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: best format = smallest file size? (Read 6688 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

best format = smallest file size?

i got my opinion in the lossy format section. so just need to decide about this sector.

arent all lossless formats almost the same? cause the main goal is to keep it lossless. i want a format that isn't on the way out, even if it has zillions of followers. what i would like is a next generation format that has a future.
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #1
The size difference between them is small AFAIK.
The main difference lies in CPU-needs and whether the files can be streamed, played incomplete or requires the whole file to play.

If I was to use lossless, I'd probably use FLAC because I think it has a shining well-supported future, and it does encode fast too AFAIK.

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #2
flac, la, wavpack & optifrog(not sure abt the spelling) are recommended by many.

streaming isn't a concern for me. played incomplete would be important if i was downloading from somewhere. but not in my case so we can forget about that too.

all of these formats have some kind of tagging system, right? and yes, encoding/decoding time IS important. for lossy formats i use mp4, which is kinda slow. but doesn't bother me much.
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!


best format = smallest file size?

Reply #4
There are also different features among lossless formats. Hardware support, tagging capabilities, error correction, filesizes (can differ when encoding large amounts of files), etc. Check out some of the lossless encoder comparisons referenced from this Wiki. Also decide which features are important because some of them cancel each other out (encoding speed vs. compressed size).

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #5
Quote
There is a big difference from the best format to the worst also compression-wise.
Check this test:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossles...ss/lossless.htm (click the "all albums" link at the top)

The compression ratio differences aren't too big if you take into account that the graphs have been zoomed for better visibility ... if you'd scale them from 0-100%, the differences in compression ratio (let alone rar which wasn't originally designed for audio compression) would be quite ... hard to spot.

Interesting are the speed differences, though ...

In the future, I will go for FLAC ... it uses less CPU horsepower on decompression (can be easily played on slower machines ... maybe protables, too) and will not lose it's entire playability when files are being corrupted (as APE will do) ...
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #6
Depends. I have had shn files that monkey's audio cut down to 70%-80%. I consider that a lot.

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #7
how many times do we have to have the same discussion with the same posts?

search around some, it's all been said.

why even begin to suggest that there's one best format.  it depends on what you are using it for.

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #8
Quote
Depends. I have had shn files that monkey's audio cut down to 70%-80%. I consider that a lot.

Good call, I have a couple of soundboard recordings with low stereo separation that would be cut down to 40-55% by Monkey's Audio..

MA - like most modern lossless codecs - does a good job at exploiting interchannel correlations, while Shorten does not consider correlations between the channels at all.
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #9
To the original poster - you ask if file size is all that matters.  But in your post you ask for a format with a future.  Well, those are 2 different things.  So perhaps that already shows - the short answer is, no, smallest is not equal to best.  It will never be that simple. 

One very obvious reason would be encoding and decoding time are factors, too.

You should read the threads that already exist on this topic and decide what's important to you.  For example, if you use Windows and you want to archive files, you might use Monkey's Audio.  If you want to share files (such as live shows), you might use flac.

flac and monkey's

best lossless codec

old poll 1 and old poll 2 - may be more useful for the comments than the data

older lossless compression discussion

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #10
Quote
streaming isn't a concern for me. played incomplete would be important if i was downloading from somewhere. but not in my case so we can forget about that too.

Streaming may not be important to you but streamability may be, because it means parts of files can be recovered if the file is damaged.  flac is streamable, and so damaged files can be partially recovered.  monkey's is not, and the efficiencies gained from that are supposedly one of the ways monkey's achieves smaller file sizes. 

but that's just one of many factors to consider.  read the links.

 

best format = smallest file size?

Reply #11
both Monkey's Audio & FLAC look good. WavePack's kinda good too. I saw that both APE & WavePack take long time to decode. So would it take up a lot of cpu resources when I'm playing those files?
everybody's a jerk. you, me, this jerk!