[Flac-users] Re: settings for tighter compression than -8?

[Miroslav Lichvar]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 05:49:06PM -0500, David W. Tamkin wrote:
> 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. 

Ah, sorry for wasting your time and electricity.

>  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).

Larger? Weird. Options of coding examined with suggested switches are
superset of options examined with -8, so i simply can't believe that
it is possible :). I have tried few files, but all were smaller than
with -8. Can you send me one small track which came out larger? 

> 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.

This should not be larger, really.

[...]

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar