I have decided to re-rip my cd collection to a loseless format....to stay loseless til there are any new lossy codec, which gives enough quality...

I saw on someones foobar formatting string that his flac albums was at 600 kb/s....thought that was OK, if it is loseless.

I downloaded the commandline tool....and foobar 0.8.3 and installed the flac component.

I ripped my collection, and it was about 1000 kb/s, no matter what encoder (commandline or foobar plugin), compression level 8 or 0, padding or n ot.....EXATLY the same bitrate.....is this normal? And why does others get files at 5-600 kb and I get over 1000? If it matters..it was all Linkin Park albums...

What loseless format has the best compression, and good decoding times?
I only need support for it in foobar, and a commandline encoder...

Thanks

FLAC has good compression and good decoding times.
Monkey's Audio has better than FLAC but not as good decoding times I think.
There are probably some more lossless scemes but I'm not as familiar with them.
I use FLAC at -8. I usually get around 1000kb/sec or more. What music are you trying to encode?

Another thread on this subject? It's boring. Search engine is not KO...

http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm
http://www.lossless-audio.com/comparison.htm

Read my post

Sorry, I didn't see the Linkin Park part of it. Lossless compression tends to do badly with really loud music, i.e. almost all CDs pressed recently.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=23137

You know, i think all lossless is good, because it's lossless I got to use Monkeys audio. I'm too re-rip my CD's on PC.

Only one thing: Don't decode wav to ape with Monkeys Audio soft with coding setting "insane" All be OK, But coding time is too slow and space economy very little...

Decoding is a little slower than other files... When You will seek in song, sometimes PC is going to "Think" by 1 - 2 sec. My Athlon 1800 does it...

And crossfades with other files my not work perfect...

Think about using Wavpak, I believe there is a mode which creates a lossy file & a "correction file" which can restore to a lossless file. The files combined are the same size as a lossless file.

Rock music being very noisy usually averages high bit-rates.

Read somewhere

"Loud rock music may be about 80% of the original wav-file"

Will it help to rip to wav, lower the volume to like 25% and then encode to flac , and use replaygain in foobar?

purpose of lossless is to perfectly store the ripped files. Lowering the volume is not a lossless process: I'll loose some details. Lossless have no sense anymore.

Lol....ok

I will have to live with files @ 80%.

Though lpac is better at some cd's, I am using both til anyone of them are good enough.

LPAC better at some CDs? In what sense? If sheer compression ratio is what you're after, often at the expense of speed and compatibility, have a look at these stats (1) and (2), La, Monkey's Audio and OptimFROG.

In which case, I may presume, you have a clear-cut concept of what is good enough for you. Could you enlighten us, by any chance?

Why not lower the volume to 0% and then encode with FLAC? I pulled a cool 4000:1 compression ratio when I tried it, and it was as simple as scanning the file with replaygain to make it sound decent again (+64.81 dB!!).

Note: This is a lie.

The truth is, lossless compression results in big files, whether you want to paint the barn with FLAC, Monkey's Audio, Optimfrog, Wavpack or Shorten. If there were any quick fixes like the 20% volume reduction you suggested, these codecs (which are highly optimized to do even more complicated things) would incorporate them.

[quote=R2D2,Aug 2 2004, 17:09 UTC]... I am using both til anyone of them are good enough.[/quote]In which case, I may presume, you have a clear-cut concept of what is good enough for you. Could you enlighten us, by any chance?

[/quote]

Good enough for me is as low bitrate as possible...if lpac gives better compression on some albums....then I will use it, otherwise FLAC.

If Flac will get as good compression ratio as Lpac...then I will switch to flac.

Then why not use La, Monkey's Audio or OptimFROG, which are even better at compressing than LPAC? Surely, you must acknowledge there are other reasons to prefer one codec over another than sheer compression ratio?

Yes...that's why I am using FLAC and LPAC, not monkeys audio and the others.
Decoding time.
Flac's and Lpac's decoding time us much better than most of the other formats.