Martin Leese wrote:
At:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tools_flac.html#flac_options_exhaustive_model_search
it states, "If the max LPC order is high this
can significantly increase the encode time."
This suggest that if the max LPC order is low
then using -e will not be slow.
----
That brings up another question then... What is 'hi' (v. low?)...
The doc on -l makes it look like 12 is the max for "subset streams":
-l #, --max-lpc-order=#
Specifies the maximum LPC order. This number must be <=
32. For
Subset streams, it must be <=12 if the sample rate is
<=48kHz.
If 0, the encoder will not attempt generic linear
prediction,
and use only fixed predictors. Using fixed predictors is
faster
but usually results in files being 5-10% larger.
---
What's a subset stream? Under "--lax", it says:
--lax Allow encoder to generate non-Subset files. The resulting FLAC
file may not be streamable or might have trouble being
played in
all players (especially hardware devices), so you
should only
use this option in combination with custom encoding
options
meant for archival.
===
There -- it sounds like "subset" refers to the subset of "flac encodings"
that is "streamable" and/or work on all(or most) players... Sorta like
320Kbps being the max rate for "MP3's that conform to the standard"...
If that's the case then the highest -l value one can 'portably' use would
be 12? FWIW, I've tried 16 & 12 and noticed no difference in exhaustive's
execution time.
Another "nit" I noticed, from
http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_format_overview.html
in the inter-channel-decorrelation section -- it mentions -m vs.
-M, where -m always uses mid+side channel whether it is bigger or not,
while -M adaptively uses mid+side or stereo depending on which is better.
Why would flac levels 7 and 8 use -m (always when -M allows adaptive
encoding
based on which is better?
_______________________________________________
Flac mailing list
Flac@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
