Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: FLAC 1.1.3 settings (Read 20007 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

FLAC 1.1.3 settings

Reply #25 –
Quote from: user on
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 Lossless quality wise. The differences amongst Loslsess formats or different settings of one L-format, ly between the encoding (sometimes 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 Joe Average (IMHO), 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 Joe Average will downlaod and install obviously latest available release, which is buggy 1.1.3 at the moment ?

What I meant by best settings is the settings that give the best overall compression for the widest range of music/audio. Yes, I know lossless is lossless no matter how it was compressed. Heck, -1 is lossless, but it's far from optimal. I know some don't care about squeezing the last bit out of FLAC 1.1.3. But this thread is not for those people. It's for people like myself who want that extra bit of compression. I do not understand people who  feel the need to use say -5 because -8 takes too long to compress. Once the compression is done, it's done and the space savings are permanent. And if you feel you don't have the time to perform better compression, do it at a time when you can just let the computer go and compress. Start it going when you are not really using the computer like say during dinner. I have a bat file I use to recompress my FLAC without losing the tags. I can start it recompressing and then walk away from the computer. If I was to be doing a lot of directories of FLAC files for a recompress I can do it while I'm in bed. There are always solutions to the "It takes too long to compress at a higher compmpression level so I'll do it at a lower one and make larger files" issue.

FLAC 1.1.3 settings

Reply #26 –
I agree with you, JWolf. I always try to tweak compression to the extreme maximum (losslessly of course).

Although truthfully, I no longer use FLAC.

That said, I do have a batch file that will compress a directory full of .wav's into FLAC, WavPack, LA, and OptimFrog, choose the smallest, and kill the others.

Losslessly compressing a CD ripped into .wav's took a whole night, but IMO it's worth it.

I'm such a space-saving-freak

FLAC 1.1.3 settings

Reply #27 –
Quote from: pepoluan on
I agree with you, JWolf. I always try to tweak compression to the extreme maximum (losslessly of course).

Although truthfully, I no longer use FLAC.

That said, I do have a batch file that will compress a directory full of .wav's into FLAC, WavPack, LA, and OptimFrog, choose the smallest, and kill the others.

Losslessly compressing a CD ripped into .wav's took a whole night, but IMO it's worth it.

I'm such a space-saving-freak

I don't have much of  choice. My Rio Karma plays FLAC files so if I want lossless, FLAC is my choice.

FLAC 1.1.3 settings

Reply #28 –
pepoluan, how much space do you think you save on average by that method? It sounds too extreme for me!

FLAC 1.1.3 settings

Reply #29 –
Even though this bug could hardly be considered critical, I think it should be fixed as soon as possible. I hope a new bugfix version is released soon addressing this issue.
For instance, my locale uses comma for decimal separation, making me subject to the bug. I've compared some files, and while the individual filesize certainly is negligible, in a large library that 1% difference can suddenly become very significant: My library of 934 files is ~172 MB larger using default flac settings (ignoring tukey(0,5)).
I'm sure you agree that makes some difference.