Re: [Flac-dev] Is FLAC__stream_decoder_seek_absolute working for OggFlac?
Josh Coalson wrote: --- Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Is seeking working for OggFlac files? I keep on getting a FLAC__STREAM_DECODER_SEEK_ERROR. yes, it should work fine. in flac/src/test_seeking/main.c there is an example usage of FLAC__stream_decoder_seek_absolute(). you could try compiling it and running test_seeking on it. if if fails maybe there is a bug that your stream is triggering. Ok, running the command: src/test_seeking/test_seeking flac_char.ogg resulted in: +++ seek test: FLAC__StreamDecoder (Ogg FLAC, read_mode=0) file's total_samples is 0 Begin seek barrage, count=0 #0:seek(0)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #1:seek(1)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #2:seek(2)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #3:seek(3)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #4:seek(4)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #5:seek(5)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #6:seek(6)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #7:seek(7)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #8:seek(8)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #9:seek(9)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #10:seek(2332)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #11:seek(2331)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #12:seek(2330)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK #13:seek(2329)... seek failed, assuming it was past EOF... OK and so on. The test file is here: http://www.mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac_char.ogg Erik -- - Erik de Castro Lopo - C++ is a language strongly optimized for liars and people who go by guesswork and ignorance. -- Erik Naggum ___ Flac-dev mailing list Flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [Flac-dev] FLAC__stream_decoder_process_single and FLAC__STREAM_DECODER_END_OF_STREAM
I haven't studied this thoroughly, but perhaps the return code is supposed to distinguish bad streams from good streams. Every stream must end eventually, but that does not mean there is an error with the stream. You're wanting a return code that tells you whether to continue processing blocks or stop, regardless of whether or not there was an error ... the API is providing a return code that tells you whether the stream is good or bad, with no indication of whether or not the stream has ended. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 25, 2007, at 01:42, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: However, I still don't understand why FLAC__stream_decoder_process_single() returns false when an error has occurred, but true when the read callback returns FLAC__STREAM_DECODER_END_OF_STREAM? Why isn't end of stream treated like any other error? Erik ___ Flac-dev mailing list Flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
[Flac-dev] building flac 1.2.0 on OS X
I just tried to build 1.2 on my Macbook i ran configure with the following arguments (like i have in the past) ./configure --enable-static --disable-asm-optimizations --disable-shared then make: i get the following error: encode.c: In function 'convert_to_seek_table_template': encode.c:2181: error: 'struct anonymous' has no member named 'use_ogg' make[3]: *** [encode.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 Anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Scott ___ Flac-dev mailing list Flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [Flac-dev] building flac 1.2.0 on OS X
--- Brian Willoughby wrote: Did you build and install libOgg first? What is the output of ./configure before you run make? --- end of quote --- i've never had to build libOgg before (won't be back to my machine until tomorrow so I can't post the output until then) Thanks, Scott ___ Flac-dev mailing list Flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [Flac-dev] building flac 1.2.0 on OS X
Did you build and install libOgg first? What is the output of ./configure before you run make? Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 25, 2007, at 14:45, Scott C. Brown 02 wrote: I just tried to build 1.2 on my Macbook i ran configure with the following arguments (like i have in the past) ./configure --enable-static --disable-asm-optimizations --disable-shared then make: i get the following error: encode.c: In function 'convert_to_seek_table_template': encode.c:2181: error: 'struct anonymous' has no member named 'use_ogg' make[3]: *** [encode.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 Anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Scott ___ Flac-dev mailing list Flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [Flac-dev] building flac 1.2.0 on OS X
--- Josh Coalson wrote:
damn, I see the problem. there needs to be an #if FLAC__HAS_OGG
nearby, like so:
if(num_requested_seek_points 0) {
#if FLAC__HAS_OGG
/*@@ workaround ogg bug: too many seekpoints makes table
not fit in one page */
if(e-use_ogg e-total_samples_to_encode 0
e-total_samples_to_encode / e-sample_rate / 10 230)
requested_seek_points = 230x;;
else
#endif
requested_seek_points = 10s;;
num_requested_seek_points = 1;
}
--- end of quote ---
that worked. thanks!
___
Flac-dev mailing list
Flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
[Flac] Bug: flac --replay-gain thinks that I used --no-padding
If I use flac to encode with the --replay-gain
option, I get a warning about the --no-padding
option...
NOTE: --replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with --no-padding
...even though I'm not using --no-padding. And the
file does end up with a small padding block, so
changing tags is slow.
I'd fixed this bug in my own copy of flac 1.1.4,
but forgot to submit the patch... I just noticed
when I upgraded to 1.2.0, this bug reappeared! :)
At the end of my email is the way I changed it;
also works for 1.2.0.
Thank you Josh for doing a bang-up job on FLAC. I
look forward to the improved 24-bit compression
that your decoder changes will allow.
Regards,
Scott
--- flac-1.1.4/src/flac/main.c.orig Mon Feb 5 22:32:16 2007
+++ flac-1.1.4/src/flac/main.c Thu Jun 28 16:00:05 2007
@@ -413,7 +413,10 @@
* tags that we will set later, to avoid rewriting the
* whole file.
*/
- if(option_values.padding = 0) {
+ if(option_values.padding == -1) {
+ /* Leave it alone; use the default. */
+ }
+ else if(option_values.padding = 0) {
flac__utils_printf(stderr, 1, NOTE:
--replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with --no-padding\n);
option_values.padding =
GRABBAG__REPLAYGAIN_MAX_TAG_SPACE_REQUIRED;
}
___
Flac mailing list
Flac@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] Re: FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
2007/7/25, Harry Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode it to WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message above still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exe doesn't want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature mismatch, or is this not possible at all? An additional question: what happens if you re-encode a FLAC file, that gives the error message 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' while trying to decode to WAV, to another FLAC file using a later version of the FLAC encoder? I tried this and it seems to work, but I'm wondering if the audio data is still the same in the new file as in the old file? Or what happens in the re-encode process when such a input FLAC file is re-encoded to another FLAC file? thx in advance! thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
Hi I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode it to WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message above still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exe doesn't want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature mismatch, or is this not possible at all? thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: re-encoding
--- Harry Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC 1.2.0.: - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? yes, flac can take FLAC files as input, but there is no compression advantage going from 1.1.4 to 1.2.0 - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any other 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? yes, if they are FLAC compliant Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC 1.2.0 released
--- Harry Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awesome! Is this new version already stable or still a testing version? (sorry for this probably stupid question but I'm still a FLAC newbie :) ) yes, all releases pass the exhaustive test suite on several different architectures. rarely I put out alphas or betas but then it will be clearly labelled as such. Josh Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] Bug: flac --replay-gain thinks that I used --no-padding
--- Scott F [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I use flac to encode with the --replay-gain option, I get a warning about the --no-padding option... NOTE: --replay-gain may leave a small PADDING block even with --no-padding ...even though I'm not using --no-padding. And the file does end up with a small padding block, so changing tags is slow. hmm, I can't reproduce that warning unless I use --no-padding or -P0, are you using any padding option? can you post the entire command-line? Josh Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: tool to re-encode (win32)
Hi i'm looking for a tool (it must run in win32) to re-encode existing FLAC files to a newer version of FLAC. I tried the FLAC frontend (included in the FLAC 1.2.0 installer) but this tool doesn't allow this (it only allows encoding of WAV files to FLAC files, re-encoding of FLAC files to FLAC files isn't supported). So I'm looking for a tool that can re-encode existing FLAC files without having manually to decode them to WAV. I tried to do this in the windows command prompt several times but there are too many problems with that windows prompt (no wildcard support if you use flac.exe, ...) so I prefer a graphical tool. I hope maybe somebody can help me thanks in advance ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] metaflac
--- Christopher Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi List, I am writing an audio player that exclusively plays FLAC sound files, with CUE sheets. It is written in Python, so it is cross-platform, and it is working very well so far. The soundfile IO is handled by the Audiere library. For metadata (aside from the CUE sheet), I make system calls to metaflac to do things like extract album art for display, and I have a question concerning metaflac. Is there a way to check for the existence of a tag before retrieving it? When I try to get an image from a FLAC file, if it does not exist, FLAC returns an error. This is really not a big deal, because my program runs fine through the error, but it does show up in my programs output, and anyway it seems like the more proper way to do it is to first check to see if the tag is present before retrieving it. Not really a big deal, I just wanted to know if I overlooked something, because I don't see how to do it. not sure I understand... is the image in a tag? if you do metaflac --show-tag=TAG and TAG does not exist, metaflac prints nothing and the exit code is 0. if it does, it prints the matching tags and the exit code is 0. so how are you getting the error? images are now supposed to be stored in the dedicated PICTURE block and that should be accessed via libFLAC http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html#metadata_block_picture http://flac.sourceforge.net/api/group__flac__metadata__level0.html#ga3 you can check for the existence of a PICTURE block with metaflac --list |grep ... or with libFLAC using the metadata iterators. Josh Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/ ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] Re: FLAC: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch
2007/7/25, Harry Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2007/7/25, Harry Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi I have downloaded a FLAC file somewhere and when trying to decode it to WAV it gives the error message: ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch So my question is now: are FLAC files that give the error message above still decodable to WAV (and how can you do this, because flac.exedoesn't want to decode the file), even if there is a MD5 signature mismatch, or is this not possible at all? An additional question: what happens if you re-encode a FLAC file, that gives the error message 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' while trying to decode to WAV, to another FLAC file using a later version of the FLAC encoder? I tried this and it seems to work, but I'm wondering if the audio data is still the same in the new file as in the old file? Or what happens in the re-encode process when such a input FLAC file is re-encoded to another FLAC file? Here is the metaflac --list of the input and output FLAC file, the input file is the file that gives the 'ERROR, MD5 signature mismatch' error when decoding to WAV. The output file is the newly re-encoded FLAC file when using the input file as an input to the FLAC encoder: metaflac --list input_file.flac METADATA block #0 type: 0 (STREAMINFO) is last: false length: 34 minimum blocksize: 1152 samples maximum blocksize: 1152 samples minimum framesize: 0 bytes maximum framesize: 4768 bytes sample_rate: 44100 Hz channels: 2 bits-per-sample: 16 total samples: 20527080 MD5 signature: 5f00690064003d005000200020002000 METADATA block #1 type: 4 (VORBIS_COMMENT) is last: false length: 287 vendor string: Flake SVN comments: 11 comment[0]: TITLE=Dido (Armin Van Buuren's Universal Religion Mix) comment[1]: ARTIST=Aria comment[2]: ALBUM ARTIST=DJ Tiësto comment[3]: ALBUM=Summerbreeze comment[4]: GENRE=General Trance comment[5]: DATE=2000 comment[6]: DISCNUMBER=1/1 comment[7]: PUBLISHER=Nettwerk comment[8]: COMMENT=Ripped by Winamp comment[9]: TRACKNUMBER=1 comment[10]: ENCODED-BY=Winamp 5.34 METADATA block #2 type: 1 (PADDING) is last: true length: 3826 ** metaflac --list output_file.flac METADATA block #0 type: 0 (STREAMINFO) is last: false length: 34 minimum blocksize: 4096 samples maximum blocksize: 4096 samples minimum framesize: 14 bytes maximum framesize: 14043 bytes sample_rate: 44100 Hz channels: 2 bits-per-sample: 16 total samples: 20527080 MD5 signature: 4478d07a5f9acaae35cdef1f1753c764 METADATA block #1 type: 3 (SEEKTABLE) is last: false length: 846 seek points: 47 point 0: sample_number=0, stream_offset=0, frame_samples=4096 point 1: sample_number=438272, stream_offset=1010333, frame_samples=4096 point 2: sample_number=880640, stream_offset=2027118, frame_samples=4096 point 3: sample_number=1318912, stream_offset=3048483, frame_samples=4096 point 4: sample_number=1761280, stream_offset=4067062, frame_samples=4096 point 5: sample_number=2203648, stream_offset=5063693, frame_samples=4096 point 6: sample_number=2641920, stream_offset=6081493, frame_samples=4096 point 7: sample_number=3084288, stream_offset=7139986, frame_samples=4096 point 8: sample_number=3526656, stream_offset=8223226, frame_samples=4096 point 9: sample_number=3964928, stream_offset=9324016, frame_samples=4096 point 10: sample_number=4407296, stream_offset=10366547, frame_samples=4096 point 11: sample_number=4849664, stream_offset=11436008, frame_samples=4096 point 12: sample_number=5287936, stream_offset=12491977, frame_samples=4096 point 13: sample_number=5730304, stream_offset=13715044, frame_samples=4096 point 14: sample_number=6172672, stream_offset=14963345, frame_samples=4096 point 15: sample_number=6610944, stream_offset=16294043, frame_samples=4096 point 16: sample_number=7053312, stream_offset=17663068, frame_samples=4096 point 17: sample_number=7495680, stream_offset=19027520, frame_samples=4096 point 18: sample_number=7933952, stream_offset=20380473, frame_samples=4096 point 19: sample_number=8376320, stream_offset=21739699, frame_samples=4096 point 20: sample_number=8818688, stream_offset=23101828, frame_samples=4096 point 21: sample_number=9256960, stream_offset=24461617, frame_samples=4096 point 22: sample_number=9699328, stream_offset=25856237, frame_samples=4096 point 23: sample_number=10141696, stream_offset=27254435, frame_samples=4096 point 24: sample_number=10579968, stream_offset=28648219, frame_samples=4096 point 25: sample_number=11022336, stream_offset=30041445, frame_samples=4096 point 26: sample_number=11464704, stream_offset=31425625, frame_samples=4096 point 27: sample_number=11902976, stream_offset=32813313, frame_samples=4096 point 28: sample_number=12345344, stream_offset=34237869, frame_samples=4096 point 29: sample_number=12787712,
Re: [Flac] FLAC: FLAC frontend
Does anybody know where the official website of the FLAC frontend (for windows) is? I think this is it. http://mikewren.com/page.php?2 ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] FLAC: FLAC frontend
hi, Does anybody know where the official website of the FLAC frontend (for windows) is? If you look here http://members.home.nl/w.speek/ you can see the FLAC frontend is not longer maintained by Speek but in the FLAC installer there is still and update to the frontend (version 1.7.1 vs. version 1.7 on Speek's website). So I was wondering where the official site for the FLAC frontend is located now. thx in advance ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: general question
Harry, Keep in mind that the processor load will be different for every processor model. PowerPC G4, G5, and then all the implementations of x86. Processor load does not depend upon clock speed - all that clock speed determines is how fast the operation can be done, and particularly whether it can be done in real time. Back to your question: The CPU load will be determined by the efficiency of the instruction set for the processor running the program, as well as how well the compiler maps the C source to those instructions. Any comparison table you might find could be irrelevant if your processor model was not tested, and if the compiler options are changed when you build FLAC, then that might change the efficiency as well. I point this out because FLAC is not always going to be better or worse than other formats. We're talking about several moving targets here, all of which influence each other. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:21, Harry Sack wrote: 2007/7/24, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 7/24/07, Greg M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ivo, Harry is asking about CPU usage of the DEcoder, not the ENcoder. Sorry, my bad. I believe that FLAC's decoding is somewhat faster than most other lossless formats, as FLAC is a much less complex format. Maybe somebody knows some comparison tables with some measured values like the ones available for encoding times? (so now I'm looking for the decoding CPU power loads) thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
[Flac] Re: FLAC: re-encoding
2007/7/25, Harry Sack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: hi I have some questions about re-encoding existing FLAC files to FLAC 1.2.0 .: - can older 1.1.x FLAC files be re-encoded to FLAC 1.2.0 by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? - can FLAC files encoded with the FLAC Flake SVN encoder (or any other 'unofficial' FLAC encoder) be re-encoded by using the FLAC 1.2.0 encoder? To be a bit more clear: I mean of course re-encoding the FLAC files without decoding them to WAV files manually, so by letting the FLAC encoder do all the work. thx thx in advance! ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC: general question
Harry, Another thing to consider is the balance between CPU efficiency and disk speed. On some of my systems, decoding a FLAC file to AIFF (or WAV) uses 100% of the CPU. That's because the drive is faster than the CPU, so the CPU is constantly working. Moving to a 4-processor system, I can run 4 FLAC decodes at the same time. At first, that would not use 400% (100% of all 4 CPUs) because the disk was not fast enough to read 4 files and write 4 files at once. But as soon as I upgraded to a faster drive on a faster bus, I am back to 400% CPU usage when decoding. I use FLAC to back up original multi-track recordings. Then I burn the FLAC files to CD-R or DVD-R. Whenever a client needs the originals for a mixing session, I have to pull all the FLAC files from optical media and decode them, since nearly all mixing software uses AIFF (even the ones that allow FLAC will convert the files from FLAC to something else on disk). In order to respond to the client as fast as possible, I want to decode the FLAC files as fast as possible, so I have experimented with faster machines and faster drives. In other words, I'm not sure that you can make any solid conclusions from a comparison table, even if you could find one, because it would always be possible to recompile flac, or upgrade the CPU, or upgrade the disk, or add additional disks to spread the load. There is no single answer to your question. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:21, Harry Sack wrote: Maybe somebody knows some comparison tables with some measured values like the ones available for encoding times? (so now I'm looking for the decoding CPU power loads) thx ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
Re: [Flac] FLAC 1.2.0 released
Furthermore, there's no upgrade risk, as the API is still compatible. FLAC is backwards and forwards compatible. Just to clarify this - I asked about compatibility for 1.1.4 files a few months ago and below is the response I got. Perhaps this needs clarification? The middle number has changed. Will the v1.1.2 build still decode these new 1.2.0 files? -- Forwarded message -- From: Graue [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: May 23, 2007 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [Flac] 1.1.4 FLAC's in 1.1.2 To: flac@xiph.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brad Leblanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question - if I use 1.1.4 to encode some files and send them to a friend who is using 1.1.2 - is it possible he won't be able to decode them? No. I can't find the thing on the FLAC website that says this, but if I recall right, all versions of FLAC are forwards-compatible unless the middle version number changes. So if it was, say, 1.1.4 versus 1.0.1, you might, possibly, have a problem. Both versions 1.1.x? No compatibility issue. Regards, Graue ___ Flac mailing list Flac@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
