[Flac] best string setting

[Brian Willoughby]

Why is flac "faster"?  Seems like smaller files would be faster than  
larger files, even if you have more space.

Why do you want the largest file size?  WAV will be larger than  
FLAC.  Why is WAV faster than FLAC?  Why do you assume that larger  
FLAC file sizes will be faster than smaller FLAC file sizes?

Is it your goal to fill 18 TB as fast as possible?  WAV will fill it  
quicker than FLAC with any "string"

Brian


On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:59, Rick wrote:
> My goals, simple... I have 18 TB of Disk Space,
> that I'm going to use for audio.
>
> Hence, want to rip once, and store it.
> it was between .wav and .flac. ( flac is faster )
>
> So, file SIZE does not bother me at all.
> I want the largest file size string...
>
> flac --best
> flac -1
> flac -8
>
> heard there are others not listed
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Thursday 12 July 2007 4:33:59 pm you wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> Mark asked "why" you want the least amount of compression.  I think
>> we still do not understand your goals.  If you can give us a hint at
>> what you're trying to accomplish in your search for the least amount
>> of compression, that might help us find the right answer.
>>
>> Brian Willoughby
>> Sound Consulting
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2007, at 13:26, Rick wrote:
>>> I try to make it easier for you to understand,
>>> I do understand about lossless format, hence I installed flac,
>>> second, understanding the setting under the man pages is the key.
>>> so, I pose a question, which is:
>>>
>>> What setting uses the least amount of compression.
>>>
>>> flac --best
>>> or
>>> flac -1
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 07:12 -0700, Mark Rudholm wrote:
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>> hmm, let me ask this question, another way...
>>>>>> which setting offer the least compression ?.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not using it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why would you want that?  What's the goal here?
>
>
>