Skip to main content

Poll

FLAC

  • -0
    3 (0.6%)
  • -1
    1 (0.2%)
  • -2
    1 (0.2%)
  • -3
    2 (0.4%)
  • -4
    4 (0.8%)
  • -5
    102 (20.9%)
  • -6
    55 (11.2%)
  • -7
    4 (0.8%)
  • -8
    297 (60.7%)
  • -8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop
    20 (4.1%)

Total Members Voted: 648

Topic: FLAC -0 ... -8 (Read 67341 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
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.

  • Synthetic Soul
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #1
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.
  • Last Edit: 03 November, 2007, 06:33:42 AM by Synthetic Soul
I'm on a horse.

  • guruboolez
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #2
-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).

  • Mitch A
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #3
-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
  • Last Edit: 03 November, 2007, 06:40:50 AM by Mitch A

  • user
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #4
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
- 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 ?
  • Last Edit: 03 November, 2007, 07:58:04 AM by user
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials

  • drbeachboy
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #5
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"

  • Clear89
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #6
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.

  • Borisz
  • [*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #7
I never understood, what does -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop do?

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

  • verbajim
  • [*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #8
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.

  • beto
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #9
-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.

  • lunkhead
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #10
5, but maybe i'll try 6.

did you have to include the dashes?

  • Synthetic Soul
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #11
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.

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.

  • Engywuck
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #12
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?

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #13
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?

  • M
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #14
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.

  • Borisz
  • [*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #15

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...
  • Last Edit: 05 November, 2007, 12:31:08 PM by Borisz

  • verbajim
  • [*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #16
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".
  • Last Edit: 05 November, 2007, 02:27:41 PM by verbajim

  • Seiitsu
  • [*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #17
-8

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

  • jcoalson
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #18
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.

  • GeSomeone
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #19
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
  • Last Edit: 05 November, 2007, 04:53:15 PM by GeSomeone
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

  • probedb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #20
-8

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


Ditto  Not like I'm in a rush to encode either...

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #21

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.

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #22
-8 here as well

  • collector
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #23
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.

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #24
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)?