Mr. Do![Administrator Administrator](//www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/images/adm.gif) |
MAME Art Editor
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
Posts: 4887
|
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.
|
|
|