|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Digital Source Digital Players and Recorders: CD , SACD , Tape, Memory Card, etc. |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia
|
Is there anything with higher compression, but equal quality to FLAC?
and to rip to HD, use EAC or something else? thanks |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
I'm no expert, but here is a couple links
http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm http://www.dbpoweramp.com/codec-central.htm dbpoweramp recommends Musepack for lossy http://www.musepack.net/ |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia
|
That the "Swiss army knife" of digital Audio looks interesting
Is that shareware? Anyone tried dbpoweramp? Cheers |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Richard Murdey
diyAudio Member
|
Flac is lossless, so the "quality" of the compression is a poor choice of words. It gives back what went in. Its the "quantity" or compression level that differentiates the different settings in the flac encoder, and the many alternatives.
Generally more compression takes more CPU horsepower to encode and decode. Its an intrinsic property of lossless compression that the file size only changes slightly no matter how fancy or how poor the algorithm, however. The spead of compression ratios was found to vary from 0.55 to 0.48 regardless of codec or computing time. In other words no matter what you do the compressed files will be about half the size of the original. Thus is makes sense to keep the CPU requirements modest and choose a widely compatible, easy to use codec. If you need smaller files you will have to switch to using lossy compression. I use flac at the default setting - 6 - found on the front end. I used to use wma lossless but gave that up after I noticed the sound was noticeably worse than the wav original. I have no idea what was up with that, as after I converted the file back to wav it was fine. I can only assume it was something in the way Windows media player played back wma vs wav data. I have since sworn off both wma and media player. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
|
http://www.monkeysaudio.com/
This format with .APE extension consistently beats .FLAC in compression quantity, but don't expect great savings though ! But, I remember reading an important thing about .FLAC is that decoding is quite easy on the CPU compared to other lossless formats, making it ideal for lossless playback on portable media player equipment, or underclocked, low power, silent media pc's
__________________
Rudolf Broertjes |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia
|
Rudolf
> FLAC is that decoding is quite easy on the CPU compared to other lossless formats, making it ideal for lossless playback on portable media player equipment, or underclocked, low power, silent media pc's Ah, maybe that's why it's popular! Cheers |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Lossy vs lossless compression | alleycat | Digital Source | 4 | 7th June 2008 06:56 AM |
| Lossless | REALFLEO | Music | 10 | 31st December 2007 03:04 PM |
| Lossless Snubbered Flyback | ChocoHolic | Power Supplies | 8 | 19th August 2007 08:30 AM |
| New full (!) Lame front-end with CD ripper! | Alex.S | Everything Else | 0 | 6th November 2005 06:57 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.10323 seconds (80.58% PHP - 19.42% MySQL) with 10 queries |