4 ms·

> That’s nice although probably not of much use to most people Doesn't that depend on the hardware of "most people"? Even if you have a shit CPU, you probably

by diggan 2y ago

> That’s nice although probably not of much use to most people Doesn't that depend on the hardware of "most people"? Even if you have a shit CPU, you probably have at least more than 1 core, so this will be at least little bit helpful for those people, wouldn't it? Edit: Just tried turning a ~5 minute .wav into .flac (without multithreading) on a Intel Celeron N4505 (worst CPU I have running atm) and took around 20 seconds, FWIW

_flux 2y ago
But even a smaller number of people have individual very long raw audio files. I've converted a bunch of sound packs (for music production) to flac and it really takes next to no time at all. I suppose those are quite short audio files, but there's a lot of them, 20 gigabytes in total (in flac). Perhaps the person who wrote this improvement did have a use case for it, though :).
johncolanduoni 2y ago
In most situations you’d be encoding more than one song at a time, which would already parallelize enough unless you had a monster cpu and only one album.
- diggan 2y ago
  I dunno, when I export a song I'm working on, it's just that one song. I think there are more use cases for .flac than just converting a big existing music collection.
stonemetal12 2y ago
FLAC is more than 20 years old at this point. At least according to wikipedia it doesn't look like they haven't changed the algorithm to much in the mean time, so just about anything should be able to run it today.
masklinn 2y ago
> this will be at least little bit helpful for those people, wouldn't it Probably not, because they're unlikely to have enough stuff to export that it's relevant. > Edit: Just tried turning a ~5 minute .wav into .flac (without multithreading) on a Intel Celeron N4505 (worst CPU I have running atm) and took around 20 seconds, FWIW Which is basically nothing. It takes more time than that to fix the track's tagging.
- diggan 2y ago
  I mean, you're again assuming the only use case is "encode and tag a huge music collection", encoding is used for more than that. For example, I have a raspberry pi that is responsible for recording as soon as it powers up. Then I can press a button, and it grabs the last 60 recorded minutes, which happens to be saved as .wav right now, which I'm fine with, the rest of my pipeline works with .wav. But if my pipeline required flac, I would need to turn the wav into flac on the raspberry pi at this point, for 60 minutes of audio, and of course I'd like that to be faster if possible, so I can start editing it right away.

by diggan 2y ago

_flux 2y ago

But even a smaller number of people have individual very long raw audio files. I've converted a bunch of sound packs (for music production) to flac and it really takes next to no time at all. I suppose those are quite short audio files, but there's a lot of them, 20 gigabytes in total (in flac). Perhaps the person who wrote this improvement did have a use case for it, though :).

johncolanduoni 2y ago

In most situations you’d be encoding more than one song at a time, which would already parallelize enough unless you had a monster cpu and only one album.

diggan 2y ago
I dunno, when I export a song I'm working on, it's just that one song. I think there are more use cases for .flac than just converting a big existing music collection.

stonemetal12 2y ago

FLAC is more than 20 years old at this point. At least according to wikipedia it doesn't look like they haven't changed the algorithm to much in the mean time, so just about anything should be able to run it today.

masklinn 2y ago

> this will be at least little bit helpful for those people, wouldn't it Probably not, because they're unlikely to have enough stuff to export that it's relevant. > Edit: Just tried turning a ~5 minute .wav into .flac (without multithreading) on a Intel Celeron N4505 (worst CPU I have running atm) and took around 20 seconds, FWIW Which is basically nothing. It takes more time than that to fix the track's tagging.

diggan 2y ago
I mean, you're again assuming the only use case is "encode and tag a huge music collection", encoding is used for more than that. For example, I have a raspberry pi that is responsible for recording as soon as it powers up. Then I can press a button, and it grabs the last 60 recorded minutes, which happens to be saved as .wav right now, which I'm fine with, the rest of my pipeline works with .wav. But if my pipeline required flac, I would need to turn the wav into flac on the raspberry pi at this point, for 60 minutes of audio, and of course I'd like that to be faster if possible, so I can start editing it right away.