This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 120 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

The article mentions twice a typical rate of 50-60%, and later it says "FLAC achieves compression rates of 30–50% for most music." anoko_moonlight (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean it has to say 40-50% to be correct? C'mon +-10%. --Kays (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What this community member meant, or so I believe, was that it should state one approximate rate which is agreed upon and not two which partially contradict each other. --lmaxmai (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

After FLAC compression, the file size is typically reduced to 50-60% of the original size, which is the same as saying that it is reduced by 40-50%. Although previous versions may have been confusing, I think the current text in the article states this accurately without any contradiction. LiberatorG (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no indication in the article how the codec achieves its lossless compression. That's a major omission, I'd say. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would like that article would list Processing Power demands on encoding FLAC, compared to other compression format like mp3.

I would like to know, do I save CPU and pay more in RAM (or whatever it is it is happening), when choosing to use FLAC as PulseAudio Home Network Broadcast Sink as compare to Mp3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.193.217 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The reference associated with

| latest release version = {{wikidata|property|reference|P348}}

in the first infobox is not displaying. The Wikidata itself looks reasonable. I'm not sure how this stuff works. Maybe someone can help. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey Kvng - I noticed this as well. The problem was that the reference in wikidata had extra fields that prevented it from being run through the citation transformation. I just removed that reference and replaced it with a new reference to the FLAC website, which is in keeping with previous entries. Mausmalone (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

This broke again at some point - I asked for help and eventually managed to fix it (the wikidata editor is... not the most user-friendly in the world). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many video and audio codecs have separate container and codecs: for example, Ogg Vorbis. Vorbis is the codec, stored in an Ogg container. But then there are formats like MP3 which specify both the codec and container, ie., the container format is specified as part of the codec (I believe). Is FLAC a container format as well as the codec? Is it separable from the FLAC codec? For example, could you have Opus audio in a FLAC container, or is the FLAC specification too intertwined? Would be nice to have this info on here! MrAureliusR_{Yell at me!} 23:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply