| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.audio.eac.user |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
latoak34 wrote:
> No, I never said a FLAC file has to be in a zip file to be compressed, You are confused, What I meant was a FLAC is an audio file that can be in a state of no compression,
No, I am not confused. You wrote "FLAC can be uncompressed just like any other file that can be either a file or a zipped file.” Xiph.ORG <http://xiph.org/>, the keepers of the FLAC standard say this:
> FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec, an audio format similar to MP3, but lossless, meaning that audio is compressed in FLAC without any loss in quality. This is similar to how Zip works, except with FLAC you will get much better compression because it is designed specifically for audio,
What you showed in the screenshot is not a standard FLAC file. It’s some bastardization originally offered by dbPoweramp.
In June, there was an issue opened to make that a part of the FLAC standard. During the discussion, one of the lead FLAC developers, lvqcl, ran a decoding speed test. It showed that dbPoweramp’s “uncompressed” FLAC was took 10% longer to decode, and was 40% larger, than the flac -0 compressed version. I/O isn’t free, especially not on portable players. It’s often the case that reading the larger uncompressed audio file takes more CPU cycles than reading a smaller, compressed version and decoding it. The notion of an uncompressed mode for FLAC was deemed to be of no value and it was closed summarily with the following comment:
> I agree. FLAC in "no compression" mode makes no sense at all. Closing this.
Regards,
Fred Maxwell
Moderator, Exact Audio Copy Yahoogroup