Hi all,

I was reading articles about .TTA, .FLAC on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTA_(codec), but
I found that they described TTA and FLAC as auido codec rather than audio formats, which confused me.

I have used foobar for some months.
Because Foobar is an audio player, and both TTA and FLAC are well supported by Foobar,
so it makes me think that .TTA and .FLAC are audio formats, not audio CODEC.

Could you help clarify please?

Thank you!

Kitty

They're basically used interchangeably, though formally a codec is the piece of software or hardware that actually does the encoding/decoding.

A format is, well, a file format of a specified kind (there are refinements about format and container that I don't fully understand).

A codec is a piece of software that will produce and play back files in a format. For some formats there is only one codec producing/playing files of that kind (e.g. TAK). For other formats, there is a variety of codecs: the obvious example is MP3, which is a format produced by LAME, a (series of) Fraunhoffer codecs, the codec in iTunes and so on.

HTH

well no...

a good example would be flake and FLAC

FLAC is an audio codec AND audio format.

flake is only and audio codec. the audio format of flake is FLAC.

get it?

the situation arises (the idea that all codecs are formats) because many are proprietary AND of the open source projects, most do not have alternate implementations to the reference software (FLAC being an exception).

another example is LAME.

LAME is an audio codec (or more appropriately, an encoder - although it does borrow code to include the ability to decode) and not an audio format. the audio format of LAME is MP3.


later

well, we could debate taxonomy. But it wouldn't be fare to OP

Happy New Year

Thanks all for your help!
So,
could I say that .TTA and .FLAC are examples of audio formats?

yes

Okay...


FLAC, TTA, Apple Lossless, WavPack are formats that have associated encoders (codec)


Conversely, wav is a format (well, a container for PCM audio) but there is no codec called wav.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_format

And for various kinds of compressed audio as well.

okay, well most commonly for 16/44 PCM audio.

nope. most commonly for PCM audio. I wouldn't dare to estimate the relative share of 16/24/32-bit files or 44.1/48/96 kHz files.

not to argue, but every cd that gets ripped ends up as a .wav before it is converted and most folks are used to the .wav's that are created after a disc is ripped, so I venture to guess that it is the most common.

...depends on the ripping program whether a PCM file actually gets written to the drive.

I would wager that vast majority of people don't intentionally bother with wave files. Meanwhile every default installation of Windows will include 22.05kHz 16-bit waves.

Hopefully the OP is satisfied with the answers so far and this bickering isn't getting in the way.

And speaking more about codecs vs audio formats, I'm trying to find some way to save a file in a g729.1 codec. I get the impression that a mu-law file is ok as far as the format, but I'm looking for a tool that will compress that mulaw file to match the aforementioned codec. Is there anyone following this thread who might be able to help me out or at least point me somewhere to someone who could?
Thanks in advance.

Ted

BTW, I never use the .wav format when creating audio CDs

WAV is not a format, it is a container. Most often it is used to contain PCM data, which is the format used for audio CDs.