Print Page - Lazy question about FLAC compression

Title: Lazy question about FLAC compression
Post by: krafty on 2012-09-06 03:16:14

Say I have 100GB of FLAC with compression 8.
By how much would it inflate if I converted it all to compression level 0.
The music is mostly pop-rock.

Title: Lazy question about FLAC compression
Post by: jensend on 2012-09-06 03:28:44

If you know it's a lazy question, why ask it?

The information you're looking for is readily available from a lot of different sites. (For example, FLAC's comparison page, almost every page linked from the HydrogenAudio wiki page about comparing lossless formats, etc etc.) Please put in a due diligence effort to find the answer yourself before asking others to do your thinking for you.

Title: Lazy question about FLAC compression
Post by: A_Man_Eating_Duck on 2012-09-06 06:58:58

Ka pow!

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=61054&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=61054&hl=)

(http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/9664/losslesspercentdq8.png)

rough idea

Title: Lazy question about FLAC compression
Post by: krafty on 2012-09-06 15:45:41

From that graph, FLAC 8 will be only 7,56% better than FLAC 0. So that would lead to 107,56 GB instead of 100GB.

Title: Lazy question about FLAC compression
Post by: skamp on 2012-09-06 16:15:03

Quote from: krafty on 2012-09-06 15:45:41

So that would lead to 107,56 GB instead of 100GB.

Close. Actually, those are percentages of the WAV files. At 65.83%, 100 GB of FLAC -8 files would decode into 151.906 GB of WAV files. 71.21% of that (FLAC -0) is 108.173 GB.

HydrogenAudio

Lossless Audio Compression => FLAC => Topic started by: krafty on 2012-09-06 03:16:14