search for: flaking

Hello Is it planned someday to implement additional higher (9-12) compression modes like in Flake? http://flake-enc.sourceforge.net/ It's not very important I think. Harddrive space isn't problem today. But it preserves other indepentent work done on Flac and give room for some extra albums on harddrive. I think development of flake is stopped. I plan to test my ~20 GB flac

Flake is a completely independent codebase. When I used it years ago, I remember it being not only better compression but significantly faster as well. I believe some of the techniques used in libflake were added to libFLAC in 1.1.4. However, some of the improved compression in flake was due to options that are outside the FLAC 'subset', such as larger blocksize, greater number of

?hel kenal p?eval (neljap?ev, 14. m?rts 2013 19:02:35) kirjutas Declan Kelly: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:06:51PM -0400, benski at winamp.com wrote: > > Flake is a completely independent codebase. When I used it years ago, I > > remember it being not only better compression but significantly faster as > > well. I believe some of the techniques used in libflake were added to

I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders, but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS. On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM, <flac-dev-request at xiph.org> wrote: > Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to > flac-dev at xiph.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Are you sure that the encoding library was improved, or just the command line? Keep in mind that 1-8 (or 0-8) are just macros for particular combinations of options that are also available separately. I'm just guessing, here, but 9-12 might be nothing more than selected combinations of options that are already available in the official flac command-line, albeit without a short,

Op 07-02-12 19:50, Ralph Giles schreef: > Basically the audio is chopped into a blocks and each block is coded > either uncompressed, as a constant value (good for silence), or with > linear predictive coding plus a rice-coded residual. I don't know how > the encoder decides where to put the block boundaries. AFAIK, FLAC uses a fixed block length so block boundaries are just put

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:06:51PM -0400, benski at winamp.com wrote: > > Flake is a completely independent codebase. When I used it years ago, I > remember it being not only better compression but significantly faster as > well. I believe some of the techniques used in libflake were added to > libFLAC in 1.1.4. However, some of the improved compression in flake was > due to

On 13-03-13 10:49, Marko Uibo wrote: > I plan to test my ~20 GB flac collection how big difference flake -12 > gives me. But I still use reference implementation for my main collection. If I remember correctly gains were less then 0,5%, which for 20GB will be 100MB, not enough to get even one extra album in. If you like the idea of that little extra gain while sticking with FLAC (for

On 14-03-13 20:16, Marko Uibo wrote: > One possibility is to broaden Flac subset. But I don't know is it good > idea or not. It's not a good idea, except when you want to ruin FLACs reputation. One of the reasons FLAC is (alongside ALAC) one of the two most popular lossless codecs is because of the well-defined subset. I've tried Flake -9, -10, -11 and -12 on my portable

On 14-03-13 21:24, Declan Kelly wrote: > No. I want the tightest possible compression, while remaining 100% > compatible with the subset that all known FLAC decoders can successfully > stream or play now in cars, Hi-Fi units, "MP3 players" and cell phones. > The out and out most widely supported lossless audio format could (and > should) have a better "bang for the

# gem install rmagick Bulk updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org ERROR: While executing gem ... (OpenURI::HTTPError) 404 Not Found # gem update sources Updating installed gems... Attempting remote update of sources ERROR: While executing gem ... (Gem::GemNotFoundException) Could not find sources (> 0) in the repository # gem search rmagic --remote *** REMOTE GEMS

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:12:14PM +0100, mvanb1 at gmail.com wrote: > No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even > LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better > than FLAC will with a -9 option. No. I want the tightest possible compression, while remaining 100% compatible with the subset that all known FLAC decoders can

Lots of comments throughout this one... On Jan 7, 2011, at 15:28, Declan Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 02:22:51PM -0800, brianw at sounds.wa.com wrote: >> However, you should be aware that many modern producers use software >> to create their music, and when the software stores sound clips in >> MP3 format, what you end up with is music that sometimes looks like

On Mar 14, 2013, at 13:24, Declan Kelly wrote: > I want the tightest possible compression, while remaining 100% > compatible with the subset that all known FLAC decoders can > successfully > stream or play now in cars, Hi-Fi units, "MP3 players" and cell > phones. > The out and out most widely supported lossless audio format could (and > should) have a better

> I was wrong about it going up to 11 - it actually goes up to 12. Too bad. I thought for a minute there that it goes up to eleven because... "Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from

hi I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC 1.2.0.: - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any other 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? thx in advance! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Hello everyone, I'm writing you a topic because i have a problem with smaba and LDAP. This is my problem, when I type in the shell slapcat, i've got this message : str2entry: invalid value for attributeType objectClass #1 (syntax 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.38) slapcat: bad configuration file! There is my slapd.conf : include /etc/ldap/schema/core.schema include

On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 05:11:26PM -0800, brianw at sounds.wa.com wrote: > Lots of comments throughout this one... And I'm going to cherry-pick a few replies as it's getting late. > What I found most interesting was that I had > hired a professional studio in Seattle, and the owner actually stuck > his head in the room for this one track. He'd heard a lot of >

On 14-03-13 20:02, Declan Kelly wrote: > The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have > a "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression. No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better than FLAC will with a -9 option. FLAC 1.0

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:54 PM Kuba Mracek <mracek at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 2019, at 1:21 PM, David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > >> What you're seeing is just the fact that lit is waiting on > >>