1st - is there a way to tell what compression level (i.e. -1, -2, etc.)was used for an album encoded in FLAC that you did not encode yourself?
I keep mine @ -8 and don't want to have to re-encode any albums I have not encoded myself just to be sure.
. The most common compression level with FLAC is --compression-level 5. In any event if you want to make sure that the files are encoded with the newest reference encoder you can transcode all of the files using the Foobar2000 converter to --compression-level 8 for instance which uses the latest FLAC reference encoder. That's what I would recommend doing at least.
3rd question - i use an old version of EAC (v0.95b3) for the retrieve native TOC feature. This is the only way i know to make the .cue for a CD with a data track @ the end, w/o including the data track in the .cue. Is there a way to do this with newer versions of EAC?
FILE "14 - Last Audio Track.wav" WAVE INDEX 01 00:00:00 TRACK 15 MODEx/2xxx INDEX 00 03:43:50
I wouldn't.The tiny size reduction's not really worth the time involved in my opinion.
QuoteI wouldn't.The tiny size reduction's not really worth the time involved in my opinion. Your mistaken. I am not saying that I use it personally. I actually use --compression-level 3. I have no need to use anything greater that then that as I have a ton of hard-drive space. If anything I wouldn't use beyond --compression-level 6. I don't know what most people do anyhow. I hope that helps to clarify things.
If you're dealing with slower hardware and reencoding from flac -5 to flac -8, it doesn't make sense. On my EEEPC, flac -8 encodes at about 6.7x and is less than 0.5% smaller than flac -5On the other hand, it's also about 8% smaller than flac -0.As I suspect that most flac encoding is at -5 or higher*, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
And it's not really a matter of being "mistaken".It's more of a tradeoff of time vs storage space.
QuoteIf you're dealing with slower hardware and reencoding from flac -5 to flac -8, it doesn't make sense. On my EEEPC, flac -8 encodes at about 6.7x and is less than 0.5% smaller than flac -5On the other hand, it's also about 8% smaller than flac -0.As I suspect that most flac encoding is at -5 or higher*, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken. Again I AM NOT transcoding from -5 to -8. The original poster is. I really don't know how slow or fast it will be to be honest with you. The only reason I recommended that was, because the original poster wanted to know if it was possible to do that. This is the way I interpreted it at least. I wasn't speculating on how efficient it would be just that it is possible.
the differences being that you can have a slightly larger file (but takes longer to encode), or you can have a slightly smaller file (but encoding time is quick)?
The actual sound quality is generally unaffected?
Quote from: Kratos on 26 February, 2009, 10:42:57 PMThe actual sound quality is generally unaffected?No, the sound quality is always unaffected.
OK, so a 0 FLAC will sound the same as an 8 FLAC... the only reason one would wish to select one level over the other is based on personal preferences in size of the file and encoding time. I personally just use level 5 (the default), but I was curious as to what exactly the 8 different compression levels meant.
Hi there and welcome to hydrogenaudio!FLAC is lossless - there is no difference in *quality* between the different levels, only compression.
kbps indicates the compressed bitrate of the FLAC file, i.e. 1021kbps = 1,021,000 bits per second, or 127625 bytes per second. However, as FLAC is lossless, the bitrate of the uncompressed audio is 1411.2kbps when it is played (assuming 16bit 44.1kHz 2 channel PCM audio input). Your player displays the compressed bitrate.Basically, level 8 takes more time by trying harder to compress the data. The uncompressed output of a level 0 and a level 8 version of the same input file will be identical, i.e. the same as the input file.