News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on FLAC – Format overview. Parent comment

Re:FLAC – Format overview by mustache_kimono on Monday September 05, 2022 @05:11PM (#32729531)
Agreed. FYI, ffmpeg's hash testing format [0], and therefore my utility dano, allows the use of CRC32, etc., though.

> But I'm afraid we'll have to live with this shortcoming forever now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't believe there is a fundamental reason why a later version of FLAC couldn't/wouldn't allow different algos as I think the raw decoded bitstream is checksum-ed and is just stored as a FLAC tag[1]. So they could just version that tag.

[0]: http://underpop.online.fr/f/ffmpeg/help/hash.htm.gz [1]: Language corrected. See comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FLAC – Format overview by aaaaaaaaaaab on Monday September 05, 2022 @05:23PM (#32729660)
>I think the file is decoded and then checksum-ed and the checksum is just stored as a FLAC tag.

Sure, it's just metadata. It's just about backwards compatibility.

By the way, the checksum is calculated on the raw data fed into the encoder. It doesn't make sense to decode the data you've just encoded.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:FLAC – Format overview by crtasm on Monday September 05, 2022 @07:42PM (#32730797)
> It doesn't make sense to decode the data you've just encoded.

Unless you're also writing to disk and reading it back before decoding - I'm not sure which tool you're referring to.

[ Parent | on HN ]