Home of the Squeezebox™ & Transporter® network music players.
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34

    Flac converstion questions

    I am thinking about bulk converting my wma collection to flac using dBpowerAMP. I am a little confused about the flac compression option. The original wma file is 29.7 MB. FLAC with 0 compression converts to 33.3 MB and with the 8 compression setting the file is 30.3 MB.

    Which compress option shoud I choose? I thought FLAC was supposed to compress better then wma but it appears that the wma file is a little smaller.

    thanks

  2. #2
    Hi,

    According to some other threads Flac does not compress better than Windows Lossless. I have never tested the theory myself so I couldn't say. Really when you are talking about many files with such huge sizes, a few kb here or there isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.

    <http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=16867&highlight=flac+windows+loss less>

    As far as Flac compression options, do whatever you feel is best. Almost everyone that uses flac tends to use settings from 4-6 because higher settings vastly increase the encoding time and show a very poor rate-of-return in terms of file size.

    Hope this helps,

    ss.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by street_samurai
    Hi,

    According to some other threads Flac does not compress better than Windows Lossless. I have never tested the theory myself so I couldn't say. Really when you are talking about many files with such huge sizes, a few kb here or there isn't going to make much of a difference anyway.

    <http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=16867&highlight=flac+windows+loss less>

    As far as Flac compression options, do whatever you feel is best. Almost everyone that uses flac tends to use settings from 4-6 because higher settings vastly increase the encoding time and show a very poor rate-of-return in terms of file size.

    Hope this helps,

    ss.

    Thanks, I ran a few tests and 7 or 8 are very slow. The difference in encoding time from 3 to 6 is 21x to 18x not a big deal. 4 sound like a good compression to use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •