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
  
IgorC
post Nov 3 2007, 06:28
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1573
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



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?

Last time I start to compress my CD rips with even more asymmetric settings:
-l 12 -b 1152 -r 6 -e

Compression ratio is as of -4 preset but decode speed is higher than for -3 and 10% slower than -0. It's of course at cost of lower encoding speed than of -4 preset.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Nov 3 2007, 11:14
Post #2





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



It is interesting to see, so far, that the compression level is paramount with the majority of users.

I did not vote, as I don't use FLAC; however, if I did: I would use -6, as it seems like the best compromise between compression and speed in my tests, and some others.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Nov 3 2007, 11:33


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guruboolez
post Nov 3 2007, 11:30
Post #3





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 3474
Joined: 7-November 01
From: Strasbourg (France)
Member No.: 420



-8
On my side encoding speed is perfect for CD Ripping (x20, which is already faster than my drives in secure mode) and also decent for batch encoding (x40 with two cores).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mitch A
post Nov 3 2007, 11:37
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 19-July 06
Member No.: 33090



-5, I've always just used this 9 (Being the default). It's considerably quicker than -8 and there barely any difference in file size

This post has been edited by Mitch A: Nov 3 2007, 11:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Nov 3 2007, 12:56
Post #5





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



QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 3 2007, 06:28) *
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?


Personally I use -8 , which is even fast enough for old Pentium 3 @ 800 MHz, maybe as I rip EAC , Test & copy secure.

IIRC, decoding speed of flac is more or less always the same very fast decoding speed, independent of encoding setting, ie. once you compress to the max with slightly more encoding time, you get the flac smalles sizes, and have also the very fast decoding.

In general, I think flac is so widely used because:
- very fast encoding, if you don't use -8 wink.gif
- more important: the als very very fast DEcoding.
- hardware support by industry , flac was the first (free) lossless codec, I think
- same effect like mp3, as flac has the majority, it grows even quicker, though other lossless formats might have slight advantages on certain single aspects,
but flac is strong at: en- and maybe more important DEcoding speed, hardware support.
- Compression ratio differences amongst lossless codecs are slight and practically unimportant.
What might matter to end-users: speed & hardware/software/OS support.
flac was iirc the first lossless codec for all major OS like windows, unix/linux, mac ?

This post has been edited by user: Nov 3 2007, 12:58


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
drbeachboy
post Nov 3 2007, 16:21
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 500
Joined: 22-October 04
From: Southern NJ
Member No.: 17776



I use -8 now, though I was using -6 for a very long time. My 320G HD is starting to fill up fast, so I need all the extra compression I can get. Plus, versions 1.2.0 & 1.2.1 are much faster, so encoding time is not as big a deal as it used to be.


--------------------
Surf's Up!
"Columnated Ruins Domino"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Clear89
post Nov 3 2007, 16:34
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29-October 07
From: UK
Member No.: 48290



QUOTE (drbeachboy @ Nov 3 2007, 15:21) *
I use -8 now, though I was using -6 for a very long time. My 320G HD is starting to fill up fast, so I need all the extra compression I can get. Plus, versions 1.2.0 & 1.2.1 are much faster, so encoding time is not as big a deal as it used to be.


I second that. The encoding speeds just get faster and faster with each new release, so the wait is being phased out.

-8 all the way.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Borisz
post Nov 3 2007, 16:41
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 27-September 03
Member No.: 9041



I never understood, what does -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop do?

Also, -8, no point in using anything less.


--------------------
http://evilboris.sonic-cult.net/346/
Sega Saturn, Shiro!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
verbajim
post Nov 3 2007, 18:53
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 18-February 07
Member No.: 40710



I've gone the other way, from 8 to 6 because I realized the compression loss was too small for me to care about. The speed gain is much greater.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post Nov 3 2007, 19:42
Post #10





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 713
Joined: 8-July 04
From: Sao Paulo
Member No.: 15173



-5 for me. I used to use -8 but since there is no significant compression advantage for me I can use the extra speed in compressing.


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lunkhead
post Nov 3 2007, 19:57
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 27-February 07
Member No.: 41018



5, but maybe i'll try 6.

did you have to include the dashes?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Nov 3 2007, 19:57
Post #12





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



QUOTE (user @ Nov 3 2007, 11:56) *
flac was the first (free) lossless codec, I think
A bit before my time (here) but wouldn't Shorten be better suited to hold that accolade? There may be even earlier codecs.

QUOTE (Borisz @ Nov 3 2007, 15:41) *
I never understood, what does -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop do?
IIRC recent versions of FLAC (1.1.3 + I think) use -A tukey(0.5) by default in the higher compression settings. Using two -A switches will increase compression ever-so-slightly, but will also drastically reduce encoding speed. I really can't see the point.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Engywuck
post Nov 5 2007, 10:19
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 16-October 07
Member No.: 47895



I usually use -8, since even when ripping 2 CDs simultanuously I seldom have even one encoding running, my PC being fast enough to encode MUCH faster even in -8 than EAC is with testing and ripping in secure mode. So why spend more hard disk space than necessary?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bad Monkey
post Nov 5 2007, 14:41
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 22-August 07
Member No.: 46407



QUOTE (Engywuck @ Nov 5 2007, 22:19) *
I usually use -8, since even when ripping 2 CDs simultanuously I seldom have even one encoding running, my PC being fast enough to encode MUCH faster even in -8 than EAC is with testing and ripping in secure mode. So why spend more hard disk space than necessary?

I don't get this, EAC for me always rips the CD to a WAV then pauses while FLAC encodes. This is annoying because I used to use AudioGrabber which encoded the MP3 while ripping, instead of just having the CPU practically idle then the CD drive idle and so on. Anyway it means the speed of the FLAC encode stage is relevent, otherwise obviously it only really needs to be as fast as the rip in practical terms.

Is there a way of getting EAC to encode direct without the intermediate WAV?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
M
post Nov 5 2007, 15:01
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 29-December 01
Member No.: 830



QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 3 2007, 00:28) *
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?

Perhaps one of the most significant factors in FLAC's public adoption was the embrace of the taper-friendly touring band community. Shorten was, as Synthetic Soul intimated, originally the choice for trading such material, but as FLAC achieved superior speed and compression ratios - and given it's cross-platform compatibility (another big factor for live audio archivists) - it soon supplanted Shorten as the codec of choice.

Arguably, Monkey's Audio was at one point vying for the same status... but given the number of systems on which the decoding of APE files was simply too processor-intensive to be feasible on a large scale, it is (mostly) only among the fans of certain bands that Monkey's Audio is still considered a desirable trade format.

- M.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Borisz
post Nov 5 2007, 18:28
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 27-September 03
Member No.: 9041



QUOTE (M @ Nov 5 2007, 16:01) *
QUOTE (IgorC @ Nov 3 2007, 00:28) *

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?

Perhaps one of the most significant factors in FLAC's public adoption was the embrace of the taper-friendly touring band community. Shorten was, as Synthetic Soul intimated, originally the choice for trading such material, but as FLAC achieved superior speed and compression ratios - and given it's cross-platform compatibility (another big factor for live audio archivists) - it soon supplanted Shorten as the codec of choice.

Arguably, Monkey's Audio was at one point vying for the same status... but given the number of systems on which the decoding of APE files was simply too processor-intensive to be feasible on a large scale, it is (mostly) only among the fans of certain bands that Monkey's Audio is still considered a desirable trade format.

- M.

Also, p2p.
Oink recommended, and made proper guides for, ripping in flac. With tens of thousands of rippers, thats a factor.
APE+cue cd image are still widely used in edonkey and japanese p2p (winny, share). On japanese systems however, TTA+cue cd images are starting to spread as well, mainly because True Audio is developed by a japanese person I believe.

Also flac was heavily promoted by xiph.org, and now has limited hardware support, which is another factor, since people will just associate lossless audio with flac in general (despite the best tries of both Apple and Microsoft with their own lossless formats).

Ah, the golden old days, when I used ape/cue myself for archiving, and Musepack for lossy copies...

This post has been edited by Borisz: Nov 5 2007, 18:31


--------------------
http://evilboris.sonic-cult.net/346/
Sega Saturn, Shiro!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
verbajim
post Nov 5 2007, 20:26
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 54
Joined: 18-February 07
Member No.: 40710



QUOTE (Bad Monkey @ Nov 5 2007, 14:41) *
I don't get this, EAC for me always rips the CD to a WAV then pauses while FLAC encodes. This is annoying because I used to use AudioGrabber which encoded the MP3 while ripping, instead of just having the CPU practically idle then the CD drive idle and so on. Anyway it means the speed of the FLAC encode stage is relevent, otherwise obviously it only really needs to be as fast as the rip in practical terms.

You can make EAC encode in the background while ripping if you go to EAC options, under tools, and check "On extraction, start external processors queued in the background".

This post has been edited by verbajim: Nov 5 2007, 20:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seiitsu
post Nov 5 2007, 20:30
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 26-January 07
Member No.: 40026



-8

It encodes really really fast for me... so no reason to use anything less.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Nov 5 2007, 20:34
Post #19


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Nov 3 2007, 13:57) *
QUOTE (user @ Nov 3 2007, 11:56) *
flac was the first (free) lossless codec, I think
A bit before my time (here) but wouldn't Shorten be better suited to hold that accolade? There may be even earlier codecs.
depends on what's meant by 'free'. shorten was only free for non-commecial use. ogg squish was also around before flac but not actively developed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Nov 5 2007, 22:52
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Nov 5 2007, 20:34) *
depends on what's meant by 'free'. shorten was only free for non-commecial use. ogg squish was also around before flac but not actively developed.

I never had to pay for LPAC and RKAU had also a lossy mode. But in that time lossless files were much too big for my (small) disks.

BTW only -8 when I use FLAC

This post has been edited by GeSomeone: Nov 5 2007, 22:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Nov 8 2007, 09:24
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 1229
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (Seiitsu @ Nov 5 2007, 19:30) *
-8

It encodes really really fast for me... so no reason to use anything less.


Ditto smile.gif Not like I'm in a rush to encode either...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bad Monkey
post Nov 8 2007, 09:27
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 22-August 07
Member No.: 46407



QUOTE (verbajim @ Nov 6 2007, 08:26) *
QUOTE (Bad Monkey @ Nov 5 2007, 14:41) *

I don't get this, EAC for me always rips the CD to a WAV then pauses while FLAC encodes. This is annoying because I used to use AudioGrabber which encoded the MP3 while ripping, instead of just having the CPU practically idle then the CD drive idle and so on. Anyway it means the speed of the FLAC encode stage is relevent, otherwise obviously it only really needs to be as fast as the rip in practical terms.

You can make EAC encode in the background while ripping if you go to EAC options, under tools, and check "On extraction, start external processors queued in the background".

No way to pipe it straight to the encoder while it rips, then?
Still a lag and wasted time as it encodes the last track, if I understand this right.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArtMustHurt
post Nov 10 2007, 18:19
Post #23





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



-8 here as well smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
collector
post Nov 17 2007, 13:58
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 2-July 04
Member No.: 15029



In the longhelp I read that -8 and -7 have -e embedded. Exhaustive-model-search (expensive!), for what it's worth. So I take -6 as a default. It's fast enough and -8 and -7 are hardly better in compression; also harddiskspace isn't an issue for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EagleScout1998
post Nov 17 2007, 23:37
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 274
Joined: 1-October 06
Member No.: 35820



QUOTE (Bad Monkey @ Nov 8 2007, 03:27) *
No way to pipe it straight to the encoder while it rips, then?
Still a lag and wasted time as it encodes the last track, if I understand this right.


Are you talking about "on the fly" encoding (like what CDex does)?
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: 17th September 2014 - 21:09