File Details |
|
| File Size | 2.6 MB |
|---|---|
| License | Open Source |
| Operating System | Windows 2000/9x/Server 2003/XP |
| Date Added | September 17, 2007 |
| Total Downloads | 12,136 |
| Publisher | Josh Coalson |
| Homepage | FLAC |
Publisher's Description
FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. Grossly oversimplified, it is similar to MP3, but lossless. The project consists of the stream format; libFLAC, which implements reference encoders and decoders, flac; a command-line wrapper around libFLAC to encode and decode .flac files; and input plugins for various music players.
Latest Reviews
oomingmak reviewed v1.2.1a on Sep 17, 2007
WavPack is still my favourite as it supports 32bit floating point (which FLAC does not).
I record all of my studio output as 32bit float for subsequent format conversion and later remixing, so WavPack is an absolute godsend in that regard.
However, FLAC is more ubiquitous, so as a playback format it is useful because so many devices and software support it.
christoofar reviewed v1.2.0 on Jul 26, 2007
While other lossless formats may be described as "better", if you can't play them on the device you listen to music thru, it really doesn't matter.
And Rockbox is very nice - if there's a version that will work w/ your player. FLAC offers good compression, fast encoding speed, & plays natively on my Rio Karma, Vibez & on my PC, etc. SO for me it is THE best one.
infectiphibian reviewed v1.2.0 on Jul 25, 2007
I'm still using ancient Monkey's Audio v3.99 which has the best compression ratio (better than WavPack) but i hope one day i can replace it with TAK or some other widely-supported format.
BTW, i save from 10 to 50MB per album when i reencode it from flac to ape - it's important for large music libraries.
dhry reviewed v1.2.0 on Jul 25, 2007
I agree with several of the reviewers below. FLAC used to be fantastic but WavPack is definitely the best for lossless compression right now. TAK is a little too new and I personally won't use it until its playback plugin is backported to Foobar 0.8.3 (there are a couple of plugins which never made it forward to the newest Foobar versions so I can't/won't upgrade until one or the other happens).
JEdwardP reviewed v1.1.4b on May 9, 2007
There's no doubt that FLAC is fine when judged in a vacuum, but it doesn't look very good in contrast to its competition. FLAC was passed by WavPack for speed and compression some time ago, and as WavPack is supported by Rockbox, there's no longer any point to choose FLAC for portability either.
The advent of TAK, the speed and compression of which even beat WavPack, now makes FLAC seem destined for third place, albeit third in a very strong field. Four stars, and dropping, for this one-time king of the lossless hill.
Earwicker reviewed v1.1.4 on May 2, 2007
Yes, this is the one to have. I have been using APE - which I rather like - but I have been put off by the fact it cannot decode through errors. FLAC 1.1.4 is within spitting distance of the best in terms of compression, but wins with error tolerance, decoding speed (low CPU load) and its ubiquitous hardware and software support. I think this is the one to go for at the moment. By the way, if you're into classical, lossless codecs are a no-brainer - they compress to about 35 % of their original size (rock and pop doesn't compress so well).
Nice one! Good compression, easy to use, very stable, well supported and screaming fast!
Blaxima reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 15, 2007
It really is faster now but I still find Wavpack to be a little quicker, not to mention Wavpack still has better compression. Flac is easily the second best lossless codec.
4.5*
JEdwardP reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 14, 2007
It is faster, yes, and I congratulate Mr. Coalson on a job well done. WavPack still beats it for compression, however, and the speed difference isn't enough to bring me back to FLAC from WavPack, which for my purposes still offers the best balance of compression/speed.
Of course, this may soon change, as TAK seems better than either, and I'll probably switch to it once playback plug-ins are available.
anomoly reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 14, 2007
Personally I'd rather stack disks than waste hd space (and bandwith and time). I only use this because so many are cracked on the media type; not because it makes any bf difference to a properly ripped disc encoded to mp3.
yokozuna reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 14, 2007
Wow! The increase of speed is REALLY enormous (almost twice faster compared to v.1.1.3, tested at Q8 & FlacDrop). WavPack used to be the fastest lossless codec I tested on my PC (I tested WavPack 4.41.0 beta with MMX optimisations, around 5-10% faster than WavPack 4.40 final) but FLAC 1.1.4 is even faster! Much faster. I am able to compress The Beatles' #1 below one minute at Q8!
oomingmak reviewed v1.2.1a on Sep 17, 2007
WavPack is still my favourite as it supports 32bit floating point (which FLAC does not).
I record all of my studio output as 32bit float for subsequent format conversion and later remixing, so WavPack is an absolute godsend in that regard.
However, FLAC is more ubiquitous, so as a playback format it is useful because so many devices and software support it.
christoofar reviewed v1.2.0 on Jul 26, 2007
While other lossless formats may be described as "better", if you can't play them on the device you listen to music thru, it really doesn't matter.
And Rockbox is very nice - if there's a version that will work w/ your player. FLAC offers good compression, fast encoding speed, & plays natively on my Rio Karma, Vibez & on my PC, etc. SO for me it is THE best one.
infectiphibian reviewed v1.2.0 on Jul 25, 2007
I'm still using ancient Monkey's Audio v3.99 which has the best compression ratio (better than WavPack) but i hope one day i can replace it with TAK or some other widely-supported format.
BTW, i save from 10 to 50MB per album when i reencode it from flac to ape - it's important for large music libraries.
dhry reviewed v1.2.0 on Jul 25, 2007
I agree with several of the reviewers below. FLAC used to be fantastic but WavPack is definitely the best for lossless compression right now. TAK is a little too new and I personally won't use it until its playback plugin is backported to Foobar 0.8.3 (there are a couple of plugins which never made it forward to the newest Foobar versions so I can't/won't upgrade until one or the other happens).
JEdwardP reviewed v1.1.4b on May 9, 2007
There's no doubt that FLAC is fine when judged in a vacuum, but it doesn't look very good in contrast to its competition. FLAC was passed by WavPack for speed and compression some time ago, and as WavPack is supported by Rockbox, there's no longer any point to choose FLAC for portability either.
The advent of TAK, the speed and compression of which even beat WavPack, now makes FLAC seem destined for third place, albeit third in a very strong field. Four stars, and dropping, for this one-time king of the lossless hill.
Earwicker reviewed v1.1.4 on May 2, 2007
Yes, this is the one to have. I have been using APE - which I rather like - but I have been put off by the fact it cannot decode through errors. FLAC 1.1.4 is within spitting distance of the best in terms of compression, but wins with error tolerance, decoding speed (low CPU load) and its ubiquitous hardware and software support. I think this is the one to go for at the moment. By the way, if you're into classical, lossless codecs are a no-brainer - they compress to about 35 % of their original size (rock and pop doesn't compress so well).
Nice one! Good compression, easy to use, very stable, well supported and screaming fast!
Blaxima reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 15, 2007
It really is faster now but I still find Wavpack to be a little quicker, not to mention Wavpack still has better compression. Flac is easily the second best lossless codec.
4.5*
JEdwardP reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 14, 2007
It is faster, yes, and I congratulate Mr. Coalson on a job well done. WavPack still beats it for compression, however, and the speed difference isn't enough to bring me back to FLAC from WavPack, which for my purposes still offers the best balance of compression/speed.
Of course, this may soon change, as TAK seems better than either, and I'll probably switch to it once playback plug-ins are available.
anomoly reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 14, 2007
Personally I'd rather stack disks than waste hd space (and bandwith and time). I only use this because so many are cracked on the media type; not because it makes any bf difference to a properly ripped disc encoded to mp3.
yokozuna reviewed v1.1.4 on Feb 14, 2007
Wow! The increase of speed is REALLY enormous (almost twice faster compared to v.1.1.3, tested at Q8 & FlacDrop). WavPack used to be the fastest lossless codec I tested on my PC (I tested WavPack 4.41.0 beta with MMX optimisations, around 5-10% faster than WavPack 4.40 final) but FLAC 1.1.4 is even faster! Much faster. I am able to compress The Beatles' #1 below one minute at Q8!
JEdwardP reviewed v1.1.3 Beta 2 on Oct 17, 2006
I switched from FLAC to WavPack over a year ago, because WavPack is faster and yields better compression than FLAC, but I still think enough of FLAC to keep it around just in case, and I tried this beta to see how much the compression has improved.
FLAC is still slower than WavPack (encoding), and still yields slightly less compression, so it's still no longer my lossless format of choice, and rates only a 4 to WavPack's 5.
Before anyone complains, realize that BOTH codecs are open-source, both support streaming, and both have some hardware support, though admittedly FLAC has more of the last.
christoofar reviewed v1.1.3 Beta 1 on Oct 12, 2006
backwards compatible & flac decompresses quickly when converting to wav. Flac rules!
infectiphibian reviewed v1.1.3 Beta 1 on Oct 12, 2006
It's good but for my own use i prefer ape for better compression rates.