Mr. Do |
|
MAME Art Editor
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 4876
|
|
Loc: California
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
So samples can be FLAC now?
#277248 - 02/25/12 08:21 PM
|
|
|
So it's as simple as
C:\flac --verify --best sepways.wav
And that gives me sepways.flac and keeps the same quality?
|
RELAX and just have fun. Remember, it's all about the games.
|
|
| CiroConsentino |
|
Frontend freak!
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 6211
|
|
Loc: Alien from Terra Prime... and Brazil
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: Mr. Do]
#277249 - 02/25/12 08:28 PM
|
|
|
FLAC has a minor compression but not as much as MP3s. Much much much better than MP3, that's for sure.
WAV -> around 1400 kbps
FLAC -> between 950 kbps and 1100 kbps (depends on the encoder choices)
|
Ciro Alfredo Consentino
home: http://emuloader.mameworld.info
e-mail: [email protected]
|
|
| redk9258 |
|
Regular
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 3968
|
|
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: Mr. Do]
#277252 - 02/25/12 09:22 PM
|
|
|
> So it's as simple as
>
> C:\flac --verify --best sepways.wav
>
> And that gives me sepways.flac and keeps the same quality?
And I guess you could 7-Zip your samples too ;-)
|
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: CiroConsentino]
#277255 - 02/25/12 11:11 PM
|
|
|
> FLAC has a minor compression but not as much as MP3s. Much much much better than MP3,
> that's for sure.
> WAV -> around 1400 kbps
> FLAC -> between 950 kbps and 1100 kbps (depends on the encoder choices)
This is like comparing jpeg and png.
MP3 is a lossy compression which means it doesn't contain all the data of the original file. While FLAC is eeer... name is speaking for itself: Free Lossless Audio Codec... Free Lossless... Lossless...  Think about a zip file! you can go from raw to zipped and back from zipped to raw without any data being loss. This is what lossless means.
|
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: ReadOnly]
#277285 - 02/26/12 06:27 AM
|
|
|
> This is like comparing jpeg and png.
>
> MP3 is a lossy compression which means it doesn't contain all the data of the
> original file. While FLAC is eeer... name is speaking for itself: Free Lossless Audio
> Codec... Free Lossless... Lossless... Think about a zip file! you can go from raw to
> zipped and back from zipped to raw without any data being loss. This is what lossless
> means.
I find this humourous. I mean, really. In any case, mp3 may be lossy, but that's why it's a lot smaller.
|
Consider it high comedy....sincere tragedy....whatever...don't take it personally.
The Culture
|
|
| Foxhack |
|
Furry guy
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/30/04
|
|
Posts: 2409
|
|
Loc: Spicy Canada
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: ReadOnly]
#277297 - 02/26/12 08:30 AM
|
|
|
> > FLAC has a minor compression but not as much as MP3s. Much much much better than
> MP3,
> > that's for sure.
> > WAV -> around 1400 kbps
> > FLAC -> between 950 kbps and 1100 kbps (depends on the encoder choices)
>
> This is like comparing jpeg and png.
>
> MP3 is a lossy compression which means it doesn't contain all the data of the
> original file. While FLAC is eeer... name is speaking for itself: Free Lossless Audio
> Codec... Free Lossless... Lossless... Think about a zip file! you can go from raw to
> zipped and back from zipped to raw without any data being loss. This is what lossless
> means.
It'll still be somewhat smaller than a WAV file. Complex songs do make large FLACs, but for simple sample stuff, there won't really be much of a difference.
Plus remember, MAME, hard drive, impunity, etcetera.
|
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: Foxhack]
#277307 - 02/26/12 03:48 PM
|
|
|
> > > FLAC has a minor compression but not as much as MP3s. Much much much better than
> > MP3,
> > > that's for sure.
> > > WAV -> around 1400 kbps
> > > FLAC -> between 950 kbps and 1100 kbps (depends on the encoder choices)
> >
> > This is like comparing jpeg and png.
> >
> > MP3 is a lossy compression which means it doesn't contain all the data of the
> > original file. While FLAC is eeer... name is speaking for itself: Free Lossless
> Audio
> > Codec... Free Lossless... Lossless... Think about a zip file! you can go from raw
> to
> > zipped and back from zipped to raw without any data being loss. This is what
> lossless
> > means.
>
> It'll still be somewhat smaller than a WAV file. Complex songs do make large FLACs,
> but for simple sample stuff, there won't really be much of a difference.
>
> Plus remember, MAME, hard drive, impunity, etcetera.
Sure. I do not contest that point. I made that post because he seemed to confuse compression of data on one hand, and data preservation on the other hand. These two concepts are independent.
|
|
|
| CiroConsentino |
|
Frontend freak!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 6211
|
|
Loc: Alien from Terra Prime... and Brazil
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: ReadOnly]
#277311 - 02/26/12 05:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: So samples can be FLAC now?
[Re: CiroConsentino]
#277313 - 02/26/12 05:31 PM
|
|
|
No I am the one who needs to apologize, after reading again my post, I realized it may have sounded rude. Sorry about that, my English is more and more rusty and sometimes I am not careful enough about what I am typing. 
|
|
|
Previous 
Index 
Next 
Threaded 
So samples can be FLAC now?
Reply
[Re: 
Think about a zip file! you can go from raw to zipped and back from zipped to raw without any data being loss. This is what lossless means.
