Which FLAC quality to use?

[K2Grey]

I use EAC (ExactAudioCopy) for ripping and have it pointed to flac.exe so it can do compression to FLAC.

Instructions for how to set up EAC are on the main FLAC website.

I think foobar2000 can also rip, I am used to EAC though.

 

[sschell]

I use flac -5. I have plenty of space on the harddrive, so I don't have any reason to compress any more than that.

 

[mofonyx]

I don't think you lose any quality from the level of compression

It all still goes out at CD quality.

Cheers.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif -8, converts at ~29x (14.5x per core), end result: 441 MB (463,327,232 bytes) -5, converts at ~103x (56.5x per core), end result: 443 MB (464,953,344 bytes)

Hey, think of it this way: If you were backing up that FLAC across floppy disks, you'd need one less!

 

[nelamvr6]

Well on my box I hardly notice the processing time to encode in level 8 versus 5, and I have so many flac files that every little bit of extra compression helps.

If you have an older CPU I can see how it might bother you to take a little more time, but this is a one time only event. It's not like you have to encode the file each time you play it.

 

[kingsqueak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did a small .flac encode test on Madonna album of mine via foobar2000: -8, converts at ~29x (14.5x per core), end result: 441 MB (463,327,232 bytes) -5, converts at ~103x (56.5x per core), end result: 443 MB (464,953,344 bytes) -0, converts at ~195x (97.5x per core), end result: 484 MB (507,842,560 bytes)

Just curious as I've never looked at it, but you wouldn't have the MB total before compression handy would you? I never really looked at any lossless methods to compare the file sizes.

 

[kingsqueak]

I answered my own question rather than being so lazy.

I ripped a full CD, the raw dir is the wav files, the others are various encodings.

105M lame-V2 VBR mp3 lame -V2
89M ogg-b192 VBR ogg oggenc -b192
356M ogg-flac-8 FLAC flac --ogg -8
89M ogg-q-6 ogg -q6
723M raw raw wav files

Just got my Total Bithead and Rockbox'd my G5 iPod, now to do a bunch of listening tests on these and see how they shake out. I'd stuck with -V2 mp3's because my players all played them, not that the iPod can do ogg and flac, if it's stable I may switch depending on how these sound.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsqueak /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just curious as I've never looked at it, but you wouldn't have the MB total before compression handy would you? I never really looked at any lossless methods to compare the file sizes.

Sure


690 MB (724,058,112 bytes)



I used the "size on disk" for my results, I really don't know the difference (but they are close, so I just picked the bigger of the two)

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well on my box I hardly notice the processing time to encode in level 8 versus 5, and I have so many flac files that every little bit of extra compression helps. If you have an older CPU I can see how it might bother you to take a little more time, but this is a one time only event. It's not like you have to encode the file each time you play it.

Hardly notice a 4-5x increase in speed? Either your doing something wrong or you don't encode much, because hit a 20minute song and -8 takes over a minute on my powerhouse e6600.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hardly notice a 4-5x increase in speed? Either your doing something wrong or you don't encode much, because hit a 20minute song and -8 takes over a minute on my powerhouse e6600.

Um, wrong on both counts, I encode a LOT! Did you read my post? I did mention that I have a LOT of flac files. As of right now the count is well over 13,000 tracks.

Why would you make those ridiculous assumptions? Someone disagrees with you so they must be doing something wrong or don't do it much? How exactly did you arrive at those conclusions?

I don't notice it because I have a fast computer, and because I encode while I'm doing other things. In fact, I'm in the process of ripping 6 CD's as I type this.

As I said, it's worth it to me.

And again, encoding is a one time activity, you don't have to re-encode a song unless you somehow lose the file.

If it's not worth it to you, that is your decision. I use level 8, you are free to use what you want.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Um, wrong on both counts, I encode a LOT! Did you read my post? I did mention that I have a LOT of flac files. As of right now the count is well over 13,000 tracks. Why would you make those ridiculous assumptions? Someone disagrees with you so they must be doing something wrong or don't do it much? How exactly did you arrive at those conclusions? I don't notice it because I have a fast computer, and because I encode while I'm doing other things. In fact, I'm in the process of ripping 6 CD's as I type this. As I said, it's worth it to me. And again, encoding is a one time activity, you don't have to re-encode a song unless you somehow lose the file. If it's not worth it to you, that is your decision. I use level 8, you are free to use what you want.

Assumptions? Because the speed differences between -5 and -8 are all over the internet. And seeing as how I own the e6600, which is one of the fastest processors available at the moment, I don't understand how I could see such a massive difference yet it's "hardly noticable" to somebody else.


I'm not saying there's one right way or another, I'm just saying that there's a big difference in encode times. That's irregardless of any system you use. Though some don't feel 2+minutes is a big difference from 35-40seconds (if you use a high end CPU), I still do

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Assumptions? Because the speed differences between -5 and -8 are all over the internet. And seeing as how I own the e6600, which is one of the fastest processors available at the moment, I don't understand how I could see such a massive difference yet it's "hardly noticable" to somebody else. I'm not saying there's one right way or another, I'm just saying that there's a big difference in encode times. That's irregardless of any system you use. Though some don't feel 2+minutes is a big difference from 35-40seconds (if you use a high end CPU), I still do

Assumptions because you stated:

Quote:

Either your doing something wrong or you don't encode much

That's a copy & past directly from your post. Both of those statements are incorrect.

I said I hardly noticed the difference, I never said the difference didn't exist.

I also gave reasons why I prefer level 8.

Now finally you're giving me permission to have a differing opinion from you. That's very big of you.

I also happen to have a very fast processor, and a lot of memory. It's not as fast as yours, but I don't mind.

Your figures say that the difference between level 5 and level 8 are about 2 MB per album. Is that correct?

I currently have aver 1,200 albums encoded into flac. That's about 2.4GB more space because I use level 8, because I can be a little patient during the ONE TIME process of encoding.

That to me makes it worthwhile. While it's true that hard drives are now cheaper than they've ever been, they are still not free. Eventually I'm going to have to add more HDD space, but I have succeeded in putting that time a little ways off by using more compression.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I currently have aver 1,200 albums encoded into flac. That's about 2.4GB more space because I use level 8, because I can be a little patient during the ONE TIME process of encoding.

It's more like 1.4mb per packed album, around 1-1.2mb per "regular" album.

1,200 albums is around 500gb too

, 1-2gb on that level still isn't that big of a difference.


Sometimes I just get into a mood to argue too, this is all fairly meaningless at the end of the day.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's more like 1.4mb per packed album, around 1-1.2mb per "regular" album. 1,200 albums is around 500gb too , 1-2gb on that level still isn't that big of a difference. Sometimes I just get into a mood to argue too, this is all fairly meaningless at the end of the day.

Well my thinking is going the other way, I want to save every spare gigabyte, especially since all it costs me is a couple of minutes per.

Look at it this way, I can use that 1.4MB per album to store album art and still have room left.

As you say, at the end of the day, so long as we're both happy... We can still be friends, right?

Cheers!

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well my thinking is going the other way, I want to save every spare gigabyte, especially since all it costs me is a couple of minutes per. Look at it this way, I can use that 1.4MB per album to store album art and still have room left. As you say, at the end of the day, so long as we're both happy... We can still be friends, right? Cheers!