I think he might be concerned with audio quality, and doesn't quite understand what "lossless" really means! 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-- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/
Alex Jones wrote:> I think he might be concerned with audio quality, and doesn't quite > understand what "lossless" really means!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_compression Rick, flac will *always* get you back to the exact original bits you started with. No loss. Never. Using options for more compression might mean more time to encode, but it will *not* lead to any loss in quality. -Eric> 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 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 Thursday 12 July 2007 11:08:44 am Alex Jones wrote:> I think he might be concerned with audio quality, and doesn't quite > understand what "lossless" really means! > > 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
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?
Level 1 uses far less compression than level 8. In terms of compression, the lower the "level" the less compression used (and the larger the resulting FLAC file). Hope that helps. -Brad On 7/12/07, Rick <cms0009@gmail.com> 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 Thursday 12 July 2007 11:08:44 am Alex Jones wrote: > > I think he might be concerned with audio quality, and doesn't quite > > understand what "lossless" really means! > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Flac mailing list > Flac@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac >-- - Brad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20070712/99ebc52c/attachment.html
Why is flac "faster"? Seems like smaller files would be faster than larger files, even if you have more space. Why do you want the largest file size? WAV will be larger than FLAC. Why is WAV faster than FLAC? Why do you assume that larger FLAC file sizes will be faster than smaller FLAC file sizes? Is it your goal to fill 18 TB as fast as possible? WAV will fill it quicker than FLAC with any "string" Brian On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:59, Rick wrote:> My goals, simple... I have 18 TB of Disk Space, > that I'm going to use for audio. > > Hence, want to rip once, and store it. > it was between .wav and .flac. ( flac is faster ) > > So, file SIZE does not bother me at all. > I want the largest file size string... > > flac --best > flac -1 > flac -8 > > heard there are others not listed > > Richard > > > On Thursday 12 July 2007 4:33:59 pm you wrote: >> 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? > > >
Well what do you think "best" is describing? On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:26 -0400, 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 Thursday 12 July 2007 11:08:44 am Alex Jones wrote: > > I think he might be concerned with audio quality, and doesn't quite > > understand what "lossless" really means! > > > > 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 > >-- Alex Jones http://alex.weej.com/