Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Mark Rages wrote:
The lossless codecs all have similar performance, because the entropy of
audio recordings makes it difficult to compress past about 50%. (My
master's thesis was on audio compression)
Good to know, but some lossless compression methods will allow you to use
a lot more CPU time to get a little more compression, so there can be
differences. Maybe those differences are not seen in the major lossless
compression algorithms used for sound files.
Example: Someone set GZIP environment variable to -9 on one of our
computers. After that I learned about gzip settings. The default is -6.
With -9 you get a little better compression but it is *way* slower.
I would prefer flac to the others (shorten, monkey, wavezip etc) because
it is free software with a freely published specification. Much better
for archival use. Imagine someone trying to play the audio 50 hears
hence. You could even put a copy of the source tarball and
specification on each DVD.
That is very important. I will use FLAC when I use a lossless algorithm.
Mike
_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact