Zten wrote: > OK. So I guess I am just probing at the claim that restoring a WAV from > FLAC will result in the EXACT re-creation of the original wave file. I > did not rip the CD down as one complete file, instead, each song is its > own file. I guess I buy the explanation about the gap between songs as a > possible answer. I for sure don't know enough to refute it.
Any lossless compression scheme must recreate the original file. But in practice there is often a little bit of padding generated, so that the file size may be different. I've checked using a binary diff and the data values are identical. > One more question about FLAC. The "quality" setting used in EAC. It is > a number from 1 to 8. I think I always use 5, just becuase someone on > the forum here recommended it (not the best reason, but I didn't have > anything better to go on!). As I understand it, the difference is not > really quality, becuase any number used results in a lossless copy of > the wave file, but the higher the number, the more processing power it > takes and the more compressed the FLAC file will be, right? So when > restoring a WAV from a FLAC, doesn't that "quality figure of merit" > need to be used? dBPowerAmp never propeted me for that number so how > did it know what to use? The FLAC "quality" is mislabeled by most utilities, typically using the same word/keyword as quality in a lossy codec such as MP3 or Ogg. For Flac, it really is an indicator of how hard you want to compressor to try to compress the file. Higher values result in slightly better compression at the cost of much longer compression times. The decompression time is constant and small. So if you are not waiting for the compression, set it high. Most people don't bother, because the improvement is tiny and the compression time increase is non-trivial. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
