hi i was wondering if it's possible to tell me what the theoretical best compression ratio the flac encoder can do, because i was wondering what the future of flac will bring us. So this question is probably best addressed to Josh: can we suspect much better compression ratio in the future or is the encoder already at his *almost* peak compression level. thx in advance!
--- Harry Sack <tranzedude@gmail.com> wrote:> hi > > i was wondering if it's possible to tell me what the theoretical best > compression ratio the flac encoder can do, because i was wondering > what the future of flac will bring us. So this question is probably > best addressed to Josh: can we suspect much better compression ratio > in the future or is the encoder already at his *almost* peak > compression level.I think you're talking about average compression ratio because it depends on the particular sample. to make significant improvements (>3%) would require changes to the format that wouldn't work with older decoders, which I don't plan on ever doing. if you look at the comparison here: flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html you will see that FLAC is already within 3-4% of the most aggresive codecs. Josh ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
2007/5/14, Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com>:> > --- Harry Sack <tranzedude@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi > > > > i was wondering if it's possible to tell me what the theoretical best > > compression ratio the flac encoder can do, because i was wondering > > what the future of flac will bring us. So this question is probably > > best addressed to Josh: can we suspect much better compression ratio > > in the future or is the encoder already at his *almost* peak > > compression level. > > I think you're talking about average compression ratio because it > depends on the particular sample. to make significant improvements > (>3%) would require changes to the format that wouldn't work with > older decoders, which I don't plan on ever doing.i think that's a very good decision! if you look at the comparison here:> flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html > you will see that FLAC is already within 3-4% of the most aggresive > codecs.so in the future we can expect mostly speed improvements for encoder/decoder? Thanks Josh> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk > for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's > economy) at Yahoo! Games. > get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20070515/0f3ee2ef/attachment.htm