ape files

[ted]

i see in the upcoming release notes that reaper is no longer supporting ape files...

i belong to a music collaboration site & regularly transfer files in the ape format....

i'd like to know what is the real skinny w/reaper & ape files?

thanks
TED

[ted]

i see in the upcoming release notes that reaper is no longer supporting ape files...

i belong to a music collaboration site & regularly transfer files in the ape format....

i'd like to know what is the real skinny w/reaper & ape files?

thanks
TED[/QUOTE]

i went ahead, copied/pasted, your release notes comment:
what separate download are you referring to ???
& in what way does download concern ape files ??
don't monkey 'round. i'd like a clear answer...or i might just go ape...


+ APE: no longer including APE support in REAPER, separate download will be available for Win32/Win64

thanks,
TED

[Xenakios]

Cockos has now removed the "built-in" Monkey's Audio support for some reason. A separate download will be available later. You need to go back to an older version of Reaper if you want to use Monkey's Audio now, until the download for the separate module is available. (If you've already installed the pre-release where the APE support was removed.)

[ted]

Originally Posted by Xenakios

Cockos has now removed the "built-in" Monkey's Audio support for some reason. A separate download will be available later. You need to go back to an older version of Reaper if you want to use Monkey's Audio now, until the download for the separate module is available. (If you've already installed the pre-release where the APE support was removed.)

does any of this make any sense...!!?????????????????????????????

why remove something your gonna have a separate download for in the future...??? what is the separate module you refer to ??

and, i understand, i go back to older version, on the other hand, why would i want to update to any newer versions...!!!

this is like pulling a front tooth & not getting a replacement,,, leaves reaper looking kinda snaggle toothed !!!!!

thank you for responding,

Ted

[planetnine]

I think the only version of REAPER that doesn't support APE presently is a prerelease version. What I think Xen is saying is go back to the released version of REAPER for now; the prerelease will have APE support (if only as a separate download) before it is released.

As for the path this is going down, there must be a reason, logistical, technical or licencing for the Devs to be doing it.

You should really only discuss prerelease issues in the Prerelease Forum, too...





>

[ted]

Originally Posted by planetnine

I think the only version of REAPER that doesn't support APE presently is a prerelease version. What I think Xen is saying is go back to the released version of REAPER for now; the prerelease will have APE support (if only as a separate download) before it is released.

As for the path this is going down, there must be a reason, logistical, technical or licencing for the Devs to be doing it.

You should really only discuss prerelease issues in the Prerelease Forum, too...





>

that's cool, just move the post for proper placement...

yes, there must be a reason, but, so far, i have not got an answer...

thank you for responding,
TED

[Justin]

The reasons are primarily that the APE SDK's support for platforms other than 32 bit Windows is a bit lacking; there are a lot of potential issues with it on 64 bit, and to build for OS X will require a bunch of work as well. As a side note, it seems like it isn't used extensively, which is why we're intending to make it a separate download. Is there any particular reason you use APE vs WavPack?

[ted]

Originally Posted by Justin

The reasons are primarily that the APE SDK's support for platforms other than 32 bit Windows is a bit lacking; there are a lot of potential issues with it on 64 bit, and to build for OS X will require a bunch of work as well. As a side note, it seems like it isn't used extensively, which is why we're intending to make it a separate download. Is there any particular reason you use APE vs WavPack?

justin,

a very clear response...

ape file are smaller files to internet.. & for me, work as well as wav files

what i do know is that i regularly receive ape files from fellow collaborators..

if ape is no longer supported, i'll need a converter
i've found a ape to wav, called switch, it, of course, is not a freebie..

i'm still on xp pro in 32bit mode.. my interfaces are very old..& i'm very satisfied with my setup....

anyway, i meant no harm...i just wanted to know.. you must know how that is, don't you..

thank you for taking, your time, to respond..
TED

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by ted

justin,

a very clear response...

ape file are smaller files to internet.. & for me, work as well as wav files

what i do know is that i regularly receive ape files from fellow collaborators..

if ape is no longer supported, i'll need a converter
i've found a ape to wav, called switch, it, of course, is not a freebie..

i'm still on xp pro in 32bit mode.. my interfaces are very old..& i'm very satisfied with my setup....

anyway, i meant no harm...i just wanted to know.. you must know how that is, don't you..

thank you for taking, your time, to respond..
TED

This is free and fully supported:

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/index.html

[ted]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

This is free and fully supported:

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/index.html

thanks merc,

you guys are great...

Regards,
TED

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by ted

thanks merc,

you guys are great...

Regards,
TED

Like Justin I'd recommend WavPack over APE any day. It saves way more disk space (silence doesn't take any HDD space at all, that thing is magical) and it's also lossless. You can read about it here:

http://www.wavpack.com/

[ted]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

Like Justin I'd recommend WavPack over APE any day. It saves way more disk space (silence doesn't take any HDD space at all, that thing is magical) and it's also lossless. You can read about it here:

http://www.wavpack.com/

i will read right away,,
& thanks again...

Regards,
TED

[Justin]

Also, you will still be able to use APE with reaper; if you have REAPER 4.15 or earlier installed, then upgrade, it will still support APE, and if you do a fresh 4.16+ install, you will be able to download APE support separately.

[ted]

Originally Posted by Justin

Also, you will still be able to use APE with reaper; if you have REAPER 4.15 or earlier installed, then upgrade, it will still support APE, and if you do a fresh 4.16+ install, you will be able to download APE support separately.

great !!!

i have learned much this day...

thanks,
TED

[IXix]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

Like Justin I'd recommend WavPack over APE any day. It saves way more disk space (silence doesn't take any HDD space at all, that thing is magical) and it's also lossless.

I was exited to read that. I used APE a lot a while ago but I started using FLAC instead. My disks are filling up so the prospect of magic lossless audio was very appealing. But I just used the batch converter to convert some old APE files into WavPack and they came out a little larger...



What gives?

[airon]

Wavpack is not quite as efficient as Monkey Audio(Ape), but only by a percent or two here and there.

Wavpack can store the BWAV chunk that holds the orignator timecode as well.

For music storage it makes no difference. For production, Wavpack may be the more compatible choice.

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by IXix

I was exited to read that. I used APE a lot a while ago but I started using FLAC instead. My disks are filling up so the prospect of magic lossless audio was very appealing. But I just used the batch converter to convert some old APE files into WavPack and they came out a little larger...



What gives?

It isn't good for music storage, as airon said, but it helps if you have a situation like this:



and you render it in WavPack format. Here's the difference:



WavPack doesn't take any disk space for those "empty spaces" between each verse in that track.

[IXix]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

It isn't good for music storage, as airon said, but it helps if you have a situation like this...

Ah I see, thanks. Good that it does BWF data too.

[Subz]

so whats the risk of recording my mike straight to wavpak? (as opposed to wav?)

thanks & sorry for the OT as this could go in a public forum as its got nothing to do with ape!

Subz

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by Subz

so whats the risk of recording my mike straight to wavpak? (as opposed to wav?)

thanks & sorry for the OT as this could go in a public forum as its got nothing to do with ape!

Subz

You won't gain anything. You always have a noise floor while recording so there is no real silence which means you won't be saving any disk space. Record to .wav and render/freeze to .wv

[Jack Winter]

I've been recording to wavepack for years, and the only real disadvantage I've found is that it gets slow to seek in, that is to say that it slows down editing. So my media are normally wavepack, except for when I'm cutting them up for retiming drums or something like that.

[mabian]

Originally Posted by Mercado_Negro

Like Justin I'd recommend WavPack over APE any day. It saves way more disk space (silence doesn't take any HDD space at all, that thing is magical) and it's also lossless. You can read about it here:

http://www.wavpack.com/

To be fair, I think APE also cuts silence and it's completely lossless.

Are you sure Wavpack is so superior as far as compression ratio?

Some collab forums and websites still use APE as standard file exchange format; I understand that the APE - MonkeysAudio devs are a bit behind though.

- Mario

[Mercado_Negro]

Originally Posted by mabian

To be fair, I think APE also cuts silence and it's completely lossless.

Are you sure Wavpack is so superior as far as compression ratio?

Some collab forums and websites still use APE as standard file exchange format; I understand that the APE - MonkeysAudio devs are a bit behind though.

- Mario

I've read some articles but never found anything related to how APE deals with silence, that's why I didn't consider it a feature of this format. Most comparisons put APE above, when it comes to compression ratio, but this is not what I've seen here.

[chucky5p]

First thing’s first: Please developers don't ever remove WavPack support from Reaper!!! It's one of the main reasons I love Reaper; I use WavPack all the time because it’s really great for saving HD space while giving the exact same quality as WAVs. Once I did a test to see if WavPack was bit accurate compared with WAV and it is.

And yes, it doesn't use any HD space when there's nothing to process. Also, it gives better compression depending on the source high frequency content; i.e. if you record a track with a SM58 (which has fewer highs than say an AT2020 studio condenser) the compression will be better on the SM58 track than on the AT2020 track. The audio interface used will also affect the compression ratio. Better interfaces with lower built-in noise will compress better. In practice, I regularly achieve 50% to 70% data reduction on full length track recordings (vocals/DI guitars) and much more if the track is not continuous (i.e up to 95% for drum fills tracks)

Originally Posted by Subz

so whats the risk of recording my mike straight to wavpak? (as opposed to wav?)Subz

A couple of drawbacks of WavPack: It takes more CPU cycles to do real-time encoding/decoding for WavPack format compared to WAV, about 0.25%/track of CPU overhead (this will depend on your particular PC config) It's not much but if you record/use many tracks, it can add up to a lot (i.e. 40 simultaneous tracks = ~ +10% overhead). WavPack also uses some PC memory bandwidth along with the CPU overhead. What this all mean is you won't be able to have as many tracks/VSTs running if you use WavPack compared to WAV. It will also affect the minimum latency setting you can use before hearing clicks/pops if you have many tracks. As each case is unique, the easiest thing to do is to test it on your PC to see if the added overhead is a problem. Those who have modern desktop PCs (i.e. i7) shouldn’t have any problems. However, using WavPack on Notebooks/Netbooks is more problematic. I stick with WAV on my NetBook.

FWIW, I also tested a few compression formats scenarios with Reaper and overall WAV is the least PC resources hungry, followed by WavPack. The other formats have all some major compromises. For example, in the high compression formats, OGG sounds really good (for the file size it’s better than Lame MP3 - mostly in transients preservation) BUT it has a huge CPU overhead compared to WavPack (8X more overhead).

For me, the best overall compromise is WavPack. I almost never record in WAV on my desktop PC. I love saving HD space. We may have Terabytes of HD storage but somehow we always end up using all of it

Chuck

[airon]

David Bryants license for Wavpack is much more liberal, and there are better libraries available for it.

Matt Ashland chose his licencing to be a bit more restrictive last I heard, and the libraries aren't up to snuff at this time for 64-bit and OSX use.

Most folks will be ok just playing APE files in media players.


I use Wavpack for many things, also because the tools are completely free. It carries along all chunks of data of the original WAV files, which was my request because I wanted to archive a library of over 100.000 sounds to a backup drive, and I needed all the data chunks from Soundminer, Netmix and the BWAV chunk to come along for the ride. Monkeysaudio was simply never an option for this, because David basically did tha Reaper thang, and implemented my request in the next version.

I also use it for VO sessions for Extelevision. Jeff Extine records his VO to a template session I provided him, which has Wavpack set up as a recording target format. It cuts down on transfer time tremendously, and I usually work on a processed copy of his recordings, so no seeking trouble for me. I haven't every had those actually, except for one problem that Justin fixed for very short Wavpack files.

Anyone who wants to keep using APE files should either hand on to the "reaper_ape.dll" file from the plugins directory of the Reaper program itself, or wait for the separate download, which I hope includes an installer on the level of the SWS extension.

[airon]

Btw, the most efficient lossless codec for decompression(not compression) is FLAC.

It was designed to by assymetrical in its CPU needs. Compression (->recording) takes a lot more CPU than decompression. Flac can be decompressed on even the whimpiest hardware. It requires way less resources than MP3 or for that matter Wavpack.

Flac does not store the data chunks by default however, though I have not tested this with files that Reaper produces. The commandline tool has a lengthy option to do that.

Monkeysaudio, Wavpack and Flac were never the best when it came to compression ratios. The new star with rather mediocre tool support and source code license is TAK. I know nothing about its feature set beyond its truly awesome compression ratios.

[Banned]

Slightly OT but related: ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) has recently been open sourced [FR]. Definitely ready for OS X. Perhaps do the one out, one in thing?

[airon]

Certainly possible.

Alac is based on Flac.

[chucky5p]

Originally Posted by airon

... Monkeysaudio, Wavpack and Flac were never the best when it came to compression ratios. The new star with rather mediocre tool support and source code license is TAK. I know nothing about its feature set beyond its truly awesome compression ratios.

Thanks for mentioning TAK. It's the first time I hear of this format. BTW, what do you mean about "its truly awesome compression ratios"? From what I could find about it, it is more efficient than anything else, but only slightly.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

[Evan]

Problem with APE and FLAC/ALAC is that they do not support floating point formats.

[airon]

Originally Posted by chucky5p

Thanks for mentioning TAK. It's the first time I hear of this format. BTW, what do you mean about "its truly awesome compression ratios"? From what I could find about it, it is more efficient than anything else, but only slightly.

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

Yeah. Not that much to fuss about really.

Wavpack and Flac are completely open, fast and widely supported. That's all I need.

[mabian]

Originally Posted by airon

Yeah. Not that much to fuss about really.

Wavpack and Flac are completely open, fast and widely supported. That's all I need.

Airon, what do you use to go back and forth between wav and wavpack/flac?

I mean, are there good, reliable and comfortable front ends?

Thanks,
Mario

[airon]

For Windows, there are plenty of highly useful frontends.

The frontend of a classical nature (throw stuff in to a list window, pick options, click GO) is Batchenc by Speex.

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

You can use any commandline encoder(s) to process an input file and output... an output file .

I use this for most standalone encoding of WAV files.


A little more complex to setup is Foobar2000.
I now use this with qtaacenc to encode any AAC files, which aren't many though.

Foobar2000 is vastly superior if you need tags in your destination files, such as artist/album/genre and replaygain. Plus, it has simple DSP processing as well.

I have started using Foobar2000 to produce EBU R128 compliant mixes, because Foobar2000 can use the Replaygain tag during conversion and has a simple Gain DSP block, which equates to "Replaygain - 5 dB = EBU R128 compliance", because the replaygain scanner has been using the libebur128 library since version 1.1.6, instead of the old replaygain scanning algorithm.

Of course, I do love to render directly to Wavpack from Reaper as well. I'm a little suspicious of its Flac output but I haven't tested those in a while .

[IXix]

Bumping this because I noticed Monkey's Audio is up to version 4.18. It was 4.10 when this thread was last active so perhaps the issues that caused its removal have been addressed?

http://www.monkeysaudio.com/versionhistory.html

[ted]

ape works fine w/64 bit....

collaboration site i am a part of, we transfer files using ape...
since 64 bit reaper has no render to ape... its the long handed way to prepare files for transfer... seems it might have been the reaper complaint was that ape was being maintained by developers. can't see that being so, maybe in past, not today....

[vitalker]

I agree with IXix. Now the Devs can integrate it and make Reaper great again

[mabian]

+1 for having APE support back official.

Thanks,
Mario

[EvilDragon]

IMHO FLAC is better than APE because it's faster to decode AND encode...

[mabian]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

IMHO FLAC is better than APE because it's faster to decode AND encode...

Most likely, but I have several legacy projects with APE audio and would love to be able to load them again without having to fiddle with converters...

- Mario

[sinkmusic]

Originally Posted by EvilDragon

IMHO FLAC is better than APE because it's faster to decode AND encode...

But i don't think that FLAC supports markers and regions, does it ?