Reply to this post | Go Back

View Post [edit]

Poster:	kwaved	Date:	Apr 17, 2003 6:58am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

I think most here are aware of the differences of FLAC and SHN - clearly FLAC is more versitile (more bit depth & sample rates) and is a true open-source solution while SHN is more widely used but limited to 16/44.1 & 16/48 audio files. Over in the Kimockian corner of archive.org we have a situation where an industrious taper/trader made a SHN and a FLAC encoding of the same recording and uploaded them both. FLAC: http://archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=3597 SHN: http://archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=3607 Even though there hasn't been much traffic on these sources the SHN set seems to be being looked at about 50% more then the FLAC source. I know that HD space is not a major constraint here but I think ease of use and simplifying meta-data and such is a worthy goal. Ideally I think when we are going to host multiple encodings of the same recording/mastering, that we do so by having a single "show" entry in the database that points to multiple encodings (ie directories). Apparently though this is not an option at this moment. In lieu of that would you delete one of the sources or just let the 2 sources stay up ?
This post was modified by kwaved on 2003-04-17 13:58:00

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	DCin10AC	Date:	Apr 17, 2003 7:44am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

I would say keep the FLAC version (assuming they are the same sample rate and bit depth as the SHN version) and ditch the SHN. The FLAC copy will most likely be a smaller filesize, meaning less time to download.

Just my own opinion. I still use both, but I'm sure that very soon FLAC will be the preferred encoding format for everything. Why wouldn't it be? It's certainly much easier and more efficient...

Dirk

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Brad Leblanc 2	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 12:02am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

I would say keep the FLAC version ... and ditch the SHN. I agree with this statement, if the seeds are identical there's no reason to keep two formats. Software to transfer either is easily available, and FLAC is the better choice moving forward right now. Keep the FLAC, ditch the SHN. -Brad
This post was modified by bleblanc57 on 2003-04-18 07:02:31

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	gsisak	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 5:02am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

i would geuss that there is more traffic for the .shn source because people have a hard enough time trying to figure out what .shn is. they don't want to bother trying to figure out what flac is.

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	kwaved	Date:	Apr 19, 2003 5:52am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

i would geuss that there is more traffic for the .shn source because people have a hard enough time trying to figure out what .shn is. they don't want to bother trying to figure out what flac is.

And that is probably one of the best arguments for deleting the SHN source {evil laugh}. That way if someone wants that show they would have to learn something {shudder}.

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Brad Leblanc 2	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 7:04am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

they don't want to bother trying to figure out what flac is.

Learning is good, and there's plenty of documentation, discussion boards, friendly traders out there to help figure it out. I think it's important not to "settle" for what works. FLAC has some cooler features to it.

Can't figure out how to use it? Read all the documents. Then, drop a question on someone you know is more technically proficient than you are. Make sure you're as specific as possible when you ask.

-Brad

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	C Miller	Date:	Apr 20, 2003 12:18pm
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

Well, I've downloaded the latest version and can't even unzip it. I'm getting a message saying "This archive uses a file format that is not supported by this application" Any idea what this is all about?

One more thing - I am not a technophobe, but I shy away from applications that require me to type in a line command for every function I want to perform (which for me would be simple stuff like compressing and decompressing). Way back when, when I first started using shn, I cut and pasted a bunch of commands from etree into a DOS box and was able to create right-click functions to compress and de-compress shns. Is FLAC like that or do I have to open a DOS box and type in a bunch of code to do individual tasks?

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Brad Leblanc 2	Date:	Apr 20, 2003 12:52pm
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

I am not a technophobe, but I shy away from applications that require me to type in a line command for every function I want to perform. Try FLAC Frontend - it's very similar to the mkw Audio Compression Toolkit, and most folks seem to like the simplicity of both. Tip: You will still need to download flac.exe and drop it in your path before the Frontend software will compress/decompress stuff for you (for windows users this is typically C:\winnt\system32) To play FLAC files through winamp v2, just drop the in_flac.dll file that comes with it into the Winamp2_Install_Dir\Plugins folder. Hope that helps make using it a little easier... -Brad
This post was modified by bleblanc57 on 2003-04-20 19:52:13

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Erich	Date:	Apr 20, 2003 6:15pm
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

better link to the frontend with better instruction, more user friendly and such:

http://mikewren.com/flac/

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	gsisak	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 12:20pm
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

hopefully i didn't come off sounding like i didn't understand FLAC. i took the 2 minutes that it takes to read up on it's just as easy as shn. and i do like the extra features, ie: intergrated checksums, the smaller compression size and 24bit audio just to name a few.

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Brad Leblanc 2	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 9:50pm
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

hopefully i didn't come off sounding like i didn't understand FLAC.

Not at all, but a lot of folks stand by the attitude that you pointed out - thus my response.

-Brad

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Brad Leblanc 2	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 6:54am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	What's good about each format.

Some unique benefits to using each format off the top of my head:

SHN
- larger library of available concerts
- larger user base familiar with the software

FLAC
- 24 bit 96 khz compatible (and beyond)
- user specified encoding level (user picks smaller files with a slower encode/decode or larger files with a quicker encode/decode)
- ID3 tag compatible (great for playback in WinAMP)
- Streamable (SHN is not)

Feel free to add to the list if you can think of anything else.

-Brad

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Jonathan Aizen	Date:	Apr 18, 2003 8:46am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: What's good about each format.

FLAC is open source which is better from an archival standpoint. What I don't like about FLAC: flac -t is annoying in how it spits out results every few percentages - at least for logging.
This post was modified by Jonathan Aizen on 2003-04-18 15:46:34

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	kwaved	Date:	Apr 19, 2003 5:50am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: What's good about each format.

What I don't like about FLAC: flac -t is annoying in how it spits out results every few percentages - at least for logging.

Yes, I noticed that in the contribution logs, that is tedious. Seems like an option to squelch the percentage info should be doable. Perhaps it needs to be suggested on one of the FLAC developer forums.

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	scott brown	Date:	Apr 25, 2003 6:44am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

again, why is this simple fact ignored?

there is *no* way to decode flac in mac OS 9. so those users still on 9 then can't enjoy a show.

for those people who say "upgrade to os x," i say why? it's no different from all the windows users still on win2k...

so until there is a flac program for mac os 9, i'm sticking with .SHN for 16 bit stuff. i'm not going to exclude people when there's a very easy, established way to include them (shn)

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Brad Leblanc 2	Date:	Apr 25, 2003 7:29am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

again, why is this simple fact ignored? This is the first time I've seen that. Thanks for pointing it out. -Brad
This post was modified by bleblanc57 on 2003-04-25 14:29:24

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	scott brown	Date:	Apr 25, 2003 8:28am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

i've said it for months now on the etree siteops list, but most people said "someone will work on it"

no one has, because it'd be a from scratch product pretty much. i'm on X, it doesn't matter to me, but a ton of people are still using os 9...

Reply to this post

Reply [edit]

Poster:	Erich	Date:	Apr 25, 2003 9:08am
Forum:	etree	Subject:	Re: SHN vs FLAC - a tale of 2 sources

honest question, scott - if support for OS 9 was implimented, would you feel flac16 to be a good replacement for shn?