Is it simply the switch "-8" that matters, as far as file sizes go, or is there more to it? I don't care at all how long the encoding takes, I'm just looking to make those files as small as humanly possible. Also, is there an enhanced encoder like AoTuV for FLAC, or do I just use the official flac.exe? Should I maybe look into some other formats besides FLAC?

I was using Ogg -q 5, and because I thought it was completely transparent to me, I was actually looking to start using a lower quality Ogg. But when doing some extensive ABX testing, I noticed I could hear the difference between lossless and even Ogg -q 6 (and up). This makes me somewhat sad, because my HDDs are always full as is. But I can't accept any loss of audio quality at all, unfortunately.

If you are looking for compression foremost FLAC is not the best option. You can improve on -8 by applying further apodisation switches, but even then FLAC still cannot compete with codecs like OptimFROG, LA, or Monkey's Audio.

Check the comparison.

But if you absolutely MUST use flac, Flake may be a better option than the official build.

just on a side note, Flake has a bug in its wav reading code so using it with EAC might not be the best option. doing through foobar2000 however, shouldn't make any errors(at least that is that i believe).

--best

You must have golden ears . I think the general consensus is -q 6 and up is usually transparent for the most part on different types of material. FLAC in my opinion is the best codec to use if you are looking for a plethora of features with an optimal compression ratio. You might want to consider Wavpack or even OptimFROG if you want the best possible compression ratios.

I guess the vorbis developers would be happy to hear about the problems you encountered with encodings of any bitrate in a proper double blind test (are you sure volumes and all were matched?). Seemingly nobody can ABX at such high bitrates, unless absolute killer-samples that are uncommon in music are used. If you really found quality issues however, you could use them to help improve codec performance by letting the developers know.

Thanks. Is this supposed to replace only the "-8" switch, or is "--best" supposed to be the entire command?

Oh, and after even more tests, I have concluded that I ogg -q 8 is indeed transparent to me, so maybe I should go that route instead. But then the file sizes will already be pretty large, and so maybe I should just go with FLAC. Then the music would be properly archived, as well as being ready to future re-encoding.

@ImAlive: I did the testing with foobar's ABX tool, so I don't think there's a way I could have fooled myself. I got conclusive results that -q 6 wasn't 100% transparent to me. Very, very close to the original, but I'm the kind of a nut who can't accept even the slightest audible degradation.

Sorry If I'm being suspicious but could you post the ABX results?

"Settings for best compression in FLAC"

I never saved any logs because I only needed to find out for myself. If I do more testing I'll post the results.

--best would replace -8, but there's no point as they are synonymous!

I'm not sure that Ogg -q 8 will be near the size of a lossless file. I would go with FLAC or some other lossless codec though (I use WavPack).

If you make such statements about -q 6 you really should post ABX results. Check our TOS #8.

Wow, that seems like a pretty crazy rule to me. I might agree if you start a thread or post a comment whose main point is to declare that you hear a difference. I only stated it to explain the reason why I decided to go with FLAC. I don't really care whether others believe, or even know, about it. I guess it wasn't relevant to the thread, and in the future I'll refrain from saying such things.

I understand your surprise, but the rule does ensure that we are not swamped with misinformation, and arguments that have no conclusion. If you feel the need to make a claim about a certain encoder setting it seems only fair, given the nature of this forum, that you provide proof, which can be easily achieved if your statement is correct.

As you rightly point out, the best way to avoid this requirement is to not make subjective claims about an encoder.

Thanks for taking note.

Josh's explanation. --best is equivalent to -8, and both activate -m and -e.

My own opinion is that --best is more future proof, because future versions of FLAC might have quality setting of -9 or -10 or -167 etc., but best will always be best.



Just make sure to include qualitative statements like "to me" or "in my opinion" or "a little birdie told me".

He may introduce --bestest one day...

A little bird told me that in my opinion that ain't gonna fool no-one for too long...