Lossless Codec

**tomars** · June 9th, 2005, 12:29 PM

Ok, so I'm goign on a mission this weekend. I am going to back up all my CD's to a new external hardrive (its going to take a while :D).
What are your thoughts about the codec I should use?
Please vote and comment why if you want
If I have missed one that you think to be superior to the ones I am considering, I'll take any suggestions :D
Thanks

I meant AUDIO in the poll question but I cant find how to edit it :D

**shawners** · June 9th, 2005, 04:37 PM

Well I heard alot of good thing about monkey audio compression. So i know its faster in certain arenas and does shrink just as much for the speed. My idea in all this is to use exact audio and then encode it.. Rip secure mode. Then burn them to DVD.. Why let a hard drive go out later on =)

**notbob** · June 9th, 2005, 06:42 PM

monkeys sucks (stupid proprietary garbage)

shn is buggy as hell

flac is the best--it has a good installer, and built in nero and winamp support. if i suggest a lossless codec to someone, flac is the one

**Malakai1911** · June 9th, 2005, 07:08 PM

Flac is definately the best.
Monkey definately sucks.
I never used shorten, so I cant comment on its buggyness.

Notbob hit the nail on the head.

**Abyss00** · June 9th, 2005, 07:33 PM

Monkey has better compression then Flac does.

**notbob** · June 9th, 2005, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Abyss00

Monkey has better compression then Flac does.

so?

what"s better? smaller? faster? all that matters is quality, and the smaller you make a file and the faster you encode it you increase the odds of making a shitty product

flac is open, flac is well supported

monkey is closed, and not supported in other programs

not a hard choice

**shawners** · June 9th, 2005, 08:28 PM

If you compress it in some instances, you might as well make an iso if you cant get the file at least half the size of a disk.

**crestfallen** · June 10th, 2005, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by notbob

so?

what"s better? smaller? faster? all that matters is quality, and the smaller you make a file and the faster you encode it you increase the odds of making a shitty product

flac is open, flac is well supported

monkey is closed, and not supported in other programs

not a hard choice

For someone who wants lossless but is a little more strapped for HD space, smaller may be better. Or if a person intends to only use a PC to listen to the music, maybe as a media server. In that case, APE is the way to go.

FLAC is generally seen as the better of the lossless encoders, however, because it is well supported both in software and most importantly, in hardware players.

To each his own!

**WE_DELIVER** · June 10th, 2005, 05:27 AM

Why not just do a high bitrate mp3. Why waste all that space. Besides....depending on how many CDs you have and the hard drive size, I wouldnt be surprised if you end up running out of space, even with compression.

**tomars** · June 10th, 2005, 05:36 AM

Um I am definately using Lossless but I have second copies of some of my CD's in mp3 for use on my ipod (yeah I know it sucks). I want to use lossless because mp3 is getting old, development is being made all the time, hard drives are getting bigger. The next portable player I buy might be 200 gig for all I know. I dont want to have to re-rip all my CD's when mp3 becomes old news. And with broadband speeds increasing, more and more people are sharing lossless, so I think its the only way forward.

Also, I have another question: I have copied CD's from ages ago, they were copies made from original CD's not mp3's, will these be perfect quality if I rip them onto my hard-drive or will they have degraded in the copying process?
Thanks

**cpugeniusmv** · June 10th, 2005, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by tomars

Also, I have another question: I have copied CD's from ages ago, they were copies made from original CD's not mp3's, will these be perfect quality if I rip them onto my hard-drive or will they have degraded in the copying process?
Thanks

Shouldn't be.

**tomars** · June 10th, 2005, 06:12 AM

Thanks cpugeniusmv

**Abyss00** · June 10th, 2005, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by notbob

Originally Posted by Abyss00

Monkey has better compression then Flac does.

so?

So, if compression is your main concern then Monkey is better for your needs.

Originally Posted by notbob

what"s better? smaller? faster? all that matters is quality, and the smaller you make a file and the faster you encode it you increase the odds of making a shitty product

"better?" They are both lossless so equal.
"smaller?" Monkey wins it can make smaller files.
"faster?" Monkey wins, it can make the same sized files as flac in less time.

Originally Posted by notbob

flac is open, flac is well supported

monkey is closed, and not supported in other programs

You are right there. That is flac's 2 good points and Monkey's 2 bad points.

Originally Posted by notbob

not a hard choice

That depends. If you want opensource then flac, if you want hardware support then flac, if you want a lossless archive of all your music in the smallest space then Monkey wins out over flac.

Each person needs are different it is best to just look at the facts and decide for yourself.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....ess_comparison
http://www.monkeysaudio.com/comparison.html
http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm

**ducttapeBigSexy** · June 11th, 2005, 08:22 PM

I personally recommend FLAC for two reasons - it's popular and is built on open standards.

Say, 10 years from now your CDs get burned in a fire or something - if you use a proprietary codec, there's no guarantee the company / organization / etc. will still be making the codec in 10 years. Sure, you could try running the exisiting codec in future OSes, but there's no guarantee it'll work. Try running some native DOS applications in XP today - you'll get my point. However, in the case of something such as FLAC, if the original team decides to call it quits, most likely someone will pick up development again because it's so popular, and they will be able to ensure it's 100% compatible.

**crestfallen** · June 11th, 2005, 09:59 PM

Because lossy compression methods come and go. You can transcode from lossless to the newest/best lossy format to come along for your portable player. Once AAC becomes truly VBR in nature, I will probably switch to it, as it fixes some MP3 shortcomings and is additionally transparent at lower bitrates. And it works on my iPod.