search for: unmast

...iment with re-compressing in the hopes of getting the files even smaller. For original recordings, I use --best, but I'm not concerned with direct playback on all devices. If I have a problem with playback, I'd probably decode and re-encode. Also, my original recordings are raw and unmastered, so I rarely listen to them without mixing and processing. I then compress the mastered audio (for CD or HD audio) using FLAC again, as a backup of the final product. Again, I use -- best and --no-padding because it's convenient, but I wouldn't mind learning a better default comm...

Anyone got any actual comparisons between unison and rsync specifically related to the performance of synchronization of large data sets over slow links? I have a huge tree to start replication of Friday and know that if I sync the root paths it will take ages and with the lack of any overall state of progress this won't be optimal as its likely to fail for whatever reason before it can

On 14-03-13 20:02, Declan Kelly wrote: > The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have > a "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression. No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better than FLAC will with a -9 option. FLAC 1.0

Hi FLAC team. I feel I have found a super high compression way of FLAC. I have tested a 1 hour WAV file of 440HTZ with a 5,25,50,75,100 normalize volume preset. This dramatically changes the compression size of the end FLAC file even though the WAV file size is identical for all 5 WAV files. Only the volume is different. When you renormalize the WAV to its original volume the file is still 100%