Author Topic: wav>flac (Read 5706 times)

deadheadcorey · « **on:** February 04, 2011, 02:58:44 AM »

When encoding your wav files to flac, what level you perfer?

Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B) · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2011, 03:07:01 AM »

I've read that 6 seems to be the sweet spot between how much compression you get and how long it takes.

Don't recall where I read that though.

darby · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2011, 08:39:36 AM »

Amadeus Pro, my editing software defaults to 5
I use 8 simply because I can

kcmule · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:32:08 AM »

I use 6. I ran a test a few years back between 6 and 8 using a large
file (a master wav file). The result was a VERY minimal difference in
size, a few meg if I recall correctly, when using 8 over 6. However,
the time difference was huge and seemed hardly worth it.

Gordon · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2011, 09:57:08 AM »

with the new flac using traders little helper I don't notice any time difference using 8. this is with a dual core 3ghz and 4 gigs ram.

Fatah Ruark (aka MIKE B) · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2011, 10:56:43 AM »

Quote from: Gordon on February 04, 2011, 09:57:08 AM

with the new flac using traders little helper I don't notice any time difference using 8. this is with a dual core 3ghz and 4 gigs ram.

Yep...time has become a non-issue if you have a decent multi-core rig.

My Quad Core 2.66GHz CPU with 8GB of RAM chews through 24/96 bit WAV>FLAC's for breakfast.

twatts (pants are so over-rated...) · « **Reply #6 on:** February 04, 2011, 11:33:41 AM »

lvl8... Time is plentiful, HDD space in not...

Terry

kcmule · « **Reply #7 on:** February 04, 2011, 11:41:50 AM »

Space is cheap.

So if using the "new flac" what is the difference in file size between 6 and 8?
I'm guessing it's still minimal.

Gutbucket · « **Reply #8 on:** February 04, 2011, 12:07:50 PM »

Quote from: kcmule on February 04, 2011, 09:32:08 AM

I use 6. I ran a test a few years back between 6 and 8 using a large
file (a master wav file). The result was a VERY minimal difference in
size, a few meg if I recall correctly, when using 8 over 6. However,
the time difference was huge and seemed hardly worth it.

Same here. So much so that I didn't feel encoding to levels over 6 offered any significant advantage even if using a faster machine.

Also note that higher compression levels require more processing overhead on the decoding end as well (though not as much) so getting faster decode times on slower machines and possible better compatibility with players that support FLAC playback but may not have much processor power also influenced my decision to stick with 6.

scb · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2011, 11:29:32 AM »

the higher the flac level, the longer it takes to compress. Decompression times are the same.

though machines are fast enough now to not need to worry about slower compression times with level 8

F.O.Bean · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2011, 01:32:51 AM »

I did a test WAY BACK in the day on a 1GB File. I saved a WHOPPING 2MB

Ever since I've used Level 6. And since switching from Flac Frontend to Traders Little Helper, encoding to Flac is WAY FASTER

kirk97132 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2011, 02:05:23 PM »

I use 8 because I can and I wanna think it is better quality but I've been told after level 4 there is no difference in quality.

Gutbucket · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2011, 02:40:50 PM »

Years ago I remember experiencing longer decodes for files with higher compression levels, but never measured it. That may well have been my misperception, possibly corrected for in later code optimizations, or simply made irrelevant by the progresssion Moore's Law. In anycase, the following is from the Hydrogenaudio FLAC knowledgebase:

Frequently asked questions
Question: Does the compression level affect decompression speed?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: In truth, the compression level does affect the decompression speed, but the difference between the various compress levels can barely be measured and is too small to be noticed, even on low-end machines.

Question: What is the best compression level for encoding my music?

Short Answer: The default setting, 5.

Long Answer: Encoding at the default setting will give the best balance between compression and encoding speed. Encoding at 8 can more than quadruple the encoding time, while having an insignificant effect on compression.

morst · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2011, 03:54:46 PM »

Quote from: Gutbucket on February 07, 2011, 02:40:50 PM

Question: Does the compression level affect decompression speed?
Long Answer: In truth, the compression level does affect the decompression speed, but the difference between the various compress levels can barely be measured and is too small to be noticed, even on low-end machines.

I bet the main difference is that the smaller files generated by higher level FLAC encoding just de-compress faster due to filesize and disc access time.

Consider the use of processor power to save a little space. I agree with TWatts that it's better to cram it small up front, and save perhaps thousands of downloaders a couple MB each of transfer and storage. If it's just for your archives, and you don't mind storing a larger file rather than using your processor cycles. . . do what ya like. I bet your processor is not maxed out all the time though, and you could wait for it to finish encoding at level 8.

deadheadcorey · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2011, 03:43:12 AM »

Thanks for all the awesome feedback!

ArchivalAudio · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2011, 01:50:31 AM »

level 8 always
may take slightly longer encode but files are smaller
as previously stated...
--Ian

pdastoor · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:03:07 AM »

I always set it to level 8, never takes me long to convert. I have 4gb of ram and a dual core processor, kinda old pc but still does the work at a fast pace

Shadow_7 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2011, 02:41:37 PM »

Space is cheap. I don't even bother with flac anymore. Wav vs. Flac isn't really a 2:1 ratio (I think I save like 40% space BITD), so why bother. Sure if you have limited HDD space, but 2TB drives are approaching $100. That's like 2,000 CDs or something like that, uncompressed. Now for internet sharing and other things, it's significant since you're talking several hundred copies over an already slow connection. And other I have the highest quality version, and that's my proof that they stole my work. Otherwise why bother?

twatts (pants are so over-rated...) · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2011, 03:20:39 PM »

Quote from: Shadow_7 on February 11, 2011, 02:41:37 PM

Space is cheap. I don't even bother with flac anymore. Wav vs. Flac isn't really a 2:1 ratio (I think I save like 40% space BITD), so why bother. Sure if you have limited HDD space, but 2TB drives are approaching $100. That's like 2,000 CDs or something like that, uncompressed. Now for internet sharing and other things, it's significant since you're talking several hundred copies over an already slow connection. And other I have the highest quality version, and that's my proof that they stole my work. Otherwise why bother?

I have 5tb of lossless FLAC/SHNs on 3 HDDs (2x 2tb and 1x 1tb)... Space is very much a premium for me... That's why I bother...

YMMV...

Terry

Shadow_7 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2011, 07:08:12 PM »

I have 3x 1TB HDDs and a couple 500GB ones, and that's just the external ones. Still 500GB of breathing room, and audio only accounts for about 20% of my data packrat habits. But I do have 700+ CDs that I haven't bothered taking off the optical formats yet. Although I started to BITD and some of the songs with flac compression didn't play well. So I stopped doing flacs altogether. But that was a few years ago.

Author Topic: wav>flac (Read 5706 times)

kirk97132