Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
I don't have experience with EAC, but I do use FLAC quite a bit. The most likely issue is that EAC's estimates are just wrong. You can try using a different program (look for open source software so you can avoid trialware/spyware etc.).
Thanks for your response. I suspected that EAC's estimates are off. Does the file size I listed in my example seem reasonable to you?
In my experience, an uncompressed CD uses 1GB, a FLAC encoded file is half that. 500MB
it depends entirely on which level encoding you use..FLAC has levels 1-8, with each step up being a higher level of compression.
FLAC at Level 8 is 59.6 % of the normal .wav file type.
Does anyone remember where there is a site that demonstrates the differences among the lossless compressions vs the lossy ones for CD to various MP3 formats? I seem to have forgotten to bookmark it.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=...en&ie=UTF-8
http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm
So are all FLAC compressions lossless? Do they sound the same? If so why wouldn't we just compress it to the max?
thanks
barondla (confused computer music newbie)
It is all lossless - FLAC is FLAC. My understanding is that the levels just tell the compressor to "work harder" to get the file down, but it doesn't lose any data - it just takes longer to compress and decompress (which may result in slightly more battery/power use). Other than speed of compression/decompression and resulting file size, the levels do not make a difference.
ncdrawl,
Thanks for the links.
no problem!