Poll

Should the PB Archive Team start releasing shows as FLAC, or continue using SHN??

LAC
5 (45.5%)
HN
6 (54.5%)

Total Members Voted: 9

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: SHN or FLAC??  (Read 7307 times)

davepeck

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14106
SHN or FLAC??
« on: September 03, 2003, 12:46:38 pm »
hello all,

wondering what peoples\' thoughts were on the SHN vs. FLAC debate, and ultimately, how do you want future PB shows distributed.

SHN has been around for a long time, and a lot of people are used to it. it\'s easy to use, and offers good lossless compression of audio files. however, there\'s not much else left for SHN. it\'s not open-source, hasn\'t been updated in forever, the best front end for SHN (mkw) never left Beta, as the author of the program is/was very sick (he might have passed, i don\'t know).

FLAC hit the scene not too long ago, and has been embraced by many. a lot of people are ditching SHN for FLAC, as it offers (slightly) better, faster compression, and is open source. just as easy to use as SHN when using the FLAC front end. FLAC seems to be the way of the future in lossless audio compression.

the question is, should we (matt, chris, and i) embrace this format as the way to archive and distribute all future PB shows? i know that chris has already dabbled in FLAC a little bit.. i have as well, but not for PB shows (yet)...

the only thing that leaves me with some doubts is the ape incident... monkey\'s audio is a great tool, but never really caught on, and no one really uses it anymore.. FLAC, on the other hand, already seems to be much more widespread than APE ever was...

your thoughts??
Logged

wstielau

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2003, 02:09:38 pm »
Personally, I prefer shn. In my experience, the flac codec is actually substantially slower than the shn code since the compression/decompression algorithms are more complex.  At least the last version I tried was. The verification process is also slower. Since the flac md5 hash (fingerprint) is based on the audio data rather than the compressed data, the audio data must be decoded in order to properly perform the validation.
Logged

Drew_Kingsley

  • Your busted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2791
    • http://www.goleopards.com
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2003, 03:08:45 pm »
I don\'t know much about this stuff, but let\'s stick with what has worked well in the past: SHN
Logged
Go see your Breakfast, there are starving Leiths in California

ChrisF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3198
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2003, 05:16:40 pm »
I archive every SHN or FLAC show i get on CD-ROMs and there were many times when a show will come to about 720 mb in SHN if its one long set, but it would probably only be about 680mb in FLAC.  So it will fit on one disc in FLAC, but two in SHN. You can set the level of compression you want for FLAC, so you can choose to use more or less compression if fitting the show on one disc is an issue. its also cool if you are on dialup because a large download will be done about a day sooner if its in FLAC.

 I have tested FLAC on a p4 1.4 ghz with 256mb ram and a p4 2.7 ghz with 512 mb ram and encoding/decoding time is about the same as SHN when you set the FLAC compression level in the middle. Verifying does take a little longer, but its not a big deal. Everything else is about the same speed.

When i would trade shows that were in ape and i had to make audio copies it sucked because it took over a half hour to extract those shows to WAV and i think thats the reason everyone hated it. I wasnt going to encode any of my PB shows in FLAC because i thought people would have trouble with it, but after live phish switched to FLAC i figured that some people would know how to use it by now and it probably would be a problem. So everything i record will be encoded in FLAC from now on.

I have been using the FLAC plugin with nero, so i can burn FLAC files as audio without decompressing to WAV first. I have a 48x CD burner and it takes twice as long to burn a FLAC show in audio as it does for WAV, but in the long run it does save time overall.  I know SHN plugins exist, but i have never used them, although i have heard it takes 30 minutes to burn an 80 minute audio disc using the SHN plugin with a 32x CD burner, so that would make it pointless.

Everything should be in FLAC from this point on. it is easier to use and everything you need comes with the FLAC installer including the plugins for winamp and nero. FLAC is already widespread unlike ape was so a lot of people are familiar with it and prefer it. The only people who dont like it are the people who rarely trade and people who barely understood why SHN was even used.
Logged

wstielau

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2003, 05:27:54 pm »
"The only people who dont like it are the people who rarely trade and people who barely understood why SHN was even used."

Actually I trade quite frequently, and I\'m probably one of the more knowledgable people with shn. I invented  seekable Shorten. I did the V3.1 command line (shortn32.exe) program that some folks mucked up (IMO) by using CygWin runtimes for the next version, and I wrote both the WinAmp2 and WinAmp3 players (ShnAmp) .

And I still prefer shn over flac. Another problem with it is, at least last time I checked, was lack of a WinAmp3 plugin.
Logged

ChrisF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3198
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2003, 05:49:03 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by wstielau
"The only people who dont like it are the people who rarely trade and people who barely understood why SHN was even used."

Actually I trade quite frequently, and I\'m probably one of the more knowledgable people with shn. I invented  seekable Shorten. I did the V3.1 command line (shortn32.exe) program that some folks mucked up (IMO) by using CygWin runtimes for the next version, and I wrote both the WinAmp2 and WinAmp3 players (ShnAmp) .

And I still prefer shn over flac. Another problem with it is, at least last time I checked, was lack of a WinAmp3 plugin.


Well i can understand why you would not want to stop using SHN if you spent so much time working with it. And who even uses winamp 3? Its so slow. i have winamp 2 on all my computers because it is much faster and never crashes.
Logged

mvallo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2003, 08:39:14 pm »
I say we stay shn.  Here\'s why:

1. Most people are familiar with shn and how to decode and check md5s.  For some, a new format creates confusion.  

2. The entire pb database is in shn format.  The shn format works for us.

3. The difference in compression ratio or time saved on encoding and decoding is negligible (if at all) and does not warrant a change in format.

4. Unless there is a transition to 24bit 48/96 in consumer audio players i can\'t see a need for flac.  16/44.1 for many of us is here to stay.  (ie. I still use my first cd player, bought in 1989.)

In other words, if it ain\'t broke don\'t fix it.

My only question is, sometime in the future, will there be a reason that we regret not having made the change-over from SHN to FLAC?


Matt Vallo
Logged

matt2000

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • http://www.phishhook.com/lists/matt2000
I vote for SHN
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2003, 09:45:43 pm »
SHN is in...this is a simple choice.  I agree with the points made in the previous post.  Makes sense to keep what works.
Logged

WALSH

  • Mahoney
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2003, 11:33:18 pm »
The main prob is what wstielau pointed out about the plugin deficiency(sp.)  I don\'t find much difference between quality...Go with what you are good with...Either or don\'t matter as of yet!!!
Logged
Too fat for a tandem bike, and too drunk for a Mountain Bike...taste the fear.

WALSH

  • Mahoney
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1716
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2003, 11:35:55 pm »
matt I don\'t think shn will ever be a "bad decision" but there WILL be something to come along better than both and probably something to convert shn/flac to this new mega format...gotta love technology!!!
Logged
Too fat for a tandem bike, and too drunk for a Mountain Bike...taste the fear.

tiedyetoga

  • Guest
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2003, 11:05:16 am »
FLAC
Logged

matt2000

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • http://www.phishhook.com/lists/matt2000
Always evolving...
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2003, 09:51:45 pm »
Food for thought:

Everything that can be invented, has been invented.
---Charles H. Duell
Logged

Captain Video

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2003, 10:48:22 pm »
Just out of curiousity, what would be the ramifications of doing both SHN and FLAC?  Chris seems to have a great handle on the FLAC end of things, and the SHN format is well covered by the majority of the group.  It seems to me that before SHN is replaced, it should be a fairly certain thing that FLAC will actually be the medium that does so.  In the meantime, we would have both bases well covered.  I personally am not doing FLAC because it is only available for Mac OSX and I am currently running 9.2 with plans to upgrade in the not-too-distant future.  I can\'t honestly comment on using FLAC, but it certainly seems to be more than a passing fad...:)

I vote for definitely keeping SHN, but planning for FLAC.

Kev
Logged
"The universe works whether or not you understand it."  Frank Zappa

davepeck

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14106
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2003, 07:02:53 am »
kev - if by \'doing both\' you mean keeping all shows in shn and flac, no thanks.. doesn\'t seem like there\'d be any point in that, other than taking more time...

i\'ve been liking what i\'ve seen from flac so far. with nero 6 and the flac plugin, i\'m burning flac as audio in the same time it takes to burn wav > audio... and for some reason, i can\'t get the shn plugin to work with nero 6... i had the shn plugin going on 5.5.9.17, but the process took a long time...

it also doesn\'t help that MKW runs really slow on my new pc.. wayne, maybe you could possibly shed some light on this.. i set the program compatability mode to win98, then win2k (due to errors running mkw in XP), and the program takes much longer to do anything on my new p4/800fsb/2.6ghz/1.25gb than it does on my p4/1.5/1gb.... :confused:
Logged

Captain Video

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
    • http://
SHN or FLAC??
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2003, 09:25:40 pm »
Just out of curiousity, how hard is it to go from flac to shn and vice versa?
It seems that more people are doing shn right now, so at leat for the time being it makes sense to use it as that will get better distribution on the shows.  

In reference to doing both, I was thinking more of distribution, not archiving.  Chris could do flac for those who want it in that format and the shns that you guys have been making would work for the rest.  You are absolutely correct that it makes no sense to archive in both.

I don\'t see any simple answers, there are strong cases for both.

I think I personally would still favour shn, but who can say what will happen when I give flac a try?  On that train of thought, how long will it be before we are trying to decide whether or not to go with flac or the next thing that comes down the pike?

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice.
Logged
"The universe works whether or not you understand it."  Frank Zappa
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »