IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
FLAC -0 ... -8, What is your compression level?
What is your compresion level?
FLAC
-0 [ 3 ] ** [0.61%]
-1 [ 1 ] ** [0.20%]
-2 [ 1 ] ** [0.20%]
-3 [ 2 ] ** [0.41%]
-4 [ 4 ] ** [0.82%]
-5 [ 102 ] ** [20.86%]
-6 [ 55 ] ** [11.25%]
-7 [ 4 ] ** [0.82%]
-8 [ 297 ] ** [60.74%]
-8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop [ 20 ] ** [4.09%]
Total Votes: 648
  
Bourne
post Nov 17 2007, 23:47
Post #26





Group: Banned
Posts: 735
Joined: 19-March 06
Member No.: 28599



I hope Blue-Ray/HD-DVD Players come with FLAC support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Nov 18 2007, 00:08
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (Bourne @ Nov 17 2007, 14:47) *
I hope Blue-Ray/HD-DVD Players come with FLAC support.

Maybe some chipmakers will go for FLAC but that won't be defined by standarts. There is Dolby True HD for lossless purpose.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
djdust
post Dec 2 2007, 17:48
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 12-November 07
Member No.: 48704



Complete newbie thickie here so, apologies if this is a dumb question.. Can someone explain what the difference is with the 0-8 settings? I just took a WAV file and tried compressing it with each setting and found that "0" produced the largest file size and "8" the lowest. I thought that "8" was the best so I would have thought it would be the largest!? *confused*
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamHain86
post Dec 2 2007, 17:52
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 1-January 07
From: Luebeck, DE
Member No.: 39196



@ DJdust:
The 0-8 is the compression setting. With FLAC there is no actual best, since all 0-8 settings are lossless, there is no audio data taken away. The only measurement then is the amount of compression that FLAC encoder can apply to the WAV. 0 being the least compression, 8 the most compression. Therefore, 0 has the largest files, 8 has the smallest files for FLAC. With compression there is usually a sacrifice of time. You probably noticed that the 0 setting took the least time, and the 8 setting took the longest.

This post has been edited by SamHain86: Dec 2 2007, 17:53


--------------------
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined :'-(
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
djdust
post Dec 2 2007, 18:57
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 12-November 07
Member No.: 48704



QUOTE (SamHain86 @ Dec 2 2007, 16:52) *
@ DJdust:
The 0-8 is the compression setting. With FLAC there is no actual best, since all 0-8 settings are lossless, there is no audio data taken away. The only measurement then is the amount of compression that FLAC encoder can apply to the WAV. 0 being the least compression, 8 the most compression. Therefore, 0 has the largest files, 8 has the smallest files for FLAC. With compression there is usually a sacrifice of time. You probably noticed that the 0 setting took the least time, and the 8 setting took the longest.

Actually, it seems to take the exact same amount of time really so, I guess I'll stick with setting "8" then and get the smallest file size! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
damaki
post Dec 2 2007, 19:49
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 13-July 03
From: Paris, France
Member No.: 7740



QUOTE (SamHain86 @ Dec 2 2007, 17:52) *
@ DJdust:
The 0-8 is the compression setting. With FLAC there is no actual best, since all 0-8 settings are lossless, there is no audio data taken away. The only measurement then is the amount of compression that FLAC encoder can apply to the WAV. 0 being the least compression, 8 the most compression. Therefore, 0 has the largest files, 8 has the smallest files for FLAC. With compression there is usually a sacrifice of time. You probably noticed that the 0 setting took the least time, and the 8 setting took the longest.

Doesn't -0 sounds warmer and fuller? tongue.gif

This post has been edited by damaki: Dec 2 2007, 19:49


--------------------
Stupidity is root of all evil.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamHain86
post Dec 2 2007, 20:02
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 432
Joined: 1-January 07
From: Luebeck, DE
Member No.: 39196



@ Damaki:
... AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!-
You nearly made me spit tea all over my damned laptop.

@ DJdust:
I am with you about using -8, same as --best. Just take "my" word that 8 takes longer than 0. I encode to FLAC images at --best and I do not care about the additional time.


--------------------
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined :'-(
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
miranon
post Feb 6 2008, 19:55
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 27-January 08
Member No.: 50853



I use -6. Best compromise for me between 7-8 and 5.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
naturfreak
post Feb 6 2008, 20:48
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 176
Joined: 16-October 03
Member No.: 9338



Default setting (-5), I don't care about 0.5% better compression of -8

This post has been edited by naturfreak: Feb 6 2008, 20:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArtMustHurt
post Mar 11 2008, 13:09
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 232
Joined: 8-October 04
Member No.: 17570



i use -6, i ripped a bunch of cds last night and re-encoded some old flacs with the 1.2.1 and damn its pretty fast to encode now smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2tec
post Apr 20 2008, 15:59
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 306
Joined: 29-February 08
From: Alberta
Member No.: 51676



Using -8 myself, why compromise? Besides with multicore systems, encoding time is a moot point. No?

As well, how come no poll option for -totally_impractical? dry.gif


--------------------
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence~Potter Stewart
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Apr 5 2009, 21:16
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



-8.
Even if I only got 0.01% better compression than -3 or -5 I'd still do it. It isn't like I'm doing the math with a slide rule.

This post has been edited by Soap: Apr 5 2009, 21:16


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KFal
post Apr 6 2009, 10:26
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 6-March 09
Member No.: 67666



When I ripped the entire CD collection of my girl friend and mine, I used -5 because at the time there was a significant speed difference to -8 and disk space was of less concern. I had only second hand comparisons for the decoding speed for a Squeezebox but it did not appear to have any perceptible difference in the starting of songs.

So, without much further experimentation I chose the default.


--------------------
Apple Lossless
NeroAAC -q 0.5
dbPowerAmp Reference
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
insane_alien
post Apr 6 2009, 13:40
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 26-July 08
Member No.: 56345



-8

it shaves a few gigabytes off my collection and the encoding times do not bother me at all as i only have to do it once(well, maybe a second time if a new version of FLAC comes out that makes my lossless music even smaller.). decoding times are also a non-issue as it only needs to be something other than realtime once in a blue moon when 5 austrailian aborigional mimes are pretending to be in an invisible box on the top floor of the eiffel tower.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angenial
post Apr 6 2009, 18:08
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 21-October 08
Member No.: 60591



QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 2 2007, 21:28) *
What makes FLAC so widely used? Because it's asymmetric? Are people satisfied enough by compression ratio or is it price for high decoding speed?

For me it's the fact that it's open, and that's not just an ideological reason. Since I use Linux and FreeBSD, the programs I use tend to be open, as well; and that means that if a file format is closed, odds are I won't be able to use it well. Perhaps the ffmpeg team will wind up implementing reverse-engineered versions (as happened with ALAC), but why bother with that when flac and associated tools (like metaflac) are available?

If something open came along with a much better compression ratio, perhaps I'd switch; but then again, all my CDs are ripped and fit just fine on my 500GB array (with room to spare), so it probably wouldn't be worth the bother.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
madoka@ex-sounds
post Apr 6 2009, 18:30
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 92
Joined: 23-February 04
From: tokyo, japan
Member No.: 12207



-8

for peace of my mind wink.gif

This post has been edited by madoka@ex-sounds: Apr 6 2009, 18:31


--------------------
<name>madoka</name>
<uri>http://codecs.ex-sounds.net/</uri>
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_mē_
post Apr 7 2009, 20:25
Post #42





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



-8.
Considering that I don't plan recoding more often than once / few years, encoding time is negligible while space taken is not. -8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop is stronger? Got to make a switch. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tev777
post Apr 8 2009, 03:53
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 182
Joined: 10-October 03
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 9235



--best here. Why use any other setting when you can have the "best"? Or is Josh just using Jedi mind tricks on me?

As for using FLAC, I switched to it when I started using Linux because it was supported out of the box. It has served me well over the years and I see no reason to switch to anything else. I am really impressed by Wavpack and enjoy watching it grow, but FLAC FTW!



--------------------
--
Eric
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ottl
post Apr 8 2009, 10:41
Post #44





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 8-April 09
Member No.: 68760



-8. As many, I think the extra wait is no problem on a modern dual/quad core machine. I rip and transcode with XLD (FLAC 1.2.1) and it works quite smoothly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sshd
post Apr 8 2009, 11:29
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 16-June 03
Member No.: 7218



-5 is a good default choice.

-8 is a waste of time saving very little space. I only use it for mkv movies with eac3to as it is the only option.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Apr 13 2009, 18:42
Post #46





Group: Members
Posts: 370
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



QUOTE (_mē_ @ Apr 7 2009, 21:25) *
-8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop is stronger? Got to make a switch. smile.gif


I tested it on a song and it is actually worse for that song, but less then 1/1000 (it just shows ratio=1,000) I've played around with those -A switched and other settings under --lax, but the gains are extremely small and encoding takes ages xD

I use -8, just because it is --best smile.gif Indeed, it is probably not the worth the slowdown, but I don't care. New versions usually make much bigger differences.

This post has been edited by ktf: Apr 13 2009, 19:00


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JJZolx
post Apr 20 2009, 02:52
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: 26-November 04
Member No.: 18345



Less than zero. wink.gif

--max-lpc-order=0 --disable-constant-subframes --disable-fixed-subframes

This post has been edited by JJZolx: Apr 20 2009, 02:55
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
frozenspeed
post Apr 20 2009, 03:31
Post #48





Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 16-October 01
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 301



What the heck is flattop?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Justin Ruggles
post Apr 20 2009, 14:37
Post #49





Group: Developer
Posts: 165
Joined: 3-June 06
From: Raleigh, NC
Member No.: 31393



QUOTE (frozenspeed @ Apr 19 2009, 22:31) *
What the heck is flattop?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_functi...ow_.5Bnote_1.5D
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hazumi-san
post Apr 24 2009, 15:45
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15-January 09
Member No.: 65586



I just started using flac and I used the -8....
encoding or decoding speed is not a problem as long as I get the best result.
actually the speed is quite fast with my pentium D desktop.... (encoding and decoding)
and the filesize produced is not really big to me, much smaller than wav, which I used to back up
my song library before.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Closed 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: 20th September 2014 - 17:47