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 66519 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Bourne
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Banned
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #25
I hope Blue-Ray/HD-DVD Players come with FLAC support.

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #26
I hope Blue-Ray/HD-DVD Players come with FLAC support.

Maybe some chipmakers will go for FLAC but that won't be defined by standarts.  There is  Dolby True HD for lossless purpose.

  • djdust
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #27
Complete newbie thickie here so, apologies if this is a dumb question..  Can someone explain what the difference is with the 0-8 settings?  I just took a WAV file and tried compressing it with each setting and found that "0" produced the largest file size and "8" the lowest.  I thought that "8" was the best so I would have thought it would be the largest!?  *confused*

  • SamHain86
  • [*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #28
@ DJdust:
The 0-8 is the compression setting. With FLAC there is no actual best, since all 0-8 settings are lossless, there is no audio data taken away. The only measurement then is the amount of compression that FLAC encoder can apply to the WAV. 0 being the least compression, 8 the most compression. Therefore, 0 has the largest files, 8 has the smallest files for FLAC. With compression there is usually a sacrifice of time. You probably noticed that the 0 setting took the least time, and the 8 setting took the longest.
  • Last Edit: 02 December, 2007, 11:53:59 AM by SamHain86
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined  :'-(

  • djdust
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #29
@ DJdust:
The 0-8 is the compression setting. With FLAC there is no actual best, since all 0-8 settings are lossless, there is no audio data taken away. The only measurement then is the amount of compression that FLAC encoder can apply to the WAV. 0 being the least compression, 8 the most compression. Therefore, 0 has the largest files, 8 has the smallest files for FLAC. With compression there is usually a sacrifice of time. You probably noticed that the 0 setting took the least time, and the 8 setting took the longest.

Actually, it seems to take the exact same amount of time really so, I guess I'll stick with setting "8" then and get the smallest file size! 

  • damaki
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #30
@ DJdust:
The 0-8 is the compression setting. With FLAC there is no actual best, since all 0-8 settings are lossless, there is no audio data taken away. The only measurement then is the amount of compression that FLAC encoder can apply to the WAV. 0 being the least compression, 8 the most compression. Therefore, 0 has the largest files, 8 has the smallest files for FLAC. With compression there is usually a sacrifice of time. You probably noticed that the 0 setting took the least time, and the 8 setting took the longest.

Doesn't -0 sounds warmer and fuller?
  • Last Edit: 02 December, 2007, 01:49:33 PM by damaki
Stupidity is root of all evil.

  • SamHain86
  • [*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #31
@ Damaki:
... AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!-
You nearly made me spit tea all over my damned laptop.

@ DJdust:
I am with you about using -8, same as --best. Just take "my" word that 8 takes longer than 0. I encode to FLAC images at --best and I do not care about the additional time.
OP can't edit initial post when a solution is determined  :'-(

  • miranon
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #32
I use -6. Best compromise for me between 7-8 and 5.

  • naturfreak
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #33
Default setting (-5), I don't care about 0.5% better compression of -8
  • Last Edit: 06 February, 2008, 02:48:31 PM by naturfreak

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #34
i use -6, i ripped a bunch of cds last night and re-encoded some old flacs with the 1.2.1 and damn its pretty fast to encode now

  • 2tec
  • [*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #35
Using -8 myself, why compromise? Besides with multicore systems, encoding time is a moot point. No?

As well, how come no poll option for -totally_impractical? 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

  • Soap
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #36
-8.
Even if I only got 0.01% better compression than -3 or -5 I'd still do it.  It isn't like I'm doing the math with a slide rule.
  • Last Edit: 05 April, 2009, 04:16:26 PM by Soap
Creature of habit.

  • KFal
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #37
When I ripped the entire CD collection of my girl friend and mine, I used -5 because at the time there was a significant speed difference to -8 and disk space was of less concern. I had only second hand comparisons for the decoding speed for a Squeezebox but it did not appear to have any perceptible difference in the starting of songs.

So, without much further experimentation I chose the default.
Apple Lossless
NeroAAC -q 0.5
dbPowerAmp Reference

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #38
-8

it shaves a few gigabytes off my collection and the encoding times do not bother me at all as i only have to do it once(well, maybe a second time if a new version of FLAC comes out that makes my lossless music even smaller.). decoding times are also a non-issue as it only needs to be something other than realtime once in a blue moon when 5 austrailian aborigional mimes are pretending to be in an invisible box on the top floor of the eiffel tower.

  • Angenial
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #39
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?

For me it's the fact that it's open, and that's not just an ideological reason.  Since I use Linux and FreeBSD, the programs I use tend to be open, as well; and that means that if a file format is closed, odds are I won't be able to use it well.  Perhaps the ffmpeg team will wind up implementing reverse-engineered versions (as happened with ALAC), but why bother with that when flac and associated tools (like metaflac) are available?

If something open came along with a much better compression ratio, perhaps I'd switch; but then again, all my CDs are ripped and fit just fine on my 500GB array (with room to spare), so it probably wouldn't be worth the bother.

FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #40
-8

for peace of my mind 
  • Last Edit: 06 April, 2009, 01:31:25 PM by madoka@ex-sounds
<name>madoka</name>
<uri>http://codecs.ex-sounds.net/</uri>

  • _m²_
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #41
-8.
Considering that I don't plan recoding more often than once / few years, encoding time is negligible while space taken is not. -8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop is stronger? Got to make a switch.

  • tev777
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #42
--best here. Why use any other setting when you can have the "best"? Or is Josh just using Jedi mind tricks on me?

As for using FLAC, I switched to it when I started using Linux because it was supported out of the box. It has served me well over the years and I see no reason to switch to anything else. I am really impressed by Wavpack and enjoy watching it grow, but FLAC FTW!

--
Eric

  • ottl
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #43
-8. As many, I think the extra wait is no problem on a modern dual/quad core machine. I rip and transcode with XLD (FLAC 1.2.1) and it works quite smoothly.

  • sshd
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #44
-5 is a good default choice.

-8 is a waste of time saving very little space. I only use it for mkv movies with eac3to as it is the only option.

  • ktf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #45
-8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop is stronger? Got to make a switch.


I tested it on a song and it is actually worse for that song, but less then 1/1000 (it just shows ratio=1,000) I've played around with those -A switched and other settings under --lax, but the gains are extremely small and encoding takes ages xD

I use -8, just because it is --best    Indeed, it is probably not the worth the slowdown, but I don't care. New versions usually make much bigger differences.
  • Last Edit: 13 April, 2009, 02:00:59 PM by ktf
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

  • JJZolx
  • [*][*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #46
Less than zero.   

--max-lpc-order=0 --disable-constant-subframes --disable-fixed-subframes
  • Last Edit: 19 April, 2009, 09:55:43 PM by JJZolx

  • frozenspeed
  • [*][*][*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #47
What the heck is flattop?


  • hazumi-san
  • [*]
FLAC -0 ... -8
Reply #49
I just started using flac and I used the -8....
encoding or decoding speed is not a problem as long as I get the best result.
actually the speed is quite fast with my pentium D desktop.... (encoding and decoding)
and the filesize produced is not really big to me, much smaller than wav, which I used to back up
my song library before.