search for: tamkin

2007/10/15, David W. Tamkin <dattier@panix.com>: > > Harry, > > > so i was wondering what advantages it could give me to make a ffp > > file, because there is already a internally stored md5 checksum on the > > decoded audio data inside the flac file? > > Testing the .flac file against i...

Early this past week, Miroslav Lichvar suggested for me: > Ok, you need 0.04% improvement, that should not be a problem. Try > flac --lax -e -p -l 32 -r 10 --no-padding Thank you again, Miroslav. I tried that, and it took almost two full days (surprisingly, Windows ME stayed up that long without crashing) to re-encode the entire set on my 266-MHz machine. After all, in the help file

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:04:40AM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Josh suggested to Chris: > > > flac --super-secret-totally-impractical-compression-level > > Now it's not a secret any more! (OK, to those who can read the code, it > never was.) > > >No joke, > > The existence of the option isn't, but its...

--- "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@panix.com> wrote: > An enthusiastic FLAC user on another list to which I subscribe said > that FLAC > has a function to display on screen the stored fingerprint that a > FLAC file > has of its source WAV. That sounds wonderful, because it allows a > user to s...

Two wavs I tried to encode tonight got errors near their ends, saying something like "skipped unknown sub-chunk 'LIST'." These occurred at 97% into one file and 98% into the other. If I hadn't brought the DOS command window to the foreground and hadn't been at the monitor watching before these warnings were scrolled away by the displays from work on other files in the

--- "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@panix.com> wrote: > Our Leader asked, > > | In any case, if you run flac -t and it passes, the only extra > | information you get from comparing the MD5 sum to the text > | file is to know if the original seeder put the right text file > | together with the r...

This may be more a question about the pseudo-DOS command line than about flac itself, but at this point I don't really know. How can one direct the output of flac -t to a file instead of the screen? Often I'd like to verify a large number of flac files, and Speek's front-end is very good for writing up the batch file for that (flac -t itself doesn't seem to expand wildcards on

If one is running flac under Windows and invoking it at a command.com prompt, does flac -t return an exit status that command.com can use to determine its next move (such as logging whether the flac file being tested passed or failed)? Meanwhile, I discovered the pause command; by editing that into the batch file between invocations of flac -t, at least I won't miss any results before they

...t as well; I think it is in sysutils or textutils in the msdos section. There might be a way to cludge around all this in Windows by using Perl and getting it to flac -t a file at a time but I honestly think cybwin would be easier. Regards, Kerry. On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 04:54:22PM -0600, David W. Tamkin wrote: > | yes, the exit code will be 1 if any of the flac files failed > | testing, else 0 (i.e. if all of them passed). > > Thank you, Josh! Now the only trick is to see whether command.com can do > anything with that information. > > > > --------------------------...

When I asked, | > If you're going to run flac -t later to test | > the .flac file, isn't it redundant to have verification on during | > encoding? Fearless Leader Ace Coalson responded, | yep. OK. | > If you know ... that -V was used | > during encoding and that flac reported "Verify OK," is there any | > reason to test the file? | nope, unless you suspect

--- "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@panix.com> wrote: > First, as long as you don't use the --cuesheet option when you > encode, are > .flac files encoded by 1.1.0 still readable by earlier versions? that's right. > Second, if the old default for seekpoints was -S100x and the new one > is...

--- "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@panix.com> wrote: > Thank you very much for the explanations, Josh. > > | the seekpoints are not the only places in the stream that can > | be seeked to, they are just hints about regular locations in > | the stream. you can still seek to any sample. the numbe...

So the right way to do it -- it seemed to work when I tried it, at least -- is metaflac --remove-all --dont-use-padding filename.flac ? I guess that these features make it more imperative than ever to watch the timestamps and not to validate a FLAC with an MD5 that is older than the FLAC is.

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 04:40:42PM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: > If processing time is not a big factor -- say, I could put up with four > to six times the duration of compressing at -8 -- what command-line > settings could one use to get even more compression? > > I have a case where the FLACs encoded at -8 are about 653.3 MB, but the...

Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > Ok, you need 0.04% improvement, that should not be a problem. Perhaps a little more than that, since the sizes I listed were after stripping out the padding and all metadata blocks except SEEKTABLE and STREAMINFO. > Try flac --lax -e -p -l 32 -r 10 --no-padding > and if it is not enough, increase -r up to 16. Thank you. I'll do that. What, though,

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 05:49:06PM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote: > Early this past week, Miroslav Lichvar suggested for me: > > >Ok, you need 0.04% improvement, that should not be a problem. Try > >flac --lax -e -p -l 32 -r 10 --no-padding > > Thank you again, Miroslav. I tried that, and it took almost two full > days (surpr...

Josh explained, > search for "subset" on http://flac.sf.net/format.html > (I'll make a link in the documentation to it). That was over my head -- not the post, but the information at that URL. Does it mean that a non-Subset FLAC file isn't streamable, that a decoder can't read successive parts of the FLAC file and generate successive parts of the WAV?

--- Chris <cl@enposte.net> wrote: > What are the settings that will give the absolute best compression? > It doesn't have to stream, and encodeing speed is not a factor. > I also don't care how long it will take to encode. flac --super-secret-totally-impractical-compression-level No joke, but you will soon find out that it is not worth it and will go back to -8. The -#

--- Chris <cl@enposte.net> wrote: > What are the settings that will give the absolute best compression? > It doesn't have to stream, and encodeing speed is not a factor. > I also don't care how long it will take to encode. flac --super-secret-totally-impractical-compression-level No joke, but you will soon find out that it is not worth it and will go back to -8. The -#

Sorry for the elementary question, but heck, that's why I'm on flac-users and not on flac-developers. If a .flac file decodes without error, does that mean that it would have tested OK? I've been assuming that there's an implicit test in the decoding process, and that a mismatch on the internal checksum would make flac report an error on decoding instead of simply saying