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: Is FLAC the best choice? (Read 18868 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #25 –
58.70% in that table means 58.70% of the original size. In the few tracks that you ripped, you saw 30% reduction or 70% of the original size. Compare the table's 58.70% to your 70%. You should rip more than a few tracks to get a good feeling for how well FLAC can compress the music you typically listen to. I see anywhere between 50% to just over 70%.

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #26 –
In the tag it says (30% Compressed)

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: hero on
On the Comparison Table @ wiki, FLAC's Compression is 58.70%. I have ripped a few tracks using FLAC, and they were compressed at 30%. Where did the 58.70% come from?


I wouldn't pay this too much mind. As the compression ratio from what I understand is kind of dependent on the kind of music being encoded, ie: Pop, Jazz, Rock, Classical...

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: marcusm on
Quote from: hero on
On the Comparison Table @ wiki, FLAC's Compression is 58.70%. I have ripped a few tracks using FLAC, and they were compressed at 30%. Where did the 58.70% come from?


I wouldn't pay this too much mind. As the compression ratio from what I understand is kind of dependent on the kind of music being encoded, ie: Pop, Jazz, Rock, Classical...


It's true, i just read this Topic, you can see on the posts the difference when user rip a rock music or classical music.

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #29 –
I ripped a Country CD.
(30% Compressed)

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #30 –
What's the average bitrate of those FLAC files?

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #33 –
So this track is compressed by 30%, or to 70% of its original size.

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
So this track is compressed by 30%, or to 70% of its original size.

It was compressed 30% of the original size with lossless quality.

Edit: Here you go...

Original Size: 39.43 MB
Compressed to: 27.83 (30%)
Sample Rate: 44.1 KHz
Sample Size: 16 bit
Bit Rate: 1,411 kbps
Audio Quality: Perfect (Loseless)

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #35 –
That's what I said, '30% reduction or 70% of the original size.' I have ripped thousands of tracks (pop, rock, country, rap, etc) and I typically see around 65%. As I mentioned, I see anywhere between 50 to just over 70%, so your 70% for only one track is fine.

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #36 –
As someone who does not use lossless on a portable, I'm almost tempted to use WAV.
If it weren't for the lack of tagging, I probably would.
Storage, for me, is not a consideration any longer. Those 1 Tb drives are downright cheap looking at what I paid for a 1 Gb drive 15 years ago.

For now, I use Wavpack for archiving, put the CUE, LOG, and cover art into a folder. I calculate an MD5 for the folder's contect and store it in the folder. Then I use WinRAR to store (not compress) the entire folder using a 3% recovery record. When I have a DVD of these archive RARs, I burn them to two DVDs. Once burned, I delete the folders. Puts a lot of trust into a bit of ink on a shiny platter, eh?
 

Is FLAC the best choice?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Robertina on
Quote from: hero on
I'm looking to rip a lot of music for a friend. Normally I encode to MP3 with LAME, but he wants lossless. Is FLAC the best choice? I've looked at a few polls, and FLAC was top choice in all of them.

Have you already checked this page with this table?

Robertina.


In that chart, shorten has RIFF chunks - yes  , but it is orange coloured not green.