Latest Thread Images

FLAC-The Best way to get it
Nov 7, 2009 at 5:32 AM Post #16 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by stokitw /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You probably don't want to compress the file in the highest level.
The size of storage grows so fast in these days, the marginal benefit of highest level of compression simply does not worth it.
You want to save the computing power as much as you can, so playback on either PC or portable device can be easy.


Well I am outgrowing my 1.5TB drive because I have >300GB of music since I have a copy in both FLAC and WMA Lossless, so no, hard drive space is not magically irrelevant since it's cheap. Computing power saved by using a lower compression level is LAUGHABLE. Your CPU sure is being stressed when it's being utilized 1%...
 
Nov 7, 2009 at 6:56 AM Post #18 of 43
FLAC files are variable bit-rate so there's no exact answer but it's 'about' 50% compression or to put it another way half the file size.

As for the CPU usage during compression or playback...really guys? Is this 2001 when compressing mp3s took overnight?
tongue.gif
On any PC I've had for the last 3 years compression with level 8 FLAC is always faster than ripping...in other words when a track is ripped to temporary wav, it's compressed before the next track is fully ripped. The compression time for level 8 FLAC is a non-factor if you rip one disc at a time, only if you do a massive batch encode will you notice it but that goes for any type of encoding. If your PC is quite old to the point that audio encoding is that slow I suggest getting a new PC especially if you encode a fair bit, considering what's spent on audio gear you can spend 'almost nothing' to get a PC that will encode very fast.
 
Nov 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM Post #23 of 43
Exactly. Plus you only ever encode once (hopefully
tongue.gif
) so even if it did take notably longer it wouldn't be a big deal. Kind of funny though that now that the encoding is so fast storage is so cheap. It would have been nice to have <<$0.10/GB drives years ago.
 
Nov 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM Post #24 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by stokitw /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You probably don't want to compress the file in the highest level.
The size of storage grows so fast in these days, the marginal benefit of highest level of compression simply does not worth it.
You want to save the computing power as much as you can, so playback on either PC or portable device can be easy.


Why?
Because of its design FLAC decodes pretty much just as fast on -8 as on -0. The extra time is spent during encoding not decoding, when you still wait around for the CD to be ripped...
 
Nov 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM Post #25 of 43
For absolute perfect copy probably the only way is by buying music from record companies (i.e. Linn, Chesky etc) that sell online since they have the original digital master. On the plus side it is most likely to be 24 bit 96/192 khz etc.
 
Nov 7, 2009 at 6:34 PM Post #27 of 43
Well, it's actually pretty easy to buy hard drive to solve the capacity issue.
I currently have 2TB of music and I'm not really worry about getting another 2tb raid drive for the next step.
Moreover, the sata or 1394 can be used instead of USB to save time on transfering files.

Getting larger harddrive is just piece of cake comparing the labor of proper tagging, ripping, and scanning booklet.

I agree the compression level in FLAC does not make a huge difference in playback, but the same thing cannot be said in other lossless format.
Just try insane in ape, you'll know what I mean.
The fun experince from my computer source is, there is a noticable increase in background noise when the overall system loading is high even when using external DAC.

Also, life is too short to waste on the converting between formats, which is substaintial when you converting large amount of files between high compress level.


Quote:

Originally Posted by somestranger26 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well I am outgrowing my 1.5TB drive because I have >300GB of music since I have a copy in both FLAC and WMA Lossless, so no, hard drive space is not magically irrelevant since it's cheap. Computing power saved by using a lower compression level is LAUGHABLE. Your CPU sure is being stressed when it's being utilized 1%...


 
Nov 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM Post #28 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by stokitw /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, it's actually pretty easy to buy hard drive to solve the capacity issue.
I currently have 2TB of music and I'm not really worry about getting another 2tb raid drive for the next step.
Moreover, the sata or 1394 can be used instead of USB to save time on transfering files.

Getting larger harddrive is just piece of cake comparing the labor of proper tagging, ripping, and scanning booklet.

I agree the compression level in FLAC does not make a huge difference in playback, but the same thing cannot be said in other lossless format.
Just try insane in ape, you'll know what I mean.
The fun experince from my computer source is, there is a noticable increase in background noise when the overall system loading is high even when using external DAC.

Also, life is too short to waste on the converting between formats, which is substaintial when you converting large amount of files between high compress level.


Just because I can buy a new hard drive, doesn't mean I want to if I don't have to. And once you get that much music, backup is also important so double the investment in storage. (I am upgrading to a RAID 5 w/ 3x 1.5TB Seagate 7200.11 drives and a hardware RAID controller - Easily over $500 if I didn't find a bargain on the RAID controller)

If you admit yourself that FLAC's compression level doesn't mean anything at runtime, then why are you trying to compare it to other lossless formats? And again, <= 1% CPU is being use to decode FLAC unless you're using a computer from the stone age, so it has nothing to do with the "background noise" you're hearing when your computer is under load. What are you doing, encoding video in the background while listening to music or something??

I can convert my entire collection in 2 hours, so I think you should upgrade your processor/ram/mobo... and I do that while I'm sleeping anyway so what time am I wasting?
 
Nov 7, 2009 at 8:37 PM Post #29 of 43
dbpoweramp worths every penny of it..
Unless you want to stick with cue sheet, you should try dbpoweramp.
It has better tagging, faster speed of ripping with same level of security.
The new version utilize the multi-core processors pretty well.

What happen in EAC if you rip track by track: you slowly rip one track and then the plugins starts to convert the file. in the meanwhile, the CD-ROM stop and restart the spinning after the conversion is done.
I don't know if there are new plugins to address this issue.
But the whole process would takes a very long time.
Things get better if you rip the whole disk at once, but once again the ripping speed in EAC is slower.

What dbpoweramp does is after you set up the offset, it always try to rip in high speed, and then it rips the same track multiple times to compare the result.
If your CD has no error or can be directly matched with AccurateRip, the overall ripping process is much faster.
Even if there are some frames is questionable, you won't be slow down in each pass like EAC.
dbpoweramp goes back to the questionable frames after the ripping of rest of the track is done.
This also saves you from waiting the ripping questionable frames and the spin-up time.

I don't know how EAC utilizes the multi-core CPU.
The way dbpoweramp does largely saves your time by using one core to rip and another to convert. This reduce the chance of CD-ROM spin down to wait for conversion.

Overall, if you want to rip track by track, dbpoweramp worth every penny it asks. Not to mention it's convienent multi-format ready file converter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bostonears /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you're a newbie at ripping, I suggest dBpoweramp as a more user friendly, and just as powerful, alternative to EAC. It has better tagging and album art features. And it also has easier integration with AccurateRip, so you can confirm that your rips are bit perfect. I ripped most of my collection with EAC, and only tried dBpoweramp later. Now I wish I had used dBpoweramp all along. The only downside is that it's not free.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top