Jump to content
Basilisk

FLAC/ZIP vs WAV/RAR

Lossless format wars!  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your lossless format of choice?

    • FLAC/ZIP
      10
    • WAV/RAR
      11
    • WAV/ZIP
      3
    • APE/ZIP
      1
    • Wavpack/ZIP
      0
    • Something else! (Please specify.)
      5


Recommended Posts

Basilisk    41

Hello everyone... I am hoping to gauge how familiar most people are with the various lossless formats presently on the market. FLAC seems to be on its way to becoming "industry standard" but I figure a vote on the subject could help add support for the notion.

 

Of course, I am looking to gather some data to decide whether I should start distributing free music in FLAC format instead of WAV. I like WAV because it has maximum compatibility, but there are also downsides... file sizes are larger and there is no native support of tagging, something quite important in today's digital age. I've been addressing the file size issue by using RAR compression on WAV packages to bring the file size way down but this introduces another problem: not everyone is familiar with RAR compression and it isn't open source. Cross-platform support is widespread but it usually involves downloading third party software, something best to avoid to improve the user experience.

 

So... I'd love to hear what you have to say about the issue. For reference, I've already posed the question on my blog here:

http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/

 

At the time I was hesitant to make the switch but as time passes I am starting to feel that FLAC is familiar to most "power users" interested in lossless quality audio anyhow...

 

Your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frozen dream    20

this thread doesn't make any sense

 

ape/rar is the smallest, everyone has eyes you know :drama:

 

and with eyes you can read numb'ers

 

but wtf?? who fucking cares anyway LEL!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malevol3nt    2

Let's not go into "what sounds the best". People buy mp3s from commercial artists and take it for granted these days anyway. FLAC sounds allright to me as an idea to replace wav. It's the perfect choice for the filesize/quality ratio.. Most players support it, altho I'm not sure about iTunes or Win Media Player, but it shouldn't be hard to find a FLAC plugin for those unsupported players. Maybe you should post a small guide on how to install a FLAC Input plugin for media players that don't naturally support for FLAC in case you do make the choice of using FLAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frozen dream    20

installing flac is just as easy as installing monkey audio or wavpack, .ape is smallest in compression but i'm not sure about the results when converting back to wav.

 

to me it doesnt matter, i installed all those codecs and can play them all with mediaplayer :drama:

 

i have one simple free convertor for flac wav mp3 wma ape ogg (convertes them all back and forth with all possible options) and one special for wavpack. simple!

 

it's easy. either you care about having full quality, either you care not.

 

*paints a rainbow in the sky*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basilisk    41

Compression ratios are not the sole deciding factor; if that were the case it'd be obvious what way to go! Don't discount the importance of ease of use, familiarity/market penetration, and open vs closed development. There are many other factors at work here aside from file size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frozen dream    20

brain surgery for one!

 

i'm still not getting your point basilisk! you'll always need the wave file or you can't put it on a cd. the day i'd dj digital all the time is the day i'd rather kill myself :P

and most dj soft only support wave so..

 

 

ok lets have a bit of fun *rubs his hands* :P

Compression ratios are not the sole deciding factor; if that were the case it'd be obvious what way to go!

yes=.ape! but of course, the people running shops etc are all money lusted idiots! which explains why flac is becoming the standard so you say...because they all don't give one fuck and understand freekin shiet about it so it just gets picked by some goon and copied by the next, i've only seen 256,320 mp3 and wav so far though... can't imagine EVERYBODY buying flac or ape and using the convertors/codecs, or the codecs should become a standard...

Don't discount the importance of ease of use,

you mean double clicking it and listening it? converting it to another format? all lossless formats have equal conversion time and installment time (both of softs to convert them, as to codecs to play them) and the difference they all take up in space is neglectable (less than one wave file (codecs+softs) ;))

familiarity/market penetration,

that's not for you to decide (pronounced slow and horribly patronizing, even scary with a pinch of bloodlust)

it depends on who wants to get penetrated by what :lol: (rather something familiar, don't you think)

and open vs closed development.

wét..?

There are many other factors at work here aside from file size.

you're just making a big deal out of this for no reason aren't you :D

 

that last bit was self reflective

 

or maybe it wasn't

 

wav n mp3. -> works on all OS=most popular=Logic?

 

please keep it simple and clean ppl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qa2pir    7

this thread doesn't make any sense

 

ape/rar is the smallest, everyone has eyes you know :drama:

 

and with eyes you can read numb'ers

 

but wtf?? who fucking cares anyway LEL!!

Haha, you are so wise :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darkarbiter    1

I use wma lossless for lossless stuff and aac-he2+ for smaller file sizes. Whats with everyone using mp3 anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basilisk    41

i'm still not getting your point basilisk!

The point? This is a poll to find out what sort of lossless format most people prefer. I'm also asking about the preferred "wrapper" format (i.e. ZIP or RAR or something else) since we should be considering more than just single song downloads. Psytrance culture has traditionally been fairly release-oriented; people generally prefer full-length albums or compilations rather than single tracks. Given that, it also matters how releases are packaged. The most user-friendly approach is to zip up WAV files, but it's a bandwidth killer. I've been compressing WAVs with RAR on my site but many people have been telling me that RAR is more of a hassle than FLAC would be... which leads us to this poll, in which I am seeking a little more feedback about the issue. Does that help to explain things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
samuelh    0

Frozen dream relax a bit,

 

I think FLACP/ZIP is the way to go. FLAC is the most familiar lossless audio format to me, and most of the people I know (except wav ofcourse). It seems to have the most widespread use. I've only run across APE once or twice and and others I don't really know about. Almost everybody can unpack a rar file now days though, but since it's impossible to compress FLAC etc anymore I guess it would just be unecessary to use anything else than ZIP wich everyone has easy access to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darkarbiter    1

I'd like to add that I find having to unpack .rars somewhat annoying. Much better just to have it in flac in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryll    0

what's the difference between the lossless formats FLAC, WAV and RAW (or BIN/CUE) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEMO.BOFH    4

Flac = Compressed

Wav = Non Compressed

RAW = Rawfile data, have not seen audio in Raw format though (care to specify)?

BIN/CUE = If you make an iso out of a cd which can then easily be burned without having to compile anything (Track order, folder names etc etc) (The bin is the binary file data, and the cue location data)

 

I would prefer FLAC/RAR I love RAR, hate ZIP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reger    12

whats the difference between wav.zip and wav.rar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryll    0

Flac = Compressed

Wav = Non Compressed

RAW = Rawfile data, have not seen audio in Raw format though (care to specify)?

BIN/CUE = If you make an iso out of a cd which can then easily be burned without having to compile anything (Track order, folder names etc etc) (The bin is the binary file data, and the cue location data)

 

I would prefer FLAC/RAR I love RAR, hate ZIP :)

cool, thx for info

 

but what's to gain in rarring a compressed lossless format ?

 

if it does make a difference, then i'd say FLAC/RAR as well ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryll    0

it's in the eye of the beholder

rar just has more options, qua error/corruptionhandling and other

 

 

also it has a better compression-rate for audio

zip works better for images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryll    0

RAW = Rawfile data, have not seen audio in Raw format though (care to specify)?

i can save audio in raw (binary) format with Soundforge

but i dont think it makes a difference with WAV the same way as it would do between TIFF and RAW for images

 

cause raw format for images contains a logarithmic scale i thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the difference between wav.zip and wav.rar?

They are compressed with different compression algorithms.

 

RAR compression operations are typically much slower than compressing the same data with early compression algorithms like ZIP and gzip, but with a moderately better rate of compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEMO.BOFH    4

cool, thx for info

 

but what's to gain in rarring a compressed lossless format ?

 

if it does make a difference, then i'd say FLAC/RAR as well ;)

I dont think it would actually compress the file any further (I am pretty sure it wont) but I meant for multiple files so you can get ONE file instead of a couple. Of course, you could make it bin cue as well in that case, but I just prefer RAR :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryll    0

I dont think it would actually compress the file any further (I am pretty sure it wont) but I meant for multiple files so you can get ONE file instead of a couple. Of course, you could make it bin cue as well in that case, but I just prefer RAR :)

yeah, that way i can understand

bin cue is probably also quite sensitive for corruption

 

in a rar it's much more solid for online resources :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEMO.BOFH    4

yeah, that way i can understand

bin cue is probably also quite sensitive for corruption

 

in a rar it's much more solid for online resources :)

yeahp, thats it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malevol3nt    2

Thing is most people use Winzip or just the plain archive handling system of Windows, which doesnt support .rar (or does it? I haven't checked winzip in a while :unsure: )

Winrar supports both .zip and .rar's, so choosing .zip isn't a problem for winrar users. And if you're planning to use FLAC as the replacement for wav, there's no need for that extra compression in .rar files. I don't know about corruption, personally I can't remember when was the last time I downloaded a corrupt .zip file. And with FLAC, the archive shouldn't be that big for redownload anyways in case corruption does happen (and that should happen rarely, if ever).

 

As of ease of use & familiarity of the file format, people have slowly accepted FLAC as their main alternative to Wav. Seems like the most comfortable choice to replace wav with FLAC. I don't see what else you could choose as the most widely accepted format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kryll    0

I don't know about corruption, personally I can't remember when was the last time I downloaded a corrupt .zip file.

corrupted data or damaged archive, same thing ;)

 

 

and another surplus with RAR is that it supports splitting in rar-parts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEMO.BOFH    4

corrupted data or damaged archive, same thing ;)

 

 

and another surplus with RAR is that it supports splitting in rar-parts

and then create a nice sfv file for CRC Checking :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...