Actually, I checked my archives, it's 1.2.0 which introduced the additional scheme for rice coding, not 1.2.1, but that doesn't change the gist of it... I remember seeing a note from Josh a long time ago, saying that those new encodings were only for 24-bit files. I has never seen these on standard 16-bit CD-rip type FLACs, but I found them in the first 24-bit file I was confronted with (a simple 24/44.1 file). It may very well be that the low-effort compression doesn't bother using these.
-- Pierre-Yves Thoulon On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 01:51, Brian Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote: > What is a "local implementation?" Do you mean the hardware version > number? > > I think Pierre-Yves may be correct. There certainly were some > changes to 24-bit support, and many of these problematic FLAC files > are HD audio. In other words, they're not simply 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD > audio converted to FLAC, but they are 24/96 or 24/192 audio in FLAC > format. > > The only curious thing is that using flac 1.2.1 with --fast or > compression level 0 is enough to make the hardware happy. In that > case, are only the old Rice codings used for lower compression levels > with 24-bit audio? > > You raise a good point, Nicholas. I would like to see manufacturers > give specific information about what level of the FLAC format they > support. The BDP-95 does not mention FLAC in the manual at all, and > the web page only mentions FLAC twice - once in a bold heading, and > again in the body of text. Neither mention of FLAC gives any details > at all - they just put it in the list of formats. I suppose, in > comparison, that MP3 players usually don't give any details about > whether the hardware supports 320 Kb or multichannel or anything > else. Perhaps we're reaching an age where nobody cares about the > details. > > Brian Willoughby > Sound Consulting > > > On Feb 6, 2011, at 15:24, Nicholas Bower wrote: > > Version 1.2.1 of the standard/spec or the local implementation? > > > > I've not seen "FLAC 1.0/1.1 Compliant" or "FLAC 1.2 Compliant" on > > the specs of hardware gear for example when FLAC is stated supported. > > > > Just a curious on-looker. > > > > > > On 7 February 2011 02:34, Pierre-Yves Thoulon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Version 1.2.1 introduced new rice coding techniques that are used by > >> the reference encoder for 24 bit files. An older version of the > >> decoder will have trouble with frames that use this encoding... Maybe > >> that's where the strange noises come from... > _______________________________________________ > Flac mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac >
_______________________________________________ Flac mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
