FLAC vs APE?

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

[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.

[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”?

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

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.

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.

[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?

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)

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.

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: