Do you really need to compress, or do you
just feel you should?

I use the same drive for both audio and video files, and the video
files are huge, so I was just thinking of saving some space. As long
as it's a lossless format, I'm not really sacrificing anything.

Thgen spend another $50 for another hard drive and put just audio on it.
And another $50 just to back it all up.

geoff

[Tobiah]

On 04/16/2012 08:36 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

For you I recommend mp3 at 48kbs. It;s lsssless and compressess very well
and removes all the hissssssssssssss.

I'm not aware of any variation of MP3 that is lossless. It wouldn't compress
very well at all if it were lossless.

Consider yourself trolled.

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2012, "geoff" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

But as FLA=C only gives around 50%,and hard drives are
huge/huger/cheap/etc, why bother ? Why not straight vanilla LPCM
?

For one (major) thing, FLAC supports a full compliment of information
and artwork tags.

And what's wrong with saving 50% of your disk space? If I had 50% more
room in my house, I'd be ecstatic!

[Mxsmanic]

geoff writes:

Thgen spend another $50 for another hard drive and put just audio on it.
And another $50 just to back it all up.

Agreed, but my budget doesn't stretch to that right now. If and when I have
enough money, I'm just going to get some more USB disk drives for precisely
that purpose. Right now I have only one archive copy of the videos and audio
files.

[Mxsmanic]

geoff writes:

But as FLA=C only gives around 50%,and hard drives are huge/huger/cheap/etc,
why bother ? Why not straight vanilla LPCM ?

Point taken. Just trying to leave as much space as I can free for video files,
which are very large.

[John Williamson]

Mxsmanic wrote:
geoff writes:

Thgen spend another $50 for another hard drive and put just audio on it.
And another $50 just to back it all up.

Agreed, but my budget doesn't stretch to that right now. If and when I have
enough money, I'm just going to get some more USB disk drives for precisely
that purpose. Right now I have only one archive copy of the videos and audio
files.

Even more reason not to take a chance on file corruption, then. As has
been said here, if a few bytes in an uncompressed audio file are
corrupted, you get a short glitch, whereas the same loss on any
compressed file, even one that's losslessly compressed can irreversibly
corrupt a whole block of up to a second. Compare it with mjpeg
compressed video, where a single corrupted byte can wipe out a second or
more of video.

This is why all my backups are stored on uncompressed drives, with only
working copies being on the compressed NTFS HD in the laptop.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

Mxsmanic wrote:
geoff writes:

Thgen spend another $50 for another hard drive and put just audio on
it. And another $50 just to back it all up.

Agreed, but my budget doesn't stretch to that right now. If and when
I have enough money, I'm just going to get some more USB disk drives
for precisely that purpose. Right now I have only one archive copy of
the videos and audio files.

I wouldn't trust a USB memory stick for archiving things.

geoff

[geoff]

Tobiah wrote:
On 04/16/2012 08:36 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

For you I recommend mp3 at 48kbs. It;s lsssless and compressess
very well and removes all the hissssssssssssss.

I'm not aware of any variation of MP3 that is lossless. It wouldn't
compress very well at all if it were lossless.

Consider yourself trolled.

Actually there *is* a lossless MP3 format. MP3HD. Never caught on.

geoff

[geoff]

Nil wrote:
On 17 Apr 2012, "geoff" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

But as FLA=C only gives around 50%,and hard drives are
huge/huger/cheap/etc, why bother ? Why not straight vanilla LPCM
?

For one (major) thing, FLAC supports a full compliment of information
and artwork tags.

And what's wrong with saving 50% of your disk space? If I had 50% more
room in my house, I'd be ecstatic!

Your house is too small for a HDD, that fits inside an existing space anyway
?!!

;-)

geoff

[Mxsmanic]

geoff writes:

I wouldn't trust a USB memory stick for archiving things.

I was talking about external hard disk drives with a USB interface.

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2012, "geoff" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Nil wrote:
On 17 Apr 2012, "geoff" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

But as FLA=C only gives around 50%,and hard drives are
huge/huger/cheap/etc, why bother ? Why not straight vanilla
LPCM ?

For one (major) thing, FLAC supports a full compliment of
information and artwork tags.

And what's wrong with saving 50% of your disk space? If I had 50%
more room in my house, I'd be ecstatic!

Your house is too small for a HDD, that fits inside an existing
space anyway ?!!

;-)

You haven't seen my house. Oy vey.

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Technically all equal. So what is most standard and likely to 'survive' ?
Probably FLAC.
But as FLAC only gives around 50%,and hard drives are
huge/huger/cheap/etc, why bother ? Why not straight vanilla LPCM ?

Yep, I use wave rather than waste my time compressing/uncompressing files to
save a few dollars.

Trevor.

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2012, "Trevor" wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Yep, I use wave rather than waste my time
compressing/uncompressing files to save a few dollars.

Why are you spending so much time compressing/uncompressing? It might
make sense to keep them in WAV format while they're being edited or
processed, but the final product can be compressed and left that way.
Most digital players can cope with them just as easily as an
uncompressed version. Plus FLAC files can contain lots of embedded
information like title, author, composer, date, cover art, lyrics, and
much more.

[Trevor]

"Nil" wrote in message
...
On 17 Apr 2012, "Trevor" wrote in rec.audio.pro:
Yep, I use wave rather than waste my time
compressing/uncompressing files to save a few dollars.

Why are you spending so much time compressing/uncompressing? It might
make sense to keep them in WAV format while they're being edited or
processed, but the final product can be compressed

Without "spending time compressing"?

and left that way. Most digital players can cope with them just as easily
as an
uncompressed version.

Mine can't, but I don't use wave files for a portable player in any case. I
use wave for storage and home use, MP3 for portables and car. FLAC would
just add one more layer of time and effort. A 1TB disk holds quite a few
songs in wave format already :-)

Trevor.

[Nil]

On 17 Apr 2012, "Trevor" wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Without "spending time compressing"?

Of course not. But you don't have to wait for decompression. Besides,
it doesn't take very long to compress them, and the process can be
automated. It's not like you have to squeeze them into a little can by
hand.

and left that way. Most digital players can cope with them just as
easily as an uncompressed version.

Mine can't, but I don't use wave files for a portable player in
any case.

Me, either. I use mp3 for the portable and FLAC for home use. The info
tags are invaluable.

Too bad about your player. I rely on the embedded info tags in FLAC and
MP3 files for organization, and I wouldn't be interested in a player
that can't use them.

FLAC would just add one more layer of time and effort. A
1TB disk holds quite a few songs in wave format already :-)

Really the time is minimal, and I like the idea of the disk holding
quite-a-few x 2 songs.

[Trevor]

"Nil" wrote in message
...
Too bad about your player. I rely on the embedded info tags in FLAC and
MP3 files for organization, and I wouldn't be interested in a player
that can't use them.

Mine handles the tags in the MP3 files just fine, and I have NO need for
FLAC in a portable player when 256 or 320kbs is more than enough for the
purpose, and when storage space is more limited than my desktop.


FLAC would just add one more layer of time and effort. A
1TB disk holds quite a few songs in wave format already :-)

Really the time is minimal, and I like the idea of the disk holding
quite-a-few x 2 songs.

Your choice, whatever works for your needs. It's simply a trade off between
time/convenience/expense/security/future needs etc.
And good luck with your 50,000 - 100,000 songs per 1TB HD in FLAC format.
That's an awful lot of ripping/encoding time in any case! :-)

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Nil writes:

Why are you spending so much time compressing/uncompressing? It might
make sense to keep them in WAV format while they're being edited or
processed, but the final product can be compressed and left that way.

I keep mine as WAV files if I'm still doing something with them, but once they
are stable and ready to be archived, I figure saving 50% on space--with no
loss in quality--isn't a bad idea. It can eventually add up.

It's true that the disk isn't nearly full yet, but video files are chewing
through the available space rapidly.

[Anahata]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:47:44 +1200, geoff wrote:

Tobiah wrote:
On 04/16/2012 08:36 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
For you I recommend mp3 at 48kbs. It;s lsssless
I'm not aware of any variation of MP3 that is lossless.
Consider yourself trolled.

Actually there *is* a lossless MP3 format. MP3HD. Never caught on.

Not at 48kbs ;-)

--
Anahata
--/-- http://www.treewind.co.uk
+44 (0)1638 720444

[[email protected]]

Nil wrote:
FLAC files can contain lots of embedded
information like title, author, composer, date, cover art, lyrics, and
much more.


You've said that twice already. But flac compression doesn't preserve index
markers. There is some alternate flac program that will keep the markers
but in my experience, the standard flac programs won't save the markers.

That kills it for me. The SHN compression format, on the other hand, does
indeed save the markers.

[Nil]

On 19 Apr 2012, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

You've said that twice already.

I only repeated it because people don't seem to have noticed it. That's
a very important aspect to me. Raw audio files with no ability to hold
more information than just the file name seem primitive and useless to
me. Most digital audio players can use those tags to organize, sort,
and search for music. If you've got a lot of digital music, I don't
know how you could find and listen to the stuff without the use of good
tags. It's the key for me.

But flac compression doesn't
preserve index markers. There is some alternate flac program that
will keep the markers but in my experience, the standard flac
programs won't save the markers.

Well, I'm not even sure what "index markers" are and I've never used
them, so it's never been a concern to me.

There is only one "standard FLAC program", as far as I know. There are
many GUI interfaces for that program, and maybe some can access more
features of the core codec than others. I do notice that WAV files can
sometimes contain metadata, and the FLAC codec can strip out that
metadata or not, depending on your instructions. Maybe those indexes
are of that type.

That kills it for me. The SHN compression format, on the other
hand, does indeed save the markers.

SHN is decades outdated, compresses far worse, and doesn't support
tags. It's dead to me.

[Jason[_14_]]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:01:13 -0400 "Nil"
wrote in article

On 19 Apr 2012, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

You've said that twice already.

I only repeated it because people don't seem to have noticed it. That's
a very important aspect to me. Raw audio files with no ability to hold
more information than just the file name seem primitive and useless to
me. Most digital audio players can use those tags to organize, sort,
and search for music. If you've got a lot of digital music, I don't
know how you could find and listen to the stuff without the use of good
tags. It's the key for me.

But flac compression doesn't
preserve index markers. There is some alternate flac program that
will keep the markers but in my experience, the standard flac
programs won't save the markers.

Well, I'm not even sure what "index markers" are and I've never used
them, so it's never been a concern to me.

There is only one "standard FLAC program", as far as I know. There are
many GUI interfaces for that program, and maybe some can access more
features of the core codec than others. I do notice that WAV files can
sometimes contain metadata, and the FLAC codec can strip out that
metadata or not, depending on your instructions. Maybe those indexes
are of that type.

That kills it for me. The SHN compression format, on the other
hand, does indeed save the markers.

SHN is decades outdated, compresses far worse, and doesn't support
tags. It's dead to me.

fwiw, the upcoming new edition of Audition, CS6, supports FLAC and APE
formats directly (as well as others that are new to Auditon).

[Nil]

On 19 Apr 2012, Jason wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

fwiw, the upcoming new edition of Audition, CS6, supports FLAC and
APE formats directly (as well as others that are new to Auditon).

That's good to know. My old stalwart Audition 1.5 can open and save
FLAC files (courtesy of some add-on I added a long time ago.)

APE format seemed to have most of the advantages of FLAC, and
compressed a little tighter. As I recall, it was originally a
proprietary technology but later became open source. Still, I haven't
seen it used much in the past few years. FLAC seems to be the most
common and popular lossless codec these days.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil wrote:
On 19 Apr 2012, wrote in rec.audio.pro:

You've said that twice already.

I only repeated it because people don't seem to have noticed it. That's
a very important aspect to me. Raw audio files with no ability to hold
more information than just the file name seem primitive and useless to
me. Most digital audio players can use those tags to organize, sort,
and search for music. If you've got a lot of digital music, I don't
know how you could find and listen to the stuff without the use of good
tags. It's the key for me.

Well, then use Broadcast WAV. It has all those tags in it, and it's
uncompressed, and has been an industry standard for years.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nil]

On 20 Apr 2012, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

Well, then use Broadcast WAV. It has all those tags in it, and
it's uncompressed, and has been an industry standard for years.

But it's twice the size of FLAC, and I don't think any of the media
players I use will read Broadcast Wav tags. No, FLAC is the best fit
for me.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:30:55 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Well, then use Broadcast WAV. It has all those tags in it, and it's
uncompressed, and has been an industry standard for years.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

The tags aren't readable in any consumer players, cars, or home music
servers, plus there's not a lot of agreement on where and how BWF tags are
implemented.

I think the tags for Apple Lossless (or FLAC) make a lot more sense for
consumer use. Also lossless, very reliable, and both open-source, plus the
tag support is beyond compare.

--MFW

[geoff]

wrote:
Nil wrote:
FLAC files can contain lots of embedded
information like title, author, composer, date, cover art, lyrics,
and much more.


You've said that twice already. But flac compression doesn't preserve
index markers. There is some alternate flac program that will keep
the markers but in my experience, the standard flac programs won't
save the markers.

That kills it for me. The SHN compression format, on the other hand,
does indeed save the markers.

But on the other hand nobody has ever heard of it, so unlikely to be
supported for long.

geoff

[Preben Friis]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:30:55 -0700, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ):

Well, then use Broadcast WAV. It has all those tags in it, and it's
uncompressed, and has been an industry standard for years.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

... plus there's not a lot of agreement on where and how BWF tags are
implemented.

Can you elaborate on this? The majority of recorders seem to agree on using
cue points with a chunk ID of 'cue ' according to EBU specifications. At
least this goes for Tascam, Zoom, Edirol, Sound Devices etc. Only Marantz
and Olympus uses their own self-invented formats.

/Preben Friis