IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Strongest FLAC compression possible?, FLAC;compression;best compression
BFG
post Nov 24 2012, 03:13
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 206
Joined: 22-July 12
Member No.: 101637



Currently, I'm ripping my entire CD collection and compressing into FLACs. I'm interested in making the FLACs as small as possible and have no concern whatsoever for encoding time.

To achieve this, I'm currently using -V -p -l 12 -b 4096 -m -e -r 8.
(Those who use FLAC regularly will note these settings are even stronger than -8. I tried using -r 16 which the documentation states is supported, but anything over -r 8 caused an error in my tests.)


My question is: what settings, if any, would allow for even better compression?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Nov 24 2012, 03:17
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



You could try flake, or cudaflac. They might be able to squeeze a little more compression out.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BFG
post Nov 24 2012, 03:33
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 206
Joined: 22-July 12
Member No.: 101637



QUOTE (saratoga @ Nov 23 2012, 20:17) *
You could try flake, or cudaflac. They might be able to squeeze a little more compression out.

Thanks! I'm not interested in flake since the current version doesn't support metadata (though it'd be great to see the optimizations applied in the reference FLAC). And it's my understanding that "cuda flac" is a class of Nvidia GPU-based encoders. If so, is there a specific one you'd recommend?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Nov 24 2012, 10:27
Post #4





Group: Developer
Posts: 1412
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (BFG @ Nov 24 2012, 03:13) *
I'm interested in making the FLACs as small as possible and have no concern whatsoever for encoding time.


FWIW, FLAC -8 is only 0.35% smaller than FLAC -5 on my music collection, and the difference between -8 and your settings is probably going to be a lot smaller than that. It's just not worth it.
Also, see FLACCL.

This post has been edited by skamp: Nov 24 2012, 10:28


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Nov 24 2012, 10:41
Post #5





Group: Developer
Posts: 3334
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
Also, see FLACCL.

This wiki page is a bit outdated: CUETools 2.1.4 contains FlacCL encoder ver. 0.4.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Nov 24 2012, 11:41
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



The metadata could of course be transferred to flake-encoded files afterwards, if you are a bit handy.

But those who are truly obsessed with compression, should maybe consider other codecs than FLAC, which was optimized for decoding speed. There is really no way to improve over FLAC without sacrificing some degree of compatibility, but if that is no issue, then ... TAK.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Dec 1 2012, 19:08
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1539
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Additional settings "-A tukey(0.5) -A flattop" should bring a bit more compression gain.
http://www.synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BFG
post Dec 3 2012, 18:21
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 206
Joined: 22-July 12
Member No.: 101637



QUOTE (IgorC @ Dec 1 2012, 12:08) *
Additional settings "-A tukey(0.5) -A flattop" should bring a bit more compression gain.
http://www.synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/

Thanks for the suggestion. Not knowing anything about the different -A options, I've left it at default in the past. I don't suppose you're aware of a website that discusses the different algorithms in depth?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Dec 3 2012, 19:18
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



If this is for portable use, you may want to experiment with lossyflac, as it will remove some of bits wasted storing noise.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2014 - 16:28