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
Thanks, that all I need to know. Rich On Thursday 12 July 2007 5:14:49 pm Brad Leblanc wrote:> 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
I'll restate that not using FLAC at all is going to give you even "better" results, if you're looking for larger files. Rick wrote:> Thanks, that all I need to know. > Rich > > On Thursday 12 July 2007 5:14:49 pm Brad Leblanc wrote: >> 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.