[flac-dev] Meet the new maintainer
At 10:55 01.02.2012, you wrote: Hi Erik, very good to see activity on flac development again. I am not a developer unfortunately, but I'd like to check with you if updating code for flac/metaflac to handle high-rez files (24/192 or higher) for writing Replay Gain tags is in your 'pile' of things to fix? Thanks Olav Sunde Hi all, Some time ago, I foolishly agreed to become the maintainer of FLAC, the Free Lossless Audio Codec. The original author and maintainer Josh Coalson has been MIA since early 2009. The code has been moved to the Xiph.org git repo and I'll be trying to spend an hour a day on it until I get a backlog of patches reviewed, tweaked and applied. The main problem is that the FLAC test suite takes 30 minutes to run on a 2.8 GHz Core II Duo. The gt repo is here: https://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a%3Dsummary I encourage the keen to do a daily checkout and build. I will be building it on x86 and amd64 Linux every day and running the full test suite. Looking for someone to do that on Mac and Windows. Cheers, Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] Meet the new maintainer
At 09:33 02.02.2012, you wrote: Thanks Erik, I'll check back. This next is a feature request: Today it is not possible to know the encoding of a flac archive. Many new devices support playback of flac, however tiny processors sometimes have a hard time decoding files with the default encoding of -5 or higher, resulting in unstable playback or even reduced audio quality. A re-encoding to -0 often solve these issues. Can you look at a way to store parameters used for encoding in an archive so we can check it later? Best regards Olav Sunde Olav Sunde wrote: very good to see activity on flac development again. I am not a developer unfortunately, but I'd like to check with you if updating code for flac/metaflac to handle high-rez files (24/192 or higher) for writing Replay Gain tags is in your 'pile' of things to fix? I think there are patches to do that in the queue. Perhaps you can check back in two weeks or so. Cheers, Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] Meet the new maintainer
At 14:16 06.02.2012, you wrote: Olav, A change like this could easily break the format. That would be a bad choice. That makes sense. Explains why it is not there today. On the other hand, an informational 'application' block could be added in a way that does not break the format, and this would even be backwards compatible since 'application' blocks have always been a part of the specification. You simply won't be able to rely on them being there. This is probably the best thing then. Adding the info will be optional? It would certainly be an improvement and hopefully become part of the command line description so users would know how to do it. Best regards Olav Sunde Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Feb 6, 2012, at 03:16, Olav Sunde wrote: This next is a feature request: Today it is not possible to know the encoding of a flac archive. Many new devices support playback of flac, however tiny processors sometimes have a hard time decoding files with the default encoding of -5 or higher, resulting in unstable playback or even reduced audio quality. A re-encoding to -0 often solve these issues. Can you look at a way to store parameters used for encoding in an archive so we can check it later? ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.0 released
As an ordinary user I would like to extend THANK YOU to all the programmers involved in version 1.3.0. As someone who is not a programmer I am deeply impressed by the skills and involvement I have witnessed since I subscribed to this list in January 2012. The last piece would be to have 1.3.0 binaries available for download. Most links under download still point to 1.2.1 at Sourceforge. Best regards Olav Sunde At 09:56 10.06.2013, you wrote: Dear Free Audio Tool Lovers, I am very pleased to announce the first official release of FLAC, the Free Lossless Audio Codec, in over 6 years. FLAC is not dead! It is however a mature software product that is now being maintained by a team working under the auscpices of the Xiph.Org Foundation. The executive summary of changes in this new version: * Nothing major. * Source tree is now hosted in Xiph.org git: git clone git://git.xiph.org/flac.git * Read and write appropriate channel masks for 6.1 and 7.1 surround input WAV files. * Added support for encoding from and decoding to the RF64 format. * Lots of build system fixes for your building enjoyment. The full changelog is here: https://www.xiph.org/flac/changelog.html Happy lossless encoding and decoding. Cheers, The FLAC project contribitors ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] FLAC 1.3.0 released
In the changelog I see up to 192 kHz ReplayGain support mentioned for flac.exe, but not for metaflac. Was it changed in one and not the other?? I really do not know. The discussion on metaflac and support for replay gain for higher sample rates was back in February/March 2012 ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] Sourceforge website redirecting
At 09:06 26.06.2013, you wrote: Olav Sunde wrote: I just followed the redirect Ralph Giles posted about above. That works as expected, but on https://xiph.org/flac/download.html the Windows link point to this page: http://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/ with only old compiles. Thats correct. Xiph is responsible for the FLAC source code. Xiph does not provide binaries for Linux, Windows or Mac. I'd say that is rather strange when it comes to Windows and Mac. The flac pages at Sourceforge always had links to binaries. For Linux, many will compile from source. I never compile anything, be it Linux or Windows. I know a few that compile on Linux of course, but none on Windows or Mac. Source code is still quite esoteric for many. Xiph assumes that people on Linux are getting FLAC via their Linux distribution or are compiling it from soruce code themselves. If someone has a link to Windows or Mac binaries for the latest release, please let us know and we will update the download page. We may even be willing to host the binaries on the Xiph web site. I hope this can be arranged. John Edwards has posted on this early in June. I use the Windows binaries from rarewares.org. Hope this clears things up. Cheers, Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
[flac-dev] R128gain metaflac
Hi has anyone looked at adding R128gain code to metaflac so we can select to use this calculation for RP tags rather than replay gain? Best regards ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] R128gain metaflac
Oh dear, three times! Responding to my self here, I've found an error in my postfix config where some messages ended up in the deferred queue.. and were sent after I fixed it. Apologies At 11:23 13.06.2014, you wrote: Hi has anyone looked at adding R128gain code to metaflac so we can select to use this calculation for RP tags rather than replay gain? If this message turns up twice I apologize. I may have used the wrong subject tag Regards Olav Sunde ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] R128gain metaflac
You are probably right. If RP 2.0 is underway and R128-as-RP is not final it may be too early to add it to flac. The page you refer to is rather old though. Still, the basic code for calculation of Ebu r128 needed for metaflac and flac could be written for testing. I know JRiver has moved its Volume Leveling analyzer to r128, but writes to RG tags and still honors ordinary RG tags. Here is one of the many threads on the subject at JR's forum http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82102.0 Note that Matt Ashland refers to David Robinson re.: how to deal with r128 values in RP tags At 11:22 16.06.2014, you wrote: As far as I know, R128 as ReplayGain isn't really considered final yet (see http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=ReplayGain_2.0_specificationhttp://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=ReplayGain_2.0_specification for example), so it would probably be a bit early to update this in the FLAC source. op 16-06-14 10:15, Olav Sunde schreef: I mention metaflac because there are a few shell scripts that use it to write RG tags in a flac music library on Linux. With support for Ebu R128 gain in metaflac (the calculation according to specification, not an external program) it would be easy to use, just change the cmd line for metaflac in the script. Now that metaflac supports sample rates higher than 48kHz this would be a good thing in my view. Of course it would be nice to have this in flac too. As for R128GAIN, I've tried several versions but could not make it work on any of my Linux distros. libebur128 requires compiling. Unfortunately I am not a programmer and I never compile. I am aware that there are discussions on how to insert R128 tags in place of RG tags and make it work properly. I have used RG for a long time, but R128 tags does a better at adjusting perceived volume between albums so I prefer R128. I store music files on a Linux NAS and would like to perform calculations on the same box. With foobar2000 (or JRiver win) I'd have to do this across a Samba mount which is slow(ish) At 00:19 16.06.2014, you wrote: Olav Sunde wrote: has anyone looked at adding R128gain code to metaflac so we can select to use this calculation for RP tags rather than replay gain? Why metaflac only? flac is also able to calculate RG values. And, as far as I can see R128GAIN ( http://r128gain.sourceforge.net/) is a standalone app, not a library. So probably it would be difficult to reuse its code in flac/metaflac. There is also libebur128 ( https://github.com/jiixyj/libebur128/) - libebur128 is a library that implements the EBU R 128 standard for loudness normalisation. All source code is licensed under the MIT license; foobar2000 uses it to calculate ReplayGain values. The use of R128 also raises the question about REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS tag. Currently flac/metaflac writes REPLAYGAIN_REFERENCE_LOUDNESS=89.0 dB but doesn't use it when decoding (it seems that nothing uses this tag). R128 defines reference level differently, so this tag makes little sense for it. IMHO it's better not to write this tag when (meta)flac uses R128 algorithm. (David Robinson, the author of ReplayGain, thinks that such tags are useless: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=showtopic=67823view=findpostp=603622 ) ___ flac-dev mailing list mailto:flac-dev@xiph.orgflac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list mailto:flac-dev@xiph.orgflac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] New release
I'd definately recommend binaries for download as suggested by lvqcl and Janne Hyvärinen. All the fabolous work on the code base is of little use to me if I can not find binaries at the official site. Olav Sunde At 12:01 23.11.2014, Janne Hyvärinen wrote: On 23.11.2014 12:44, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: lvqcl wrote: 2) Do you plan to release any official binaries (flac, metaflac, maybe something else)? Nor had I planned to release binaries. At least Windows users expect to find official version at https://xiph.org/flac/download.html. Right now it links to old sourceforge page http://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/ that only has version 1.2.1. ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
Re: [flac-dev] Supporting 32 bit data
At 10:38 26.09.2015, you wrote: >On 26 September 2015 at 09:22, Erik de Castro Lopo <mle...@mega-nerd.com> >wrote: > >> https://sourceforge.net/p/flac/feature-requests/91/ >> [...] >> Thoughts? > >The last comment on the page makes a valid point. If companies start >to sell 32bit tracks these days, flac may as well start to support it. >Personally, I'd say the discussion whether music *needs* 32bit >resolution is a different topic :-) I completely agree with this. Flac should support available formats. If 32bit or even 64bit is necessary is a discussion that should not take place here IMHO. Best regards Olav Sunde >Best regards >Riggs >___ >flac-dev mailing list >flac-dev@xiph.org >http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev ___ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
