IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

FLAC 1.1.3 settings, Best settings?
JWolf
post Nov 1 2006, 18:20
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 05
Member No.: 21842



These are the setting I use with FLAC 1.1.3 with EAC and thet work very well to get better then default -8 compression...

-8 -A tukey(0.25) -A gauss(0.1875) -b 4096 -V -T "artist=%a" -T "title=%t" -T "album=%g" -T "date=%y" -T "tracknumber=%n" -T "genre=%m" %s --sector-align

And if you were using FLAC on the command line, you would use ...

flac -8 -A tukey(0.25) -A gauss(0.1875) -b 4096 -V --sector-align filename.wav

Now does anyone else have any better overall settings? I think my settings are pretty good. Have a go and try for yourself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Synthetic Soul
post Dec 4 2006, 17:59
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



1.1. Yes.

1.2. No, due to the new apodisation feature.

2. If you do not specify an -A (apodisation) switch FLAC defaults to -A tukey(0.5). On systems that use the comma as the decimal separator this is deemed ill-formed and ignored (FLAC falls back to the old rectangular window), so the results are not the same as a system which uses the full stop (period).

2.1. Yes, there is a bug. See 2.

2.2. If you specify the -A switch using the correct notation for your locale everything should be fine.

3. I've performed a test on the RW corpus at -5 and both encoders produce files of the same size. I know this isn't conclusive.

4. No idea.

Edit: For clarification on 2 and 2.2 this post may be of use.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Dec 4 2006, 18:05


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 4 2006, 19:54
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



1.2. No, due to the new apodisation feature.

that means:
flac113 -8 = --best
flac112 -8 >= --best ; -8 less compression than --best, but clearly lower encoding time for flac112 -8 vs. --best ?

2. If you do not specify an -A (apodisation) switch FLAC defaults to -A tukey(0.5) . On systems that use the comma as the decimal separator this is deemed ill-formed and ignored (FLAC falls back to the old rectangular window), so the results are not the same as a system which uses the full stop (period).

I understand this as following:
if flac113 is used in default standard switches like -5 , -8/--best , it causes mistakes on comma-systems.
Only, if on these systems the command would be -8 -A tukey(0,5) , it would produce the correct result ?
If my assumption 2. is correct this way, this bug is a serious one, and flac113 should not be offered for dl to the general JoeAverage out there
(like me, though I even followed roughly the dev topics here at HA and waited seriously for this new great promising flac, if it wouldn't have this bug)),
because you cannot "sell" an additional switch to be used instead of -5 or -8/--best.
I think, there are 1000s of guides with flac example commandlines, and 1000s of "users", who have their flac commandlines unchanged since ages in EAC, foobar etc.
This was one big advantage of flac, that it was so stable over years, ie. regarding switches.

I suggest as solutions, to remove the dangerous flac1.1.3 from public download pages,
and replace by some bug-free version eg. that one of Case, or is there already another official one ?
If this solution cannot be made for some reason,
then it is better to stick to 1.1.2 and offer no 1.1.3-update-bug-fixed-version, until such an update/bug-free version is available.





3. I've performed a test on the RW corpus at -5 and both encoders produce files of the same size. I know this isn't conclusive.
Have you made a quick binary comparison eg. by total commander, as you ahd the files ? Done for 1-2 files eg. an -5 and -8 encode, this proving by example should be sufficient until proven otherwise lol.




Edit: For clarification on 2 and 2.2 this post may be of use.
well, I had read the official flac topics in news forum, and that had lead to above questions, as it remained unclear for me. And if you consider that people using flac reading here at HA and people using using flac not reading HA, will be very likely total different amounts, ie. HA-flac-users will be a minority to the non-HA-flac-users out there, who will be stunned, that new flac 113 produces less compression than ol' 112, flac might lose it's stable reputation.



btw., this topic has an interesting title "best flac settings":
For the lossy formats such topics make sense, obviously less sense for the Lossless formats, because Lossless is Lossless is Loslsess qualitywise.
The differences amongst Loslsess formats or different settings of one L-format, ly between the encoding (soemtimes also decoding) times and achieved compression ratios.
And everybody (the devs of course too for some offered standard possibilities/settings) has to select the best compromise for themselves regarding compression ratio and en-/de-coding times.
So, there is no "best" setting for flac, but the best compromise for each individual, whilst obviously new 113 --best/-8 setting will be the best for JoeAverage (imo), if it behaves roughly like 112 -8 setting regarding encoding times/cpu power.
But that a general "best" setting needs additional switches like tukey/comma, this is opposite to the good usability of previous flac versions.
Nobody might get the idea, that a standard switch like -5 or -8/--best, might need an additional switch or some workaround.
This bug should not be there for a longer time in public release 1.1.3,
because JoeAverage will downlaod and install obviously latest available release, which is buggy 1.1.3 at the moment ?

This post has been edited by user: Dec 4 2006, 20:10


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bhoar
post Dec 4 2006, 20:52
Post #4





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 612
Joined: 31-May 06
Member No.: 31326



QUOTE (user @ Dec 4 2006, 13:54) *
I suggest as solutions, to remove the dangerous flac1.1.3 from public download pages,
and replace by some bug-free version eg. that one of Case, or is there already another official one ?
If this solution cannot be made for some reason,
then it is better to stick to 1.1.2 and offer no 1.1.3-update-bug-fixed-version, until such an update/bug-free version is available.


Calling it "dangerous" is unnecessary. It doesn't cause bad audio, or effect the losslessness. When the bug is triggered, it just doesn't compress as well.

-brendan

This post has been edited by bhoar: Dec 4 2006, 20:52


--------------------
Hacking CD Robots & Autoloaders: http://hyperdiscs.pbwiki.com/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Dec 4 2006, 21:13
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



okay, dangerous is a vocable used as non-native speaker, call it suboptimal then. Obviously I meant "dangerous" not in a technical Lossless sense, but in the sense of flac's reputation to a broader public.
If the output of bugged 113 has same size as 112 (iirc, I read in other topics, that 113 made bigger files even than 112) with same setting like -8 vs -8 or -5 vs -5, it's still okay, though.. suboptimal, as the 113 flac is very promising and surely the step forward regarding "competition" with other Loslsess formats like ape, wavpack. Soon I'll try 113 or whats availble then eg. by Case and try out, how it performs on a standard winXP_non_UK system, which should be affected by the locale thing.
My concern as described above targets the broader public who doesn't read here, as someone else described here at HA, the comma locale guys might be more widespread, than English or Northern Americans think.

This post has been edited by user: Dec 4 2006, 21:21


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- JWolf   FLAC 1.1.3 settings   Nov 1 2006, 18:20
- - Egor   CODEflac.exe --best --cuesheet=sheet.cue --tag-fro...   Nov 1 2006, 18:46
- - jcoalson   I would not use --sector-align with CD rips. in t...   Nov 2 2006, 00:04
- - graue   I didn't realize the -A option could be used m...   Nov 8 2006, 21:45
|- - Synthetic Soul   QUOTE (graue @ Nov 8 2006, 20:45) I didn...   Nov 8 2006, 23:46
- - graue   The rectangular window is well worth it when encod...   Nov 12 2006, 07:11
- - JWolf   I feel the additional time is worth it because onc...   Nov 13 2006, 02:24
- - BoraBora   QUOTE (JWolf @ Nov 1 2006, 18:20) And if ...   Nov 13 2006, 20:01
- - jcoalson   the difference is probably due to the blocksize mo...   Nov 13 2006, 23:51
- - windmiller   1.1.3 final has been released   Dec 2 2006, 06:10
|- - user   Because 1.1.3 has the dot/comma bug, I'd like ...   Dec 4 2006, 17:26
- - Synthetic Soul   1.1. Yes. 1.2. No, due to the new apodisation fea...   Dec 4 2006, 17:59
|- - user   1.2. No, due to the new apodisation feature. that...   Dec 4 2006, 19:54
|- - Synthetic Soul   QUOTE (user @ Dec 4 2006, 18:54) that mea...   Dec 4 2006, 20:10
|- - bhoar   QUOTE (user @ Dec 4 2006, 13:54) I sugges...   Dec 4 2006, 20:52
||- - user   okay, dangerous is a vocable used as non-native sp...   Dec 4 2006, 21:13
||- - pepoluan   QUOTE (user @ Dec 5 2006, 03:13) My conce...   Dec 5 2006, 13:12
||- - Egor   QUOTE (pepoluan @ Dec 5 2006, 18:12) if c...   Dec 5 2006, 13:15
|- - JWolf   QUOTE (user @ Dec 4 2006, 13:54) btw., th...   Dec 12 2006, 14:19
- - jcoalson   synthetic soul's reply answered everything per...   Dec 4 2006, 20:46
- - quackalist   I don't understand the reluctance to fix the b...   Dec 4 2006, 21:13
- - mario620   I just downloaded the latest build (Dec 1 2006 - 1...   Dec 7 2006, 21:04
|- - Jebus   QUOTE (mario620 @ Dec 7 2006, 12:04) I ju...   Dec 7 2006, 23:04
|- - Synthetic Soul   QUOTE (mario620 @ Dec 7 2006, 20:04) I ju...   Dec 8 2006, 08:30
|- - JWolf   QUOTE (mario620 @ Dec 7 2006, 15:04) I ju...   Dec 12 2006, 14:06
- - Klyith   QUOTE (Jebus @ Dec 7 2006, 17:04) Why sav...   Dec 8 2006, 05:31
- - pepoluan   I agree with you, JWolf. I always try to tweak com...   Dec 12 2006, 20:17
|- - JWolf   QUOTE (pepoluan @ Dec 12 2006, 14:17) I a...   Dec 13 2006, 13:58
- - dv1989   pepoluan, how much space do you think you save on ...   Dec 13 2006, 13:59
- - emtee   Even though this bug could hardly be considered cr...   Jan 22 2007, 15:40


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: 24th October 2014 - 08:17