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

[Josh Coalson]

--- "David W. Tamkin" <dattier at panix.com> 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. 
>   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.

There is a bug somewhere related to the -r option, where the
file can end up bigger even when using a large -r value.  But
since the benefit is marginal I have not tracked it down.

Josh


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com