5 ms·

Agreed. FYI, ffmpeg's hash testing format [0], and therefore my utility dano, allows the use of CRC32, etc., though. > But I'm afraid we'll have to live with

Agreed. FYI, ffmpeg's hash testing format [0], and therefore my utility dano, allows the use of CRC32, etc., though. > But I'm afraid we'll have to live with this shortcoming forever now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't believe there is a fundamental reason why a later version of FLAC couldn't/wouldn't allow different algos as I think the raw decoded bitstream is checksum-ed and is just stored as a FLAC tag[1]. So they could just version that tag. [0]: http://underpop.online.fr/f/ffmpeg/help/hash.htm.gz http://underpop.online.fr/f/ffmpeg/help/hash.htm.gz [1]: Language corrected. See comment.

aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
>I think the file is decoded and then checksum-ed and the checksum is just stored as a FLAC tag. Sure, it's just metadata. It's just about backwards compatibility. By the way, the checksum is calculated on the raw data fed into the encoder. It doesn't make sense to decode the data you've just encoded.
- crtasm 4y ago
  > It doesn't make sense to decode the data you've just encoded. Unless you're also writing to disk and reading it back before decoding - I'm not sure which tool you're referring to.