Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: T.J. on October 24, 2006, 01:05:15 PM

Title: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: T.J. on October 24, 2006, 01:05:15 PM: i searched the forums and didn't see this discussed too much. i am curious what everyone is doing with there flacs and why. i am currently only creating an ffp file for my flacs. i have read on etree how it is really an area of grey whether it is necessary or overkill to also create a md5 checksum for recordings. i fall into the category that feels it's overkill.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: BJ on October 24, 2006, 01:07:06 PM: I only do ffp
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: T.J. on October 24, 2006, 01:09:57 PM: after creating this i realized probably nobody only creates a md5, but i'm not entirely certain.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Nick Graham on October 24, 2006, 01:13:04 PM: I do both, better safe than sorry.

Also, it just seems easier to run a MD5 check than to compare 2 FFP files.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Craig T on October 24, 2006, 01:13:26 PM: I do both, but I agree it's complete overkill. The only reason I do it was that I've had at least one LMA admin insist I include both, not because it made any real sense, but because the band's policy required the md5's. It only takes a few seconds to create the md5 file, so I just do it as routine to prevent further issues with my uploads going public. IMO, only the FFP is necessary when seeding FLACs.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Nick Graham on October 24, 2006, 01:19:19 PM: Quote from: raoulduke on October 24, 2006, 01:16:18 PM
is there a utility that will create an md5 of a .wav file bigger than 2gb? my mkw chokes on them. does everyones?

xACT 1.58 (our own Scott Brown's nifty little creation)

It will do everything you could possibly want. Encode/Decode, creates FFP and MD5s, fixes SBEs, etc. It also works with both FLAC and SHN.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Kush on October 24, 2006, 01:23:12 PM: only ffp
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Nick Graham on October 24, 2006, 01:24:26 PM: +Ts may be a bit premature, as I think this may be a Mac only program.

Anyone know for sure?
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: OFOTD on October 24, 2006, 01:45:23 PM: Quote from: RaZoRbAcK on October 24, 2006, 01:07:06 PM
I only do ffp
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: bgalizio on October 24, 2006, 01:48:19 PM: Quote from: Nick Graham on October 24, 2006, 01:24:26 PM
+Ts may be a bit premature, as I think this may be a Mac only program.

Anyone know for sure?

Windows version is available too:
http://crush.epix.net/~scb/index.php
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on October 24, 2006, 01:51:13 PM: I do FFPs and WAV MD5s for my FLAC sets offered to BT, etc.

Terry
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Shawn on October 24, 2006, 02:03:40 PM: I generally only create an md5. It does the job, it's easy to do, and makes it easy to verify the files.

I'm fairly certain archive.org creates an ffp file for you when you upload a show.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: terrapinj on October 24, 2006, 02:10:10 PM: i started only doing FFP but after trying to verify a few shows, I found its much easier to check with an MD5 so i'm doing both now.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: sleepypedro on October 24, 2006, 02:43:04 PM: Quote from: T.J. on October 24, 2006, 01:09:57 PM
after creating this i realized probably nobody only creates a md5, but i'm not entirely certain.

i only create an md5.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: greenone on October 24, 2006, 05:34:19 PM: xACT for Mac only creates ffp's for FLACs, so that's all I do (well, it does shntool md5's but not whole-file md5's). I'm anal about checking my LMA uploads anyway, so even without the md5 I can still tell if something failed because the mp3/oggs didn't derive.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 05:39:53 PM: I only create an MD5 file. No automatic way to verify using an FFP.

-Kevin
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on October 24, 2006, 05:53:38 PM: Quote from: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 05:39:53 PM
I only create an MD5 file. No automatic way to verify using an FFP.

-Kevin

I think TLH does this...

T
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: dhora on October 24, 2006, 05:58:21 PM: I do both ffp and .md5

It's easier to check the .md5 and I also include an .md5 of the original .wav files.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 06:10:08 PM: Quote from: twatts on October 24, 2006, 05:53:38 PM

I think TLH does this...

T

TLH?
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: terrapinj on October 24, 2006, 06:24:53 PM: Quote from: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 06:10:08 PM
Quote from: twatts on October 24, 2006, 05:53:38 PM

I think TLH does this...

T

TLH?

Trader's Little Helper
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on October 24, 2006, 06:26:34 PM: Quote from: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 06:10:08 PM
Quote from: twatts on October 24, 2006, 05:53:38 PM

I think TLH does this...

T

TLH?

Trader's Little Helper: http://thor.prohosting.com/roh0205/
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: taper420 on October 25, 2006, 05:30:02 AM: Quote from: greenone on October 24, 2006, 05:34:19 PM
xACT for Mac only creates ffp's for FLACs, so that's all I do (well, it does shntool md5's but not whole-file md5's).

Actually it does, I believe if you choose shntool md5 and then cancel it (when choosing the files), the next time you press it, it will ask shntool md5 or traditional instead of fingerprint or shntool..... so cancel first, then try again.

I usually do both, and after reading this thread, I'm always gonna do both..... It hardly takes any extra effort, and different people have different preferences, so why not facilitate both? I didn't even realize md5s were easier to check.. huh.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: greenone on October 25, 2006, 02:52:07 PM: Quote from: taper420 on October 25, 2006, 05:30:02 AM
Quote from: greenone on October 24, 2006, 05:34:19 PM
xACT for Mac only creates ffp's for FLACs, so that's all I do (well, it does shntool md5's but not whole-file md5's).

Actually it does, I believe if you choose shntool md5 and then cancel it (when choosing the files), the next time you press it, it will ask shntool md5 or traditional instead of fingerprint or shntool..... so cancel first, then try again.

I usually do both, and after reading this thread, I'm always gonna do both..... It hardly takes any extra effort, and different people have different preferences, so why not facilitate both? I didn't even realize md5s were easier to check.. huh.

Whoa! I had no idea...very cool! +T for the tip. :)
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: svenkid on October 25, 2006, 04:28:33 PM: md5 only! :D
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: newplanet7 on December 01, 2011, 01:19:11 PM: I am bumping this because I see md5's with flac file sets as useless because if you change a tag
which has nothing to do with the files integrity, the md5 will fail.

Views?
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on December 01, 2011, 01:22:47 PM: Quote from: newplanet7 on December 01, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
I am bumping this because I see md5's with flac file sets as useless because if you change a tag
which has nothing to do with the files integrity, the md5 will fail.

Views?

This probably came up on that MMW source on BT???

I agree that MD5s for FLACs are (almost) useless as a change in Tags makes the MD5 bunk... I use FFPs and verify them in TLH...

Terry
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on December 01, 2011, 01:24:41 PM: Quote from: twatts and not wearing pants on December 01, 2011, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: newplanet7 on December 01, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
I am bumping this because I see md5's with flac file sets as useless because if you change a tag
which has nothing to do with the files integrity, the md5 will fail.

Views?

This probably came up on that MMW source on BT???

I agree that MD5s for FLACs are (almost) useless as a change in Tags makes the MD5 bunk... I use FFPs and verify them in TLH...

Terry

http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=550492#startcomments

I actually found this Topic when I searched: http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=145610.msg1873279#msg1873279

Terry
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Craig T on December 01, 2011, 01:33:56 PM: the only time I add md5's to FLAC filesets is when required for upload to LMA. they are a total waste, IMO.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: newplanet7 on December 01, 2011, 02:00:47 PM: Quote from: twatts and not wearing pants on December 01, 2011, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: newplanet7 on December 01, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
I am bumping this because I see md5's with flac file sets as useless because if you change a tag
which has nothing to do with the files integrity, the md5 will fail.

Views?

This probably came up on that MMW source on BT???

I agree that MD5s for FLACs are (almost) useless as a change in Tags makes the MD5 bunk... I use FFPs and verify them in TLH...

Terry
Yep. I am in the Shack Project with duggy.
He does things in the audio realm and has no clue why sometimes. ;D

Another thing that grabs me is when people use an md5 file for a file set and include the txt file. :P
One little change to the txt and the md5 fails. Pretty big mistake when setlists are incorrect a good percentage of the time.
I've seen people leave the set-list blank in the txt file and still include it in the md5!
HELLO, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE?
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: vanark on December 01, 2011, 02:10:51 PM: Quote from: Craig T on December 01, 2011, 01:33:56 PM
the only time I add md5's to FLAC filesets is when required for upload to LMA. they are a total waste, IMO.

They are not required for LMA upload as far as I know. In fact, I uploaded a set the other day without either an FFP or md5 - FLACs + txt file only. The LMA creates its own ffp anyway.

The only thing I use md5's for is when copying WAV files off of my recorder media to my hard drive. I create an md5 on the card and copy it along with the WAV so I can make sure no corruption occurred. Otherwise, in my opinion, md5's are not worth anything and are inferior to ffp's for the reason's mentioned in other posts.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: Craig T on December 01, 2011, 02:24:10 PM: Might be true now. In the past I tried skipping the md5's and had several uploads generate errors because I didn't include them. Now I just do it for my LMA uploads since it only takes a few seconds.

Quote from: vanark on December 01, 2011, 02:10:51 PM
Quote from: Craig T on December 01, 2011, 01:33:56 PM
the only time I add md5's to FLAC filesets is when required for upload to LMA. they are a total waste, IMO.

They are not required for LMA upload as far as I know. In fact, I uploaded a set the other day without either an FFP or md5 - FLACs + txt file only. The LMA creates its own ffp anyway.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: acidjack on December 01, 2011, 03:05:40 PM: Quote from: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 05:39:53 PM
I only create an MD5 file. No automatic way to verify using an FFP.

-Kevin

This for me.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: justink on December 01, 2011, 03:07:15 PM: i do both. if you're sure everything in the folder is exactly how you like it, then you're good. and it only takes two seconds to do the extra file.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: F.O.Bean on December 01, 2011, 03:16:54 PM: I just do ffps now
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: greenone on December 01, 2011, 08:03:46 PM: Quote from: Craig T on December 01, 2011, 02:24:10 PM
Might be true now. In the past I tried skipping the md5's and had several uploads generate errors because I didn't include them. Now I just do it for my LMA uploads since it only takes a few seconds.

Quote from: vanark on December 01, 2011, 02:10:51 PM
Quote from: Craig T on December 01, 2011, 01:33:56 PM
the only time I add md5's to FLAC filesets is when required for upload to LMA. they are a total waste, IMO.

They are not required for LMA upload as far as I know. In fact, I uploaded a set the other day without either an FFP or md5 - FLACs + txt file only. The LMA creates its own ffp anyway.

Confirmed that they are not required - the system will generate one if you do not include one. However, the system will check your md5 if you include one, as opposed to ffps, which are not checked. They actually fail pretty frequently, often because people leave a file out of their upload...so they're good as a "packing list", so to speak.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: newplanet7 on December 01, 2011, 08:38:27 PM: Quote from: acidjack on December 01, 2011, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 05:39:53 PM
I only create an MD5 file. No automatic way to verify using an FFP.

-Kevin

This for me.
Why?
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 11:43:33 AM: Actually now I do a .st5 which I believe is better than either.

I don't know why I started doing .md5 only, except I think DIME requires .md5 and doesn't require .ffp, and I'm too lazy to do both. LMA creates its own, so I don't worry about that there anyway.

quote author=newplanet7 link=topic=74162.msg1924102#msg1924102 date=1322789907]
Quote from: acidjack on December 01, 2011, 03:05:40 PM
Quote from: blu666z on October 24, 2006, 05:39:53 PM
I only create an MD5 file. No automatic way to verify using an FFP.

-Kevin

This for me.
Why?
[/quote]
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on December 02, 2011, 11:49:04 AM: Quote from: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
Actually now I do a .st5 which I believe is better than either.

Why do you believe ST5 is better than FFP??? Its the same thing, look at the hash it makes...

Terry
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 12:06:23 PM: Quote from: twatts and not wearing pants on December 02, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
Actually now I do a .st5 which I believe is better than either.

Why do you believe ST5 is better than FFP??? Its the same thing, look at the hash it makes...

Terry

Isn't that the point - it does both FFP and MD5 function at once?

To be honest, I don't know much, or care, about this stuff. I mostly listen to my own masters or those of my friends and figure I know enough about the integrity of those filesets... I realize that is maybe not the best view to take w/r/t the dissemination of my stuff, but considering that most music is disseminated on crappy torrent sites in lossy formats anyway, I just can't get too exercised about it.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: vanark on December 02, 2011, 12:28:07 PM: Quote from: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
except I think DIME requires .md5 and doesn't require .ffp, and I'm too lazy to do both.

DIME does not require an md5. I never include one when I upload. They require a checksum be included but I can't find that requirement at the moment.

ETA: found it - they require either an md5 or FLAC fingerprint. http://wiki.dimeadozen.org/index.php/DimeTOS:Allowed_Torrents
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: twatts (pants are so over-rated...) on December 02, 2011, 01:16:57 PM: Quote from: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: twatts and not wearing pants on December 02, 2011, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 11:43:33 AM
Actually now I do a .st5 which I believe is better than either.

Why do you believe ST5 is better than FFP??? Its the same thing, look at the hash it makes...

Terry

Isn't that the point - it does both FFP and MD5 function at once?

Oh, my point is that FFP verification is the same as ST5 verification, that they are practically interchangeable. I suppose there is no real difference, so in some respect, one is as good as the other... Especially when you add in:

Quote from: acidjack on December 02, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
To be honest, I don't know much, or care, about this stuff. I mostly listen to my own masters or those of my friends and figure I know enough about the integrity of those filesets... I realize that is maybe not the best view to take w/r/t the dissemination of my stuff, but considering that most music is disseminated on crappy torrent sites in lossy formats anyway, I just can't get too exercised about it.

I'm about the same way. I use FFP because that's what I learned to use years ago... I hardly verify checksums now...

Terry
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: lastubbe on December 12, 2011, 07:33:55 PM: ffp's only and always.

I don't care if people change tags, text, folder names etc.

I really am only concerned with the integrity of my original audio at the time of circulation. Seems ffp does all I need, is simple and effective.
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: cd2go on December 12, 2011, 10:13:06 PM: only ffp
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: F.O.Bean on December 12, 2011, 10:50:56 PM: Quote from: lastubbe on December 12, 2011, 07:33:55 PM
ffp's only and always.

I don't care if people change tags, text, folder names etc.

I really am only concerned with the integrity of my original audio at the time of circulation. Seems ffp does all I need, is simple and effective.

Well put Lenny, and I agree 100% 8)
Title: Re: flac ffp vs. md5 checksum
Post by: NSL on December 14, 2011, 07:03:12 PM: I started out doing both then realized lma does a ffp also so I switched to just md5. Never knew that the md5's aren't required as I thought they were! Probably wont make either now since lma will make the flac file for me.