Linda Walsh wrote:
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.
====
Something that just occurred to me -- it "may" be the case that the -l
value
can, at most, use 1 parameter per/bit of the data block size.
Since 44.1KHz, songs use a 4096 blocksize, it just so happens that's
2^12, so more bits in -l at best would do no good, and at worst, might
take more space for unused bits. (i.e. 16 might cost .5 bytes/4096 block)...
_______________________________________________
Flac mailing list
Flac@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac
