FLAC vs APE?

vbimport

#1

If APE can compress more, then why don’t I use it for stereo sources rather than FLAC?


#2

[QUOTE=Goit;2080234]If APE can compress more, then why don’t I use it for stereo sources rather than FLAC?[/QUOTE]

Yes, APE can compress more but I prefer FLAC because it has error robustness and APE doesn’t. Other thing is that there are more hardware availble to play FLAC files than APE.


#3

[QUOTE=juancdg;2080241]Yes, APE can compress more but I prefer FLAC because it has error robustness and APE doesn’t. Other thing is that there are more hardware availble to play FLAC files than APE.[/QUOTE]

What is “error robustness”?


#4

I’m assuming that “error robustness” refers to the codecs ability to deal with errors during either the encode or decode process.


#5

Yes it has something to be dealing with errors. Let’s put it in a simple example: If you have an APE and at least 1 bit is modified (due to an error), consider your file destroyed, un-recoverable. While in FLAC, you will hear a little glitch (or in better cases you won’t hear anything) and that’s all, the file won’t be lost.


#6

If you want to use APE, I suggest you to put the files in a RAR file, your files will be more protected from damage.


#7

[QUOTE=juancdg;2080364]Yes it has something to be dealing with errors. Let’s put it in a simple example: If you have an APE and at least 1 bit is modified (due to an error), consider your file destroyed, un-recoverable. While in FLAC, you will hear a little glitch (or in better cases you won’t hear anything) and that’s all, the file won’t be lost.[/QUOTE]

Is that the feature in FLAC where you can check “decode through errors”? But I don’t check that, so it doesn’t matter anymore? And isn’t the whole point of lossless to be perfect instead of having differences?

If you want to use APE, I suggest you to put the files in a RAR file, your files will be more protected from damage.

How does putting them in a RAR file prevent them from damage?


#8

ape does compress more…but its not really that big of a difference and like others have said before there’s more hardware support for flac and its also updated more frequently…if you dont care about hardware support then maybe take a look at TAK…its fast like flac and high compression like ape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAK_(audio_codec)


#9

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/smf/index.php?topic=2150.msg8857#msg8857

The mod here says that it does have error robustness.

Also, why is error robustness good? Because I NEVER decode through errors for FLAC. And it doesn’t seem to affect encoding, so I would rather prefer to have the whole file destroyed and re rip it, instead of having a second of silence without me noticing.

TAK doesn’t seem to even have checksum yet? Still seems to be in BETA.


#10

I prefer ape. Almost of my data are ape files. I have a problem with flac, and this is the reason I choose ape.

I downloaded a 200Mb flac file + a cue file. When I enqueued cue in fb2k, play, my cpu usage rised to 100% in 4-5s.
I embed the cue into flac, hope the problem would disappear. When I click “ok” to embed , cpu usage started to rise again … this time in >10s

I tried w/ another 200Mb ape file + cue. No problem.

I’m finding a “flac to ape” converter 'cause only a little of my music are flac. It’ll take a bit. :smiley: