[peel] Lossy and Lossless Audio compression

[Tom Bartlett]

To be honest it doesn't matter which lossless format you choose all the 
files should be identical when you decode back to wave. I prefer FLAC 
because my rockboxed i-river and choice of audio player on the PC 
regarding of operating system supports it. It now seems to be the format 
of choice for sites offering downloads in a lossless format.

I have heard good things about Wave pack, TTA, TAK etc  and all seem to 
be chosen on depending speed and size. This site may help.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison

Tom



deedeeramain wrote:
>
> I see the advantages of FLAC and think I need to reconsider my
> archiving system.
>
> I rip my CDs using Easy CD-DA and convert to Ogg Vorbis. The
> settings in Easy CD-DA give you the usual compression options and
> the best (ie most minimum compression) is labelled 320-500kbps hence
> the 500kbps that was confusing some of us.
>
> Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) was supposed to be similar to .mp3 but open source
> and slightly superior tho. I confess I could not tell the difference
> between two files ripped with the different codecs!
>
> Now, memory is less of a concern so I guess I need to trade up to a
> lossless form of compression but why FLAC? A majority of the files I
> see floating around with lossless compression are Monkey's Audio
> Compression (.ape) files.
>
> Maybe FLAC is superior but so was OGG and it (OGG) seems to be
> falling by the wayside a la betamax!
>
> Anybody have any convincing arguments for one or the other?
>
> Cheers!
>
> DeeDee
>
>