similar to: [Flac-users] --lax and -r

First, many thanks to Kerry Hoath (and some to a friend who is not on this list, but mostly to Kerry) for help with my batch file question. It's working, pretty much, but I'm still tweaking it, and I'll share the results when it's polished to my satisfaction. Related question: according to the longer help file, if you use the "verify" option during encoding, flac checks

Hello all, I have taken the liberty of creating a new Samba software community over on Lemmy. I realize that mailing lists are the traditional way projects communicate but I wanted a place more public and easier to use. For those who do not know, Lemmy is a federated forms platform. Here are the links to the community: Lemmy form: !sambasoftware at lemmy.sdf.org lemmy,sdf.org:

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,

It can but is probably not as nice as youwould like. flac -t *.flac if errorlevel 1 goto fail goto exit :fail echo Danger Will Robinson! Flac files failed integrity check. :exit For this reason cygwin and its bash for windows does a lot more. Notes on the batch file fragment above: if errorlevel 1 goto actually means if errorlevel 1 or greater so don't try if errorlevel 0 since it will

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 its internally stored fingerprint lets > you know that you have a

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

I am getting the following error when trying to install an application that should launch a java application: I did set my display to the localhost:0.0 but to no avail. Stack Trace: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.forName(Unknown Source) at java.awt.Toolkit$2.run(Unknown Source) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native

On 10/13/07, Wayne Davison <wayned@samba.org> committed: > Added Files: > detect-renamed-lax.diff > Log Message: > My version of Matt's --trust-rename patch. The option --detect-moved should be named --detect-moved-lax because it contains the lax behavior. --detect-moved would mean "use a file with the same basename as an alternate basis". Matt

--- Marek Peteraj <marpet@naex.sk> wrote: > Hi all, > > i'd like to ask what the best options are for safe 24bit 96kHz > archiving. Currently i'm only using -8 but there are also some other > options like block size etc. Can anyone suggest? I haven't heard of anyone using FLAC for 192khz, so you'll probably just have to experiment. when you have some

Hi all, i'd like to ask what the best options are for safe 24bit 96kHz archiving. Currently i'm only using -8 but there are also some other options like block size etc. Can anyone suggest? Also i'd like to ask whether a no-lax 192kHz mode is planned in flac, seems like 192kHz isn't directly supported although flac can compress such rate in lax mode. My last question - is there

Hi Josh, On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 22:41, Josh Coalson wrote: > --- Marek Peteraj <marpet@naex.sk> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > i'd like to ask what the best options are for safe 24bit 96kHz > > archiving. Currently i'm only using -8 but there are also some other > > options like block size etc. Can anyone suggest? > > I haven't heard of

These commands both work in Dovecot (as of 2.1.3): 1 UID FETCH 1:* () (CHANGEDSINCE 1) * 1 FETCH (UID 30097 MODSEQ (19554)) [...] 1 OK Fetch completed. 2 FETCH 1:* () (CHANGEDSINCE 1) * 2 FETCH (MODSEQ (19554)) [...] 2 OK Fetch completed. However, RFC 3501 indicates that an empty FETCH attribute list is incorrect: fetch = "FETCH" SP sequence-set SP ("ALL" /

Thank you all very much for making things clear. I had confused seekpoints and cuepoints indeed ! I propose that Kerry's definitions (below) be added to the documentation. regards, Phil ----- Mail d'origine ----- De: Kerry Hoath <kerry at gotss.net> ?: porte64 at free.fr Envoy?: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:28:04 +0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [Flac] FLAC: how to dump seekpoints ? don't

--- "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 see > whether two differing FLAC files might come from the same WAV but

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 right FLAC file. But if you don't need the > | contents of the text

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

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 -S10s, > does that mean that, if you encode a 44.1-ksps WAV that was