[Flac-users] Re: settings for tighter compression than -8?
David W. Tamkin
dattier at panix.com
Sat Apr 12 15:50:05 PDT 2003
Early this past week, Miroslav Lichvar suggested for me:
> Ok, you need 0.04% improvement, that should not be a problem. Try
> flac --lax -e -p -l 32 -r 10 --no-padding
Thank you again, Miroslav. I tried that, and it took almost two full
days (surprisingly, Windows ME stayed up that long without crashing) to
re-encode the entire set on my 266-MHz machine. After all, in the help
file Josh gives us fair warning that a couple of those options are slow.
But thirty-eight of the forty-six tracks came out larger than they had
in my original attempt at the -8 preset (both groups were compared after
stripping all metadata and padding except STREAMINFO and SEEKTABLE).
When I took the smaller version of each track, the total was still too
big for a CDR without overburning -- by apparently less than 10 KB, but
still too big.
Miroslav concluded,
> and if it is not enough, increase -r up to 16.
... so I tried -r 16 on the eight tracks that had benefited before. All
of the first four came out larger at -r 16 than at -r 10, and the
detailed help display from flac --explain says that setting -r "above 4
usually doesn't help much," so I stopped the process there.
In the end, I tried zipping the original .flac files done at -8, and
although about sixteen (or fourteen?) of them came out larger, the total
decreased enough to fit the music and .jpegs onto one CDR. I tried
removing the ones that had increased from the .zip archive, but neither
Explorer nor WinZip could manage that without hanging. Then I was going
to write down which ones got larger from zipping and re-zip the others
without them, but in the end I figured it wasn't worth the trouble to
keep track of which ones belonged in the .zip archive and which didn't.
As long as the data fit onto one disc, that was good enough.
More information about the Flac
mailing list