View Single Post
Old 2005-04-17, 08:14 AM
ssamadhi97's Avatar
ssamadhi97 ssamadhi97 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Old Europe
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Originally Posted by uhclem
ssamadhi - I was counting tags, seeking, fingerprints & fb2k support in my 'as good as' category since flac is obviously excellent in those departments. I was lazy and didn't make that very clear though.
Yea I know (and knew) what you were getting at, it's just that when reading that introduction of yours one would think that wv wins a considerable amount of the points you list subsequently. Had to defend poor flac

Originally Posted by uhclem
As for speed, I was thinking in terms of FLAC level 8 vs. Wavpack -h. Wavpack can produce significantly smaller files much faster than FLAC. I would agree that at FLAC level 4, FLAC is pretty fast though. But for that matter, shorten is pretty fast at what it does
Using flac at level 8 is a waste of cpu cycles imo. Compared to 7 or even 6 you only win maybe 1-5(-10?) kbps, at the expense of an insane encoding time.

Check out the lossless codec comparisons linked to from the HA wiki, they have some nice stats and graphs on compression and decompression speed. The WavPack stats might be outdated on several of them, but other than that you can draw some interesting conclusions. For example this page is one indicator for me that using flac at levels above 4 or 5 is not too sensible unless you need to squeeze that last bit onto a medium.

Oh yes, as you can see Shorten is still faster than wv and flac at these levels - and considerably less efficient.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes