On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:21:46PM +0100, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:
> How so? FLAC has a different design objective than some of the commercial > lossless codecs. > FLAC was intended mostly for "rippers", i.e. people who want to encode a lot > of CDs, and store them and play them back on computers, so a big emphasis was > encoding speed. > > Other algorithms are designed for max. compression and are thus slower and > use more CPU but use less space. Others are optimized for minimal CPU use > during decompression, such as to be workable on low power CPUs in portable > devices. Quoted from the FLAC documentation: "FLAC is asymmetric in favor of decode speed. Decoding requires only integer arithmetic, and is much less compute-intensive than for most perceptual codecs. Real-time decode performance is easily achievable on even modest hardware." There is absolutely nothing in the documentation that suggests that FLAC was "designed for rippers". OTOH it was designed to be streamable, which suggest another type of use. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
