[Flac] playback problems with oppo BDP-95

[Pierre-Yves Thoulon]

Actually, I checked my archives, it's 1.2.0 which introduced the additional
scheme for rice coding, not 1.2.1, but that doesn't change the gist of it...
I remember seeing a note from Josh a long time ago, saying that those new
encodings were only for 24-bit files. I has never seen these on standard
16-bit CD-rip type FLACs, but I found them in the first 24-bit file I was
confronted with (a simple 24/44.1 file).
It may very well be that the low-effort compression doesn't bother using
these.

--
Pierre-Yves Thoulon



On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 01:51, Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote:

> What is a "local implementation?"  Do you mean the hardware version
> number?
>
> I think Pierre-Yves may be correct.  There certainly were some
> changes to 24-bit support, and many of these problematic FLAC files
> are HD audio.  In other words, they're not simply 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD
> audio converted to FLAC, but they are 24/96 or 24/192 audio in FLAC
> format.
>
> The only curious thing is that using flac 1.2.1 with --fast or
> compression level 0 is enough to make the hardware happy.  In that
> case, are only the old Rice codings used for lower compression levels
> with 24-bit audio?
>
> You raise a good point, Nicholas.  I would like to see manufacturers
> give specific information about what level of the FLAC format they
> support.  The BDP-95 does not mention FLAC in the manual at all, and
> the web page only mentions FLAC twice - once in a bold heading, and
> again in the body of text.  Neither mention of FLAC gives any details
> at all - they just put it in the list of formats.  I suppose, in
> comparison, that MP3 players usually don't give any details about
> whether the hardware supports 320 Kb or multichannel or anything
> else.  Perhaps we're reaching an age where nobody cares about the
> details.
>
> Brian Willoughby
> Sound Consulting
>
>
> On Feb 6, 2011, at 15:24, Nicholas Bower wrote:
> > Version 1.2.1 of the standard/spec or the local implementation?
> >
> > I've not seen "FLAC 1.0/1.1 Compliant" or "FLAC 1.2 Compliant" on
> > the specs of hardware gear for example when FLAC is stated supported.
> >
> > Just a curious on-looker.
> >
> >
> > On 7 February 2011 02:34, Pierre-Yves Thoulon
> > <py.thoulon at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Version 1.2.1 introduced new rice coding techniques that are used by
> >> the reference encoder for 24 bit files. An older version of the
> >> decoder will have trouble with frames that use this encoding... Maybe
> >> that's where the strange noises come from...
> _______________________________________________
> Flac mailing list
> Flac at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20110207/f411954c/attachment.htm