Have you tried zipping the flac or other codecs? The comparison is not totally fair now as zip is no audio codec. It cant be played back directly or seeked ahead in. It needs to be unpacked to memory or temp file in full before the enclosed data can be played. The other formats can be played from halfway the file without decoding the whole file first.
I fail to see how this is interesting that you found one file where 7z wins.I tried on an album:wav: 678MB7z: 572MBrar: 373MBwv: 255MBI would take any wager on general compressors losing that battle 95%+ of the time.
strange. maybe its because I used 24bit 48khz wav input? and lossless codecs are not optimized good to compress >22khz frequencies? so pure math of 7z make it winner?here is the link to my test file http://yadi.sk/d/hpGxgr9y8-z1e
I can see how this is interesting for purely archiving purposes. It not that surprising though. The zipping can use much large blocks and compress patterns throughout the file, while an audio codec must use smaller blocks (sequentially) to be realtime decodeable and playable.
I was wondering... does it work out better if you compress the wav with or the already compressed flac/ape ect with 7z. I'd love to try it but I have to get some sleep now =(
Also bear in mind 7-zip isn't actively developed, it hasn't had a stable (non alpha/beta) release since 2010.
Then why did the developer announce a new alpha release in the coming days? It's still being actively developed, there's just not much to fix especially in the stable version.