Rick, Mark asked "why" you want the least amount of compression. I think we still do not understand your goals. If you can give us a hint at what you're trying to accomplish in your search for the least amount of compression, that might help us find the right answer. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:26, Rick wrote:> I try to make it easier for you to understand, > I do understand about lossless format, hence I installed flac, > second, understanding the setting under the man pages is the key. > so, I pose a question, which is: > > What setting uses the least amount of compression. > > flac --best > or > flac -1 > > Richard > > >> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 07:12 -0700, Mark Rudholm wrote: >>> Rick wrote: >>>> hmm, let me ask this question, another way... >>>> which setting offer the least compression ?. >>> >>> Not using it at all. >>> >>> But why would you want that? What's the goal here?
I think he wants to get the most credits on a ratio site. Maybe this relates to Harry Sack's query about the largest possible bitmap attachment.> Rick, > > Mark asked "why" you want the least amount of compression. I think > we still do not understand your goals. If you can give us a hint at > what you're trying to accomplish in your search for the least amount > of compression, that might help us find the right answer. > > Brian Willoughby > Sound Consulting > > > On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:26, Rick wrote: >> I try to make it easier for you to understand, >> I do understand about lossless format, hence I installed flac, >> second, understanding the setting under the man pages is the key. >> so, I pose a question, which is: >> >> What setting uses the least amount of compression. >> >> flac --best >> or >> flac -1 >> >> Richard >> >> >>> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 07:12 -0700, Mark Rudholm wrote: >>>> Rick wrote: >>>>> hmm, let me ask this question, another way... >>>>> which setting offer the least compression ?. >>>> >>>> Not using it at all. >>>> >>>> But why would you want that? What's the goal here? > > _______________________________________________ > Flac mailing list > Flac@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac >
I'm wondering if english is not Rick's best language ("string setting" is just not quite the correct phrase). So, given that, I also wonder if by "least compression" he means "compressed into least number of bytes"??? If that is the case, then he actually wants "best compression" (most compression) or "flac --best" and his question makes perfect sense. Rick, I hope this helps and does not cause offense. - Larry Fenske> Rick, > > Mark asked "why" you want the least amount of compression. I think > we still do not understand your goals. If you can give us a hint at > what you're trying to accomplish in your search for the least amount > of compression, that might help us find the right answer. > > Brian Willoughby > Sound Consulting > > > On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:26, Rick wrote: > > I try to make it easier for you to understand, > > I do understand about lossless format, hence I installed flac, > > second, understanding the setting under the man pages is the key. > > so, I pose a question, which is: > > > > What setting uses the least amount of compression. > > > > flac --best > > or > > flac -1 > > > > Richard > > > > > >> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 07:12 -0700, Mark Rudholm wrote: > >>> Rick wrote: > >>>> hmm, let me ask this question, another way... > >>>> which setting offer the least compression ?. > >>> > >>> Not using it at all. > >>> > >>> But why would you want that? What's the goal here? > > _______________________________________________ > Flac mailing list > Flac@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac >
I'm wondering if english is not Rick's best language ("string setting" is just not quite the correct phrase). So, given that, I also wonder if by "least compression" he means "compressed into least number of bytes"??? If that is the case, then he actually wants "best compression" (most compression) or "flac --best" and his question makes perfect sense. Rick, I hope this helps and does not cause offense. - Larry Fenske> Rick, > > Mark asked "why" you want the least amount of compression. I think > we still do not understand your goals. If you can give us a hint at > what you're trying to accomplish in your search for the least amount > of compression, that might help us find the right answer. > > Brian Willoughby > Sound Consulting > > > On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:26, Rick wrote: > > I try to make it easier for you to understand, > > I do understand about lossless format, hence I installed flac, > > second, understanding the setting under the man pages is the key. > > so, I pose a question, which is: > > > > What setting uses the least amount of compression. > > > > flac --best > > or > > flac -1 > > > > Richard > > > > > >> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 07:12 -0700, Mark Rudholm wrote: > >>> Rick wrote: > >>>> hmm, let me ask this question, another way... > >>>> which setting offer the least compression ?. > >>> > >>> Not using it at all. > >>> > >>> But why would you want that? What's the goal here? > > _______________________________________________ > Flac mailing list > Flac@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac >