Which FLAC quality to use?
Dec 23, 2006 at 5:17 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 41
The_X

The_X

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Posts
1,006
Likes
10
I'm a bit confused, FLAC has quality controls but as a lossless codec, shouldn't it all be one original quality level? The FLAC website doesn't really adequately explain the difference between levels 0-8. I just got a 250gb external hard disk and I want to convert my music to lossless, what is the difference between the qualities?
 
Dec 23, 2006 at 5:23 PM Post #2 of 41
Well, first of all FLAC don't have quality control settings.
But it has compression level settings (from --compression-level-0 to --compression-level-8). Higher numbers result in smaller files, but also longer encoding time.
 
Dec 23, 2006 at 5:25 PM Post #3 of 41
That option is, IMHO, actually misnamed. The only thing that is adjusted by that option is the level of compression, with 8 shrinking the files the most.

I use 8, I want the smallest files possible.

It doesn't matter what setting you use quality wise. Choosing more compression will slow down the encoding a little, but will not affect playback. FLAC is designed so that the grunt work is done on the ENcoding end, decoding takes about the same amount of CPU power no matter which setting you use.
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 4:14 AM Post #6 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...decoding takes about the same amount of CPU power no matter which setting you use.


It takes a little more juice to decode quality settings above 5 or 6, but only matters if you're using a portable.

That said my understanding is that it's only a few percent difference in file size between 8 and 1, so I'd suggest something in the middle.
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 4:54 AM Post #7 of 41
-5, though I've thought about switching to -4 because of the minute difference in compression. -3 and lower and the files start to get bigger (I saw a graph somewhere).


-8 is a waste of time.
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 5:03 AM Post #8 of 41
I use 8 for the space savings. I don't use lossless on portables, just on the computer, so...
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 5:06 AM Post #9 of 41
I use whichever option comes marked as the default, since the space differences between the options are marginal.
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 7:01 AM Post #11 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by pheonix991 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
-8, I can't hear a diff between the cd/wave/flac-8.

I'd like to guess it takes about 3 seconds more for me to encode in -8 instead of -0.




You can't hear a difference between CD .wav and .flac because there IS no difference on decode.


And it takes far longer then just 3 seconds between -0 and -8. -8 just takes a silly long amount of time in comparison. Even going to -7 shows a fair amount of speed improvements.

-5 or -4
wink.gif
. If saving a few mb's per album is your main concern, you shouldn't be going lossless. Though not to knock on -8, it's just pointless IMO (it may make greater differences on 24/96 though).
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 7:21 AM Post #12 of 41
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)


As you can see, the size differences between -8 and -5 are fairly minimal. However, the speed differences are immense. I wait around about 2:15 per lengthy album on -8, while it takes about :45 on -5. -0 flies, but the size difference is quite noticable.


On a sidenote, I have a Core 2 Duo e6600 with 2gb of DDR2-800, all stock speeds.
 
Dec 24, 2006 at 12:02 PM Post #14 of 41
55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 5555555555555555

dont stray from the norm

its the default setting for a good reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top