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: encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?! (Read 4327 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

I just started using FLAC.  I am using EAC and flac.exe.  I have a fairly new AMD 2400+XP with 1 gig of RAM PC, running WinXP Pro.

After ripping w/ EAC, the encoding time for flac.exe is EXTREMELY fast!!!  I have heard eveyone on this forum say it is slow, at least slower the Monkey's, although I haven't tried Monkey's. 

I was worried that I was doing something wrong (not really encoding or something) so I tested playback with Foobar2000, and everything was fine.

Just curious what others using FLAC have for hardware, and their compression times.  I mean, I am talking about an average song compressing in less then a minute!!

-gandalf44
-gandalf44

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

Reply #1 –
I've never done any specific time comparisons, but it seems to me that compressing time is significantly quicker than LAME APS, and even faster than MPPenc q5. The compression time also depends on the quality level chosen (5 is default, I like 6). The higher the number, the slower the compression, and the smaller the compressed files are.

Find some lossless compressors comparisons via this page, here.

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

Reply #2 –
Take a look at speek's test, in particular, to help put things in perspective

http://home.wanadoo.nl/~w.speek/comparison.htm

As far as encoding levels, I'd be interested to see some data on encode time vs file size - there were some graphs but I didn't save the link.  A couple quick tries show minimal benefit in going above 4, in fact, though I use 5 just to be on the safe side.

The info at that site goweropolis linked needs another look, the information isn't particularly useful or accurate.

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

Reply #3 –
I use the highest compression -8 even though it hardly improves filesize at all, simply because even at this setting it still encodes faster than my CD drive can read the data to send it, so it doesn't make the CD take longer to rip.

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

Reply #5 –
Quote
As far as encoding levels, I'd be interested to see some data on encode time vs file size

I had some spare time on my hands, so I decided to take one song, encode it a bunch of different ways, and collect some stats.

Platform:  Dual Athlon MP 1600+, 1GB RAM, 7200RPM IDE HD, Debian GNU/Linux (Sid/Unstable)
Song Encoded:  Laika's "Uneasy" from the album Good Looking Blues (Genre: Trip-Hop) - 52541372 bytes, 4:57

"Time" was measured with the time command.  "Ratio" is the ratio of the compressed file versus the original.  Results are sorted by compressed file size bytes per second of encoding time:

Code: [Select]
Encoder     Setting    kbps    Time    Bytes     Ratio    Compressed Bytes per Second
FLAC 1.1.0  --fast    1049.4    6.135    39070015  0.74    6368381
FLAC 1.1.0  Default    1010.4    9.926    37619945  0.72    3790041
FLAC 1.1.0  --best    1004    49.919    37379587  0.71    748805
Vorbis 1.0  -q 10    464.4    37.966    17293422  0.33    455498
LAME 3.92   -b 256    256    25.447   9533648  0.18    374647
Vorbis 1.0  -q 9    310.7    35.893    11571412  0.22    322386
LAME 3.92   -b 192    192    26.535   7150235  0.14    269464
Vorbis 1.0  -q 8    244.9    34.345   9120804  0.17    265564
LAME 3.92   --api    320    48.790    11917060  0.23    244252
Vorbis 1.0  -q 7    212.6    33.786   7919475  0.15    234401
Vorbis 1.0  -q 6    186.7    33.323   6956369  0.13    208756
LAME 3.92   Default    128    29.597   4766823  0.09    161058
Vorbis 1.0  -q 5    157.3    36.766   5861457  0.11    159426
Vorbis 1.0  -q 4    125.2    35.634   4663913  0.09    130884
LAME 3.92   --ape -Z    250.8    81.456   9331031  0.18    114553
Vorbis 1.0  -q 3    112.8    36.839   4202155  0.08    114068
Vorbis 1.0  -q 2    94.5    37.345   3523089  0.07    94339
LAME 3.92   --aps -Z    226.3    93.911   8420528  0.16    89665
LAME 3.92   --ape    250.1    105.123  9305631  0.18    88521
Vorbis 1.0  -q 1    84.5    37.021   3149531  0.06    85074
Vorbis 1.0  -q 0    70.5    36.671   2627517  0.05    71651
LAME 3.92   --aps    225.5    125.955  8389673  0.16    66608
Vorbis 1.0  -q -1    56.8    35.528   2117882  0.04    59612


Yes, FLAC is extremely fast in this comparison.  I typically use "--fast" when ripping to FLAC, and re-compress the files later with a script using "--best".  I know this doesn't gain me much in compression, but it sure speeds along the ripping process.  Besides, taking such a step isn't all that unusual compared to some of the things the HA crowd does to their music...  I also found the encoding speed of Vorbis to be quite interesting - regardless of what setting you choose, all the encoding times are roughly the same.

Since I'm a GNU/Linux user, these are the codecs I feel are best suited for me and my OS.  This is probably all the farther I'll take my testing - I have no other codecs, I'm not up for charts and graphs, and I'd end up in the loony bin if I attempted to ABX all the possible pairs of files...

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

Reply #6 –
Quote
The info at that site goweropolis linked needs another look, the information isn't particularly useful or accurate.

That's the beauty of a Wiki, you can edit it yourself to improve it! Too bad HydAud doesn't have a Wiki. I'm sure plenty of people here could contribute. It'd be the best Wiki in town! 
 

encoding time for FLAC is fast?!?!

Reply #7 –
I did wiki a little of it, and plan to go back.

I don't know about an HA wiki site, though! I'm afraid it would end up being another wiki war like that one about which is the "best" lossless codec! I wish people would realize the question is always "best for what?"

There is so much great info here, though, and it is hard for people to find it in the message board format.