I plan on burning some CDs for long term storage that I can easily retrieve at a later date without taking up hard drive space. Wouldn't it make sense to rip the .wav files to .ape files, along with their APEv1 tags into separate folders (that I would use as playlists), and then see if I can burn the DVD+R as a data disc using Nero?
Since FLAC takes up more data space than APE or La, why are most people here, partial to it?
Full Version: Why use FLAC for archiving?
See the sticky thread.
QUOTE(Lyx @ Apr 15 2005, 10:49 AM)
See the sticky thread.
Where's that at?
FLAC is popular for many reasons - including the fact that it has been around a while, it is open source, is quick to decode, and the developer is an active forum member.
I use APE to archive my collection, as I require the additional space that using APE over FLAC gives me.
To some, this saved space is presumably negligable.
Just use what suits you best. It appears the sticky has been moved to the wiki. Definately worth a read.
I use APE to archive my collection, as I require the additional space that using APE over FLAC gives me.
To some, this saved space is presumably negligable.
Just use what suits you best. It appears the sticky has been moved to the wiki. Definately worth a read.
QUOTE(b83768 @ Apr 15 2005, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(Lyx @ Apr 15 2005, 10:49 AM)
See the sticky thread.
Where's that at?
At the top of the subforum in which you're posting.
FLACs popularity is not because of opensource or efficiency - there are other codecs which do that as well and better. It is popular because of good software and *hardware* support while having no significant weakness.
- Lyx
QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Apr 15 2005, 11:04 AM)
FLAC is popular for many reasons - including the fact that it has been around a while, it is open source, is quick to decode, and the developer is an active forum member.
I use APE to archive my collection, as I require the additional space that using APE over FLAC gives me.
To some, this saved space is presumably negligable.
Just use what suits you best. It appears the sticky has been moved to the wiki. Definately worth a read.
I use APE to archive my collection, as I require the additional space that using APE over FLAC gives me.
To some, this saved space is presumably negligable.
Just use what suits you best. It appears the sticky has been moved to the wiki. Definately worth a read.
Yeah, Synthetic Soul. I just saw your website on doing that. The batch files thing looks a little involved. Not sure how I'd configure that.
The rest of it seems pretty straightforward enough. And I am somewhat familiar with EAC, although I've been using PlexTools a lot, lately.
Still westgroveq's process mentioned up above looks even simpler, yet if the GB space consideration is there, I may not go the FLAC route.
QUOTE(Lyx @ Apr 15 2005, 11:09 AM)
QUOTE(b83768 @ Apr 15 2005, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE(Lyx @ Apr 15 2005, 10:49 AM)
See the sticky thread.
Where's that at?
At the top of the subforum in which you're posting.
FLACs popularity is not because of opensource or efficiency - there are other codecs which do that as well and better. It is popular because of good software and *hardware* support while having no significant weakness.
- Lyx
Is that what you use, Lyx? FLAC?
QUOTE(b83768 @ Apr 15 2005, 04:16 PM)
Yeah, Synthetic Soul. I just saw your website on doing that. The batch files thing looks a little involved. Not sure how I'd configure that.
You don't need to use such a system. Just call MAC.EXE, or even the DLL, as an external encoder from EAC to create your APE file. Then use Tag or some other tagging app after to tag, if you see fit.
My batch files are just because I'm busy with my kids, and I need something I can just set going and leave. Oh, and 'cause I'm a lazy bugger.
QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Apr 15 2005, 11:22 AM)
QUOTE(b83768 @ Apr 15 2005, 04:16 PM)
Yeah, Synthetic Soul. I just saw your website on doing that. The batch files thing looks a little involved. Not sure how I'd configure that.
You don't need to use such a system. Just call MAC.EXE, or even the DLL, as an external encoder from EAC to create your APE file. Then use Tag or some other tagging app after to tag, if you see fit.
My batch files are just because I'm busy with my kids, and I need something I can just set going and leave. Oh, and 'cause I'm a lazy bugger.
Well I already downloaded the MA gui interface and it seems pretty straightforward enough. Should I use EAC to encode .wav to .ape instead? Or does it matter?
Sorry for all the newbie questions...
No. EAC should be used to rip from CD to WAVE, APE, etc.
If you already have a WAVE then MAC.EXE on the command line, or the Monkey GUI are fine.
What I was referring to is using EAC to rip a CD to APE "directly" (it's not actually "direct", as EAC creates a WAVE and then passes that to your external encoder).
You specify MAC.EXE as your external encoder in EAC, and it will rip to WAVE, encode that WAVE to APE, and then delete the WAVE, all in one process.
Here's one link on the subject: The Coaster Factory Exact Audio Copy Tutorial. I'm not sure how good it is.
If you already have a WAVE then MAC.EXE on the command line, or the Monkey GUI are fine.
What I was referring to is using EAC to rip a CD to APE "directly" (it's not actually "direct", as EAC creates a WAVE and then passes that to your external encoder).
You specify MAC.EXE as your external encoder in EAC, and it will rip to WAVE, encode that WAVE to APE, and then delete the WAVE, all in one process.
Here's one link on the subject: The Coaster Factory Exact Audio Copy Tutorial. I'm not sure how good it is.
QUOTE(b83768 @ Apr 15 2005, 05:20 PM)
Is that what you use, Lyx? FLAC?
Nope, i don't use lossless codecs yet, because i don't have enough space for them yet. But with a bigger HDD, i would probably choose FLAC, while having a close eye on WavPack.
IMHO, the choices are like this:
- If compression counts, then go APE
- If hardware support and popularity counts, go FLAC
- If you have an iPOD, go ALAC
- If overall features count (excluding HW-support) then go WavPack
WavPack is currently in the process of gaining hardware support - and it is superiour to FLAC in terms of features. However, gaining HW-support is a very slow process, so it will be interesting how WavPack fares in that department. So, APE, FLAC and ALAC are the established formats, while WavPack is the old-new kid in the frontrunner-group.
- Lyx
FLAC uses very little CPU for decoding, great software support, probably the best hardware support of the lossless codecs, size is not much different then other codecs (slightly larger), good error handling.
QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Apr 15 2005, 07:36 AM)
Here's one link on the subject: The Coaster Factory Exact Audio Copy Tutorial. I'm not sure how good it is.
In addition one could mention Case's guide to setting up EAC with external compressors.
Apart from that, the search function will bring a well of information.....
As other have mentioned, its fast to decode, so i'll point out the obvious - this makes it ideal for transcoding.
other things that i like about it, lower cpu usage, easy taging, lots of software support, hopefully soon support for my iriver via rockbox
size is not really an issue these days, 300gb sata disks for £120 aint bad right...
there also dvd drives and disks cheap as chips these days.
other things that i like about it, lower cpu usage, easy taging, lots of software support, hopefully soon support for my iriver via rockbox
size is not really an issue these days, 300gb sata disks for £120 aint bad right...
there also dvd drives and disks cheap as chips these days.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.