Flac Compression

[emptage]

I have just started re-ripping all my cd's to flac to play through my hi fi via Sonos. I am using DBPoweramp to rip them to flac. I notice that they are still compressed, 43% compared to 74% for MP3 320bps. I thought that flac was zero compression, is there another higher quality format I should rip to ?

 

[Anonymous]

I have just started re-ripping all my cd's to flac to play through my hi fi via Sonos. I am using DBPoweramp to rip them to flac. I notice that they are still compressed, 43% compared to 74% for MP3 320bps. I thought that flac was zero compression, is there another higher quality format I should rip to ?

No. FLAC is lossless. ie when it gets played back, it gets reformed into the original PCM signal bit for bit (exactly the same). The compression is very similar to that which you might use to compress documents or software in (say) Winzip...ie when you unzip it, it then works.

The higher the compression simply means it takes a little more processor time to compress and uncompress, which is trivial with todays processors (but can be a concern with battery life on compatible portable players).

If you want to test it, create a WAV from a CD track, then create a FLAC from the same track. Then take that FLAC and convert it to WAV in the same software. The 2 WAVs will be identical.

 

[John Duncan]

No, though 43% sounds like a very good file size saving, whereas 75% for 320k mp3 sounds a bit rubbish!

 

[John Duncan]

Actually scratch that - maybe you have saved 43% and 75% respectively, which sounds about right. What are the actual file sizes on disk?

 

[Anonymous]

`No. FLAC is losless compression, so there is nothing better. It is like a zip file.

 

[MajorFubar]

If you want to test it, create a WAV from a CD track, then create a FLAC from the same track. Then take that FLAC and convert it to WAV in the same software. The 2 WAVs will be identical.

Absolutely...correct (cool...we agree on something! ) You can prove it as well by inverting the phase of the FLAC file in audio-editing software. If you then mix it/overlay it on the original WAV file in the audio editor you'll find they cancel each other out, absolutely and precisely.

 

[Andrew Everard]

You can prove it as well by inverting the phase of the FLAC file in audio-editing software. If you then mix it/overlay it on the original WAV file in the audio editor you'll find they cancel each other out, absolutely and precisely.

Guess it beats listening to music anyday... :doh:

 

[MajorFubar]

not really, but some people just won't believe you til you prove something to them in an indisputable way, and as we know, ears are subjective things, and what people claim they hear or don't hear is disputed quite a lot round here

 

[Overdose]

I hear what you're saying there.

 

[Anonymous]

If you want to test it, create a WAV from a CD track, then create a FLAC from the same track. Then take that FLAC and convert it to WAV in the same software. The 2 WAVs will be identical.

Absolutely...correct (cool...we agree on something! ) You can prove it as well by inverting the phase of the FLAC file in audio-editing software. If you then mix it/overlay it on the original WAV file in the audio editor you'll find they cancel each other out, absolutely and precisely.

Makes a change

But I tend to settle for a right click, properties and check the filesize P (on windows at least, I'm not sure how the cider folk do it)

 

[Anonymous]

You can prove it as well by inverting the phase of the FLAC file in audio-editing software. If you then mix it/overlay it on the original WAV file in the audio editor you'll find they cancel each other out, absolutely and precisely.

Guess it beats listening to music anyday... :doh:

For a one off test to create "peace of mind", yep.

 

[MajorFubar]

If you want to test it, create a WAV from a CD track, then create a FLAC from the same track. Then take that FLAC and convert it to WAV in the same software. The 2 WAVs will be identical.

Absolutely...correct (cool...we agree on something! ) You can prove it as well by inverting the phase of the FLAC file in audio-editing software. If you then mix it/overlay it on the original WAV file in the audio editor you'll find they cancel each other out, absolutely and precisely.

Makes a change

But I tend to settle for a right click, properties and check the filesize P (on windows at least, I'm not sure how the cider folk do it)

lol agreed that gives you a "beyond reasonable doubt" but remember that in uncompressed audio, five minutes of silence is the exact same filesize as five minutes of Megadeath. So, watch out for the curved ball from someone who claims the same uncompressed filesize doesn't prove they're not different. They walk among us and what's more they are allowed to vote

 

[emptage]

Thank you for all the helpful comments. I shall continue to re-rip all my cd's to flac Thanks again

 

[dannycanham]

“Here is an example of simple lossless compression”, create a list of common words and number them. OK so we’ll pretend the first sentence is full of common words.

Here = 1

is = 2

an =3

example =4

of =5

simple = 6

lossless = 7

compression = 8

Then store the sentence in the new format “1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8” as you can see the sentence is now much smaller to store. To read the sentence we look up each word in the list and replace them back again. “Here is an example of simple lossless compression”. The extra looking up takes more resources to read but all the information is retained.

**Note this compression gets worse as we increase the number of common words to be stored and gets worse when a sentence has few common words. So for a compression system it is rubbish.

“A lossy compression system could also take out words of least meaning”, may bring this sentence back as “lossy compression system take out words least meaning”

In audio we can do this very well for a number of reasons such as a gunshot masks out a sigh and our brain processes voice much better than a cymbal. Maybe if humans had evolved surrounded by cymbal plants and deadly sighs this wouldn’t be the case.

 

[Anonymous]

“Here is an example of simple lossless compression”, create a list of common words and number them. OK so we’ll pretend the first sentence is full of common words.

Here = 1

is = 2

an =3

example =4

of =5

simple = 6

lossless = 7

compression = 8

Then store the sentence in the new format “1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8” as you can see the sentence is now much smaller to store. To read the sentence we look up each word in the list and replace them back again. “Here is an example of simple lossless compression”. The extra looking up takes more resources to read but all the information is retained.

**Note this compression gets worse as we increase the number of common words to be stored and gets worse when a sentence has few common words. So for a compression system it is rubbish.

“A lossy compression system could also take out words of least meaning”, may bring this sentence back as “lossy compression system take out words least meaning”

In audio we can do this very well for a number of reasons such as a gunshot masks out a sigh and our brain processes voice much better than a cymbal. Maybe if humans had evolved surrounded by cymbal plants and deadly sighs this wouldn’t be the case.

I need a beer after that.