QUOTE(jcoalson @ Feb 10 2008, 03:11)

QUOTE(gfxnow @ Feb 9 2008, 18:44)

but how is flake able to map the channels properly? Just luck?
it probably does the same thing as --channel-map=none
QUOTE(gfxnow @ Feb 9 2008, 20:18)

EDIT: Although the channels are in perfect order during playback on winamp at least, just out of curiosity, are they properly mapped in the FLAC file (since u did say the channels will be stored unordered)? Just wondering if playing them on some other device might not play the channels in order.
if they're in that order then --channel-map=none does the right thing since they match flac order:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html#frame_headerQUOTE(gfxnow @ Feb 9 2008, 22:45)

EDIT: Is it possible that FLAC Tester isn't compatible with files encoded with the latest version of FLAC (1.2.1b) ?
yep, it probably is using flac or libFLAC before 1.2.1
I have a related issue:
In the real world to get high-def content (ie: from 16-bit/48-KHz onwards) encoded in FLAC is proving to be quite difficult.
No matter how MS may wish WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE be mandatory for > 2/16/48 the real world is not playing catch up since there are practically NO apps using WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE. I mean the format makes sense but what a format is worth if nobody is using it ?
I have many GBs of HD WAVs (and I'm not even saying multi-channel) that I wish to migrate to FLAC as I already done with the 16/41 material many years ago and I'm still getting my head on the wall since there's seems to be no tool/utility to convert/fix from WAVEFORMATEX to WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE which is what the FLAC encoder requires to begin with. I even tried a command line utility called copysfx.exe to no avail either since confuses my 24/96 files as 16/96 ones.
So, how can WAVEFORMATEX files can be migrated/fixed/processed/whatever into the FLAC 1.2.1 encoder ???