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: Which FLAC setting provides best quality? (Read 14491 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Hi I have a question about Flac.

I thought I knew a thing or two about it but I am not so sure I do now.

I am currently ripping over 300 classical cd's using EAC to FLAC. I am using EAC to rip to WAV format and then using the FLAC windows GUI to encode these WAV files into FLAC (because it is much easier to just type in the tag information then to try and use EAC. I have done about half of the CD's. The first half of those CD's I was using the encoding option of level 3 and have since switched to level 6. Thinking this would be a better quality. I am noticing a big difference in the bitrate of these new level 6 files(meaning it is a much lower bitrate).

What I need to know is I want the best possible quality FLAC file and am not concerned with the size since I have 320GB of space to use.

What encoding option should I be using for this?

I have scanned the forums and have found similiar posts but all the replies have not answered this question.

Could someone please help. I am suspending all my ripping activities until I have a definitive answer and am pondering if I need to redo ALL the CD's because I am such a moron!!!!!!

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

PS I originally did my cd's in the OGG format. FLAC blows this away!!!!!!!!!

The quality is unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to restate for me quality is the most important thing.

Also someone might say just keep them in wave format. I DO NOT want to do this as I have hundreds of tapes and LP's that I also want to encode and space would become a factor.

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #1 –
to my knowledge (i'm probably wrong...anyone; please correct me)

FLAC files (being lossless) have the same quality regardless of encoding options.

speed and size are the two variables in question.

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Maestro777 on
Hi I have a question about Flac.

I thought I knew a thing or two about it but I am not so sure I do now.

I am currently ripping over 300 classical cd's using EAC to FLAC. I am using EAC to rip to WAV format and then using the FLAC windows GUI to encode these WAV files into FLAC (because it is much easier to just type in the tag information then to try and use EAC. I have done about half of the CD's. The first half of those CD's I was using the encoding option of level 3 and have since switched to level 6. Thinking this would be a better quality. I am noticing a big difference in the bitrate of these new level 6 files(meaning it is a much lower bitrate).

What I need to know is I want the best possible quality FLAC file and am not concerned with the size since I have 320GB of space to use.

What encoding option should I be using for this?

I have scanned the forums and have found similiar posts but all the replies have not answered this question.

Could someone please help. I am suspending all my ripping activities until I have a definitive answer and am pondering if I need to redo ALL the CD's because I am such a moron!!!!!!

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

PS I originally did my cd's in the OGG format. FLAC blows this away!!!!!!!!!

The quality is unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to restate for me quality is the most important thing.

Also someone might say just keep them in wave format. I DO NOT want to do this as I have hundreds of tapes and LP's that I also want to encode and space would become a factor.


FLAC is lossless.  The only thing you are adjusting with the -3 to -6 is the compression.  -6 will end up being a smaller file.  It will also take a tad bit longer to encode.  However, the QUALITY of the file will be EXACTLY the same as the one made with -3 and as the original.  If you use -8 or --best (which is the same) you will achieve maximum compression but it will take a little longer to encode the file.  So, it is up to you.  Do you want the files to encode faster (-3) or do you want smaller files on your hard drive (-6 or -8)?

Also, there is no need to re-rip all of your cd's.  Just use a batch file reencode program like foobar2000 or omni encoder.  Better yet just use Synthetic Soul's Batch File to reencode all of your flac files you have already made to the newest 1.1.4 version with the compression options of your choice.  Check out the thread and download from here...  http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=50993&st=0

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #3 –
If this is true than why is my foobar reporting vastly different bitrates of the 2 different encoded files.

3 being a higher bitrate and 6 being significantly lower.

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #4 –
Also what are the advantages of switching to 1.1.4 in terms of quality?

Or are there any?

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Maestro777 on
If this is true than why is my foobar reporting vastly different bitrates of the 2 different encoded files.

3 being a higher bitrate and 6 being significantly lower.


Short: the answer has been given twice already:  "FLAC is lossless".

Long: There is no quality degradation regardless of FLAC compression settings.  A FLAC file will always decompress to the same exact same WAV file or WAV data no matter what FLAC level you used to compress it.  This is a completely different situation than the one with lossy encoders (such as Vorbis or Lame) where you have to carefully balance the settings in order to prevent unacceptable audible effects.

In this case, FLAC is much more like, say, Winzip, where you can specify the compression level used to compress files that must always be uncompressed to exact duplicates of the original.  The higher the compression, the harder it must work (to figure out the best way to compress the data without losing the ability to faithfully recreate it bit for bit).  The longer it takes to compress.  The smaller the result.  That's all the switch does.

Reminder: FLAC is lossless.  You have nothing to worry about.

-brendan

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #6 –
Thank you to everyone for their replies thus far.

Which FLAC setting provides best quality?

Reply #7 –
Firsly, do I need to point out the error in calling a thread "FLAC question" in the FLAC forum?  Please re-read TOS #6.

Quote from: Maestro777 on
If this is true than why is my foobar reporting vastly different bitrates of the 2 different encoded files.

3 being a higher bitrate and 6 being significantly lower.
Bitrate refers to the number of bits required to encode one second of audio - obviously a file with greater compression and smaller filesize will have a smaller rate.  The increased compression does not mean loss in quality, only more effective compression.

Quote from: Maestro777 on
Also what are the advantages of switching to 1.1.4 in terms of quality?

Or are there any?
No!  FLAC is lossless.  The quality is always the same.

FLAC 1.1.4 offers speed and compression benefits over 1.1.3, plus a few squashed bugs.

Quote from: Maestro777 on
Thank you to everyone for their replies thus far.
I really don't think that we need to continue this discussion.  Just re-read the above (summarised below) and also the FLAC and lossless wiki pages.

Quote from: furious on
FLAC files (being lossless) have the same quality regardless of encoding options.
Quote from: Marino13 on
FLAC is lossless. The only thing you are adjusting with the -3 to -6 is the compression.
Quote from: bhoar on
Short: the answer has been given twice already: "FLAC is lossless".
Quote from: bhoar on
Reminder: FLAC is lossless. You have nothing to worry about.
Quote from: furious on
speed and size are the two variables in question.
Quote from: Marino13 on
-6 will end up being a smaller file. It will also take a tad bit longer to encode. However, the QUALITY of the file will be EXACTLY the same as the one made with -3 and as the original.
I'm on a horse.