IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Closed TopicStart new topic
FLAC -0 ... -8, What is your compression level?
What is your compresion level?
FLAC
-0 [ 3 ] ** [0.61%]
-1 [ 1 ] ** [0.20%]
-2 [ 1 ] ** [0.20%]
-3 [ 2 ] ** [0.41%]
-4 [ 4 ] ** [0.82%]
-5 [ 102 ] ** [20.86%]
-6 [ 55 ] ** [11.25%]
-7 [ 4 ] ** [0.82%]
-8 [ 297 ] ** [60.74%]
-8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop [ 20 ] ** [4.09%]
Total Votes: 648
  
ManekiNeko
post May 3 2009, 15:36
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 7-April 09
Member No.: 68742



Flac -8 makes virtually no difference in compression/filesize over -6, but does take over twice as long to encode. If space saving is your main objective, flac is not the right choice. If very fast decoding and compatibility is, then use flac.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
acetylcholine
post May 5 2009, 10:10
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 4-May 09
Member No.: 69510



-8 for me.

Using a multi-core processor and it takes so much longer to rip than to encode so there is no issue about encoding duration.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hero
post May 11 2009, 20:42
Post #53





Group: Banned
Posts: 54
Joined: 17-March 02
Member No.: 1545



The final size doesn't really differ between the compression options. I get about the same speed with -8 than I would with -1. When choosing the compression level, I guess it all depends on your system.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doccolinni
post May 29 2009, 12:18
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 28-May 09
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Member No.: 70204



I use -8. I really don't have any trouble at all with waiting a bit longer to achieve the best compression possible. Of course, that doesn't mean that I'd use a coder which takes half an hour to encode a song. :-/ I just don't think FLAC is really all that slow when I use compression level of -8. Also, I could never force myself to use FLAC with a lower compression level and use those files for storage when I'd know that I can bring their size down even further, no matter how little difference it would be.

So yeah, -8 all the way. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
collector
post May 30 2009, 11:43
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 2-July 04
Member No.: 15029



-6, seems to be the best of both worlds. And I'm uing lossywav -q6, so why bother about size or speed. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmcguckin
post Jun 22 2009, 17:11
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 2-January 08
Member No.: 50051



I've been using -8 for several years now, only because I'd like to get the smallest filesizes possible, and now that I have a dual-core processor at my disposal, it doesn't make sense to use anything less... I use Max for ripping/encoding, and encoding speeds are typically somewhere between 1.5-2x faster than ripping speeds, encode speed is pretty much a non-issue.


--------------------
Archive- FLAC (-v 8)
Portable- QuickTime AAC (True VBR/-q 77)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 09:42