Any news about a new version with the --replay-gain fix (1.2.2, or...)?
Meaning not just the 1.2.1b binary for MS Windows, but an updated source tarbal for use on any OS as well.

I guess there are two ways to fix that:
Either a command-line switch for FLAC to disable the use of Rice2 codes or updating the FLAC libaries of fb2k to version 1.2.x

I haven't decided whether or not to remove the 1.2.x 24bit improvement from 1.2.2. I don't want to add a switch since that affects the API. the improvement is significant for some files and other software/devices already support it (including the squeezebox).

the --replay-gain + (no padding) fix will be in 1.2.2 which is probably a month away.

Since FLAC decoding is a part of foo_input_std, you can't update it.

Put your update requests here and hope that Peter will have time and motivation.

I fixed it a third way:

decoded the files with 1.2.1, re-encoded with 1.1.4

FLAC 1.2.1 support is already in the internal 0.9.5 builds so it's only a matter of getting 0.9.5 out the door.

Wow! That's a joyous news! Many thanks.

Thanks! That answered my question.

even easier, just do flac->flac with 1.2.0

I had 1.1.4 handy, but not 1.2.0

foobar2000 0.9.4.5 is just released .. is 0.9.5 next?

i'm pretty sure the "in_flac.dll" that comes with 1.2.1b has a bug where in winamp it bypasses the EQ. it still responds to the pre-amp in the EQ, but not the band sliders. or if it does it is VERY dull, and hardly noticeable.

i didn't upgrade winamp yet, still using an old 5.35 the only thing i've changed was the "in_flac.dll" file from my flac upgrade. running xp if it means anything.

anyone else can recreate? should i post this in a winamp thread too or not due to cross posting?

edit - i just rolled back to the "in_flac.dll" that comes bundled with winamp 5.35, all fixed.

Which is the LASTEST FLAC version:
1.2.1a or 1.2.1b???

Thanks ahead of time to all of you for your help

1.2.1b

OK what's the deal here with FLAC and NERO8? I just installed the Frontend but it didn't install the dll for Nero. So does Nero 8 work with FLAC or not? If so, how does one go about running FLAC in Nero to create CDROMs from an FLAC file?


CLIPPED to UPDATE:

So anyway, is there a way to get FLAC to CD working with Nero 8?

Use Foobar. It works perfectly! It creates CDs from FLAC files, or you can convert the FLAC to WAV and use NEro, etc.

I just wanted to post this update so others who are wondering might see it.

I would suspect that more than 6.6 people use FLAC......

btw, Nero is not the only package that you can use to create CD's from FLAC files.

6.6 poeple--lol.

Well, I installed Foobar and the burring plug in, since I have Nero 8 installed. it's burning right now .

I would not mind using another program to burn FLAC to CD besides Nero. I only use NEro to burn data and Music CDs anyway,m so I don't need ANYTHING it offers besides burning data and music, and less and less music CDs because I use an SD card for my car stereo and home stereo now.

Anyway, for what it is worth for those looking:

As stated in this thread, if you are wanting to burn FLAC to CD, and you have nero installed, install Foobar 2000, and then on the Foobar site, look for the "additional Componenets link:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/index.html

Then look for the component called: CD burning support and follow it's instructions to install in.
After you do that, start Foobar and open all the FLAC files you want to burn to a CD. Then, right click on the FLAC files and you will see a context menu item called "Burn CD." That's it. Very nice.

So anyway, what other program can I sue to burn FLAC to CD?

Thanks again!

--END OF POST, REPLIES BELOW:

Well, for some reason, a mod decided I should be suspended from posting until Dec 26th, but I have no idea why. Please let me reply here to the responses below:

imre_herceq
"The problem is that most software people are using for burning audio CDs do not wish to offer you all possible choices, they want to promote one or other format (WMP - wma, iTunes - ALAC and AAC, Nero - AAC). So your opinion of using wav is not entirely pointless."

Thanks. Yes, wav file is universally supported, although it's much bigger than the FLAC. I guess the board mods think differently than you do about the post.

---

Probbedb
"So did you actually want to ask a question or did you just want to come and insult all the FLAC users on here?"

Now this is what I would call a troll post, since the questions are clearly started in my post.

The questions are in the first paragraph of the post and the last sentence of the post. They end in question marks.

I didn't realize that commenting on the usability of FLAC for the general music enthusiast was insulting FLAC uses--of which I am one. I will continue to use FLAC EAC/REAC 2 because I like it and I admire the progress in this field. and it works for me. The post was simply pointing out that there is another way to rip and store files that is more universally accepted, and for most people, will result in easier conversion back to CDs, not to mention that your average computer simi literate person will never figure out EAC/REACT2 Foobar for FLAC, AAC, MP3 ripping and converting back to CD.

---

fbuser
"That is definitely wrong. The saving is about 40% for pop music and about 50% for classical music."

You're right. But I didn't say that wav files are only 15% bigger than FLAC files. I said, "The time spent trying to decode FLAC to CD is not worth the 10-15% space you will save over simply ripping to wav--which is universally supported by all software--and then squishing the wavs with RAR."

But this is wrong, really. If you can figure out that you need a different program, like Foobar, and then the Plugin that uses Nero, and you have Nero installed, it's very easy. But finding and cobbling these components--or others that will convert FLAC to CD-- will take most people some time.

---

Mr Bungle
"I'm not going to quote dwd but I must say that was a top quality troll. Good enough to get me to login to HA whilst on holidays, just to reply. Thanks for the laugh!"


As you can see by my replies, this is no troll post. I'm serious about what I have had to say here.

It has in it real and valid arguments about the usability of FLAC as compared to wav files regarding usability of FLAC and the general public. My problem with FLAC isn't with FLAC, since it simply is a great compression algorithm for music files--the best. My problem with FLAC is its implementation only.

I mean look at what a person would have to know and understand simply to use EAC/REACT to do specific things--they have to understand ini files and DOS cfg files for starters, and that is a very tall order to ask of people who have other things to do besides spend hours learning computer oriented scripting and so on.

That said, for sure the developers of the scripts and programs to help FLAC use, that being mainly Foobar, EAC, and REACT are commendable indeed. This is no flame, troll, or other undesirable post. It is simply saying that ease of use is the biggest problem I see with this entire project, and unless we all want it to stay as a sort of cult type audio compression converting club, then there has to be some way, for lack of better words, of tying together the usability of CD Ripping to FLAC --> AAC -->MP3 --> then FLAC --> CD again. Do you disagree with that?

----

Also, I'm sorry that I could not respond in kind, but again, the board mod has scene fit to suspend my posting privilege for "trolling and being an asshat." I guess it's for what I consider valid points I made above about the useability of FLAC to CD etc.

I really think suspending me for this post is childish--one of the mods even said "Enjoy your stay on HA while it last." Yeah that's cute. You have the power, so suspend people who you disagree with, even though they contribute useful information.

If taken seriously, it could have been a useful information link for those wanting information on FLAC to CD. Plus I posted a direct link to the FLAC/Foobar burning plugin that uses Nero calls, and took the time to explain how to use it/install it for those not as knowledgeable as most of you.

I'll probably get banned for sticking up for myself like this, but it's worth it to me. I don't like to be abused for trolling when I'm dead serious about this. It's not fair and I feel like it is an abuse of power. I was simply looking for information and at the same time sharing my frustrations with the project, and taking the time to explain to others how to use Foobar/Nero/FLAC to CD.

You can use Burrrn, and for data CD-R/W and DVD±R/W/DL burning I suggest ImgBurn, both freeware and way less bloated'n Nero 7 or 8.

Well, I am listening mostly to classical music where the Flac file is generally about 40-50% of the wav size. (I know that compression ratios with pop-rock music are different.)
Besides I use Linux and burn audio CDs with K3b. So using Flac is a valid choice for me. Indeed, I haven't burned an audio CD from wav for some time.

I know, however, that only few people burn classical music CDs, and few people use Linux.

The problem is that most software people are using for burning audio CDs do not wish to offer you all possible choices, they want to promote one or other format (WMP - wma, iTunes - ALAC and AAC, Nero - AAC). So your opinion of using wav is not entirely pointless.

So did you actually want to ask a question or did you just want to come and insult all the FLAC users on here?

That is definitely wrong. The saving is about 40% for pop music and about 50% for classical music.

I'm not going to quote dwd but I must say that was a top quality troll. Good enough to get me to login to HA whilst on holidays, just to reply.

Thanks for the laugh!

mmh, foobar2000 v0.9.5.1 doesn't playback 24 bit flac files properly here! foobar basically can read the file, but the output gets distorted!

here an example: http://www.outburst-audio.com/misc/24-bps.flac (1.2 MB)


FIXED (or at least a workaround got added in Foobar2000 0.9.5.2)



Reaper for example plays it fine!

deleted (turned out to be a foobar issue)

No problem here, with FLAC 1.2.1 and a 24bit/96kHz stereo file.
flac -t says the file is OK, and I can play it back fine.

What I found was that Foobar 9.4 wouldn't play the FLAC 1.2.1 file correctly -- it would cut off after some interval (different for different tracks). THis is not the distortion problem noted for v9.5; I haven't heard that.

But Winamp plays the same file completely, with no audible issues.

Using FLAC 1.1.4 instead allowed foobar 9.4 to play the files through with no problem.

So, I concluded that f2K 9.4 has a problem with 24-bit files compressed with Flac 1.2.1.

vs.



If i remember right, FLAC 1.2.x has introduced new rice codes to more efficiently code big residuals. Earlier decoders most probably can't decode files using those codes.

If those codes are beeing used depends on the size of the residuals and this size may depend on bit depth, amplitude and predictability of the signal to compress.

The residuals for 24bit/96kHz are often quite small, therefore it's possible that the new codes have not been used in skamp's file. -> No compatibilty problems.

krabapple' file may contain some parts with big residuals where the encoder has deceided to use the new bit codes. Old decoders can playback until the first passage containing those new incompatible codes.

Just my 2 cents.

Thomas

I was just curious when version 1.2.2 might be released?

Obviously, the timetable here must have changed. Just wondering, thanks.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering that myself...

sorry, such is the way for some open-source projects. I've been swamped at my day job since then and some new things have been added (recently checked in support for rf64 and wave64, and native win64 builds, needed by key customers). when I get enough time for a release I will put it out but can't say when it will be now.