Results 31 to 34 of 34
2008-08-05, 14:49 #31
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
2008-08-05, 20:10 #32
Why would you care? Well suppose one day you find that your memory has gotten flakey and that it is affecting the integrity of the data on your disc. How will you validate all of your wav files? Unless you've archived md5s from when you ripped them, you won't be able to. With FLAC, you can run a utility to scan your entire music collection and identify any files that have become corrupted.
This may sound like an unlikely scenario, but it isn't to me - I've experienced this. It was not fun, but thankfully I was able to easily and quickly ID what files had problems and rerip only them. Otherwise, my entire music library would have been suspect.
Given the tagging, compression, and data integrity checks, FLAC is just a more robust format than WAV in general.
2008-08-05, 20:18 #33
thats very cool.
what compression ratio do you get with flac? i love that a 256 mp3 will give me a 7 to 1 ratio, i can't tell the difference.
still, i've been thinking about re-encoding some of my fave albums, just a select few, as flac. do i need a flac exe for eac like i need lame.exe? will i also need a flac dll the way i use a lame dll?
2008-08-05, 20:27 #34
You just hit <shift>F5 and you will have tagged FLAC as output. You can even configure the number of concurrent encoding processes. I stick with one on my machine even though it is hyperthreading. Perhaps a dual core machine would handle it better.
I only use FLAC for my archive - my library that I listen to is mp3 so I can use it with my iPod. I encode at 192K and I really can't tell the difference. I've never sat down to do a scientific A/B test because I'm afraid I will hear a difference :-). But if I did, I'm sure it would be subtle.
The compression ratio I get is on average probably around 40% - not even 2:1. But is still beats archiving uncompressed WAV data.