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: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality?? (Read 1387 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

I am a OGG fan just wanted to know Which Lossless codec has the smallest file size with the best overall quality??

I know 16bit FLAC does a decent job at keeping tracks smaller with good audio quality any other lossless codecs that are better than 16bit FLAC??

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #1
What are you talking about when it comes to quality?  It's lossless there is no change in quality.

The smallest size?  This depends on the source and the codec a little but file size reductions are typically between 40-60%.  Very loud random white noise will compress terribly while digital silence will compress to a near 100% reduction in file size.

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #2
optimfrog < monkey's audio < tak < wavpack < tta ~= flac

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #3
I am a OGG fan just wanted to know Which Lossless codec has the smallest file size with the best overall quality??

I know 16bit FLAC does a decent job at keeping tracks smaller with good audio quality any other lossless codecs that are better than 16bit FLAC??
Understanding first how lossless compression works is a great way to understand that, in terms of quality, they all deliver the same result; not existing therefore any better or worse codec, quality-wise.

Our own wiki is actually a good starting point for an overview on the subject.

As for compression ratio, this test , though ancient, may give you and idea of the differences among them @m14u mentioned.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
Wavpack -hb4.3

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #4
best overall quality??

I know 16bit FLAC

As long as the codec supports the input signal, there is no sound quality differences, lossless is lossless. If you are looking for an end-user format, then 16 bits properly dithered is enough for human listening - but if you are processing a recording, a floating-point format has better safeguards against making errors. If your DAW wants to use 32-bit floating-point WAV, then use that while working on it - and convert to an end-user format in the end. Then WavPack can archive your 32-bit floating-point WAVs (FLAC can not).

If you are looking for other qualities, then FLAC scores well against pretty much everything else that isn't abandonware (looking at you, WMAL) on the following:
* compatibility and support - except, ALAC in MP4 might be more convenient if you are an Apple cultist
* decoding efficiency (these days probably not important unless you are on battery)
* error detection (against file corruption) - though tied with many (ALAC is a notable exception, it misses this feature).

If you want FLAC-esque speed (i.e. CPU efficiency) and also better compression, TAK is the choice. The frog, the monkey and WavPack can beat FLAC on compression, but all require much more CPU to do so.

And if you want to compress WAV to unpack to the same file (not only the same audio), including 32-bit floating-point, or compress DSD, then you need WavPack. It also has very good support for image file with embedded cuesheet, if you prefer that.

Other features to be found in the wiki.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #5
They're all the same quality (lossless). 

FLAC is a good practical choice, especially for compatibility, hardware support and encoding time.  Some other formats can compress marginally better though.

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #6
They're all the same quality (lossless). 

FLAC is a good practical choice, especially for compatibility, hardware support and encoding time.  Some other formats can compress marginally better though.

That is what I am asking which one has the best compression rate??


Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #8
That is what I am asking which one has the best compression rate??
Which, if you cared reading some of the replies, plus the linked pages shown to you, has already been answered.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
Wavpack -hb4.3

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #9
* decoding efficiency (these days probably not important unless you are on battery)
Given that on Rockbox, every lossless codec it supports except .ape  can decode in realtime on a Sansa e200v1 (dual-core ARMv4 at 80 MHz) I'm pretty sure it's close to a rounding error on anything vaguely modern.

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #10
Compression differences are very small though... 58% largest, 55% smallest

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #11
RockBox and all existing computers can play a file in realtime. But there are scenarios where a track needs to be decompressed as quickly as possible, for example, to scan for ReplayGain or to transcode for mobile playback. And just because you can afford a CPU today that can decode Insane presets very quickly, old computers don't ceaste to exist and shouldn't be sent to a landfill. High capacity storage media and fast networks have removed the need for extreme compression, which only continues to be explored as a mathematical challenge.

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #12
the thing is, the CPU I referenced is probably approximately state of the art from some time in the first half of the 90s

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #13
Playback in realtime is an old discussion, Monkey's insane decodes CDDA at 35x realtime on this old fanless computer.
But that means it is three times as CPU intensive as Monkey's normal - and ten/twelve/fifteen ten times as CPU intensive as WavPack -x6 -hh resp. TAK resp. FLAC.

Using a setting that the author calls "insane" is maybe not the best benchmark, but even Monkey's normal is three/four/five times as CPU intensive, and you shouldn't be shocked if you would notice impact on battery life ... now, did anyone ever actually test that?
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Which Lossless Codec Has The Smallest File Size With The Best Overall Quality??

Reply #14
Yes, it's satisfactory when a dedicated portable DAP can play in realtime. I am thinking more of a use case on a computer with many processes running at the same time. Let's say I play a game with background music, and a track with high compression starts. It will briefly use a lot of CPU to fill the playback buffer and there will be stutter. On a PC is also nice to be able to skip around a track near instantly, which doesn't work with large frames of the Insane preset. Or to analyze the sound, show a graphical waveform.

A disk drive or flash memory for an old computer can wear out or I just want to expand it. All disk drives today are "big", even the cheapest ones. Getting a small disk is not an option, and it would cost the same or more. I also can't subscribe to a 1 Mbit/s internet if I wanted to. CPU/memory/mainboard last practically forever, with their limitations. High compression is useful for big corporations that do streaming to many clients, but they shouldn't use lossless encoding anyway.