[Matroska-general] Where do we go from here ?

Steve Lhomme steve.lhomme at free.fr
Wed May 5 17:50:13 CEST 2004


Liisachan wrote:
>>>Well, unlike FLAC, APE is not always backward compatible,
>>>so it is true that FLAC is "safer"
>>>But APE is generally smaller (i.e. higher compress ratio) than 
>>>FLAC, and because of that reason, APE is used more than FLAC is.

http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm

 From this page, it seems APE is equivalent to WavPack (unless you use 
the extra high option). But Dave Bryant made Wavpack 4.0 more container 
compliant (clean framing). It's still beta, but will be added to 
Matroska ASAP.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm

 From this one it seems that APE is doing better for the 
compression/speed ratio than WavPack. It should be interresting to know 
about WavPack 4.0.

So maybe it's the best alternative to FLAC ? We should contact the 
people behind APE to know if it's frame-friendly...



More information about the Matroska-general mailing list