dBpoweramp FLAC level

I have tried various levels and settled on level 8, but not because of any sound related differences that I could hear, just to use a little less disk space.

I'm also using minim transcoding to WAV

Nick

I use the standard level 5 on dB.. I wish people would think of it more like folding a transcript to fit in a smaller envelope, rather than 'compressing' as this word conjures up 'loss' and is used in the analogue domain as undesirable. The higher compression values should have a larger effect on the unpacking speed. Virtually all my cd-res and hi-res flac downloads have arrived in level 5, so I keep my playing field level in order to judge any upgrade in source material.

Uncompressed.

I'm not going through this exercise with 6,000 cds again anytime soon ! And disk space is cheap, my time is not.

I'm also 'multi encoding' ripping to 320 MP3 at the same time for files for the Car/iPhone.

In terms of DSP's I have added HDCD ( in case of surprises - Brubeck's Take Five was one ) and ReplayGain for volume leveling.

Here's proof that the infamous forum search facility does occasionally work. Couldn't remember who or where I'd read about it, but a quick search for 'flac level 8' revealed that S-in-S reckons level 8 is the one to use. If anyone wants to argue with him, it's in Simon's post in the Adventures in Ripping thread, which is still open.

Apologies to Simon for dragging him into this without his permission.

Chris

I also use level 8

Hmm, level 8.... I always do what Simon says. I have a cd to rip tomorrow. 

In ripping, the higher compression such as level 8 means it will take more processing time to produce a smaller file.  If you already have the file at whatever level,  changing it will change the file size, but it will not alter the output sound quality of the rip.

In replay of the high compression levels it does require more processing power to uncompress,  but when I played around with this I didn't hear any signs of my NDX having any problems & I really could not hear any difference between level 1, level 8 & uncompressed. 

However at the time I was experimenting my Synology had issues transcoding 24 bit & played these at 16 bit; so I stuck with my already made .wav library

- storage is cheap & I have yet to find a problem with .wav tagging that I couldn't solve (not that .wav has tagging problems) ,  so its .wav for me,  & .dsf as & when. .  

HH, I have a MB Air with AV+ to replay ripped cd's, so is different of what you have. I experimented with different levels of compression using XLD and could't detect any difference in sound quality when replaying. Decoding or encoding with xACT was so fast that I thought it shouldn't demand that much to the CPU to decode on the fly while replaying. So, initially, I decided to go FLAC with a compression level "normal" as XLD names it, which looking at the XLD scale, it should be very similar to the 5  in your software. Also in my configuration it was very easy to edit metadata or moving between different formats using xACT.

Recently as the new version of AV+ has a decent tool to edit metadata in FLAC or AIFF files and taking in consideration that FLAC and MAC don't love each other, and also that space is cheap I changed my mind and decided to go uncompressed with AIFF, from now on and decode former rips according to time and mood.

IMMO, if you like to replay WAV, and you have a good way to deal with metadata in WAV files, just go WAV and no more headaches.

Regards.

Erich

As I suspected,  its very low,  but I didn't have the numbers

If as you indicate its aprx 0.5%,  its 100% nothing to be concerned about 

The higher FLAC compression levels do not necessarily take longer to decode than the lower ones, in fact sometimes they can be slightly quicker, it just depends on the source. In any case, the differences in decode speeds are very small, as you can verify by doing a batch convert/unconvert. Encoding higher levels does take significantly longer though, and the payoff is a modest extra reduction in file size. The extra time at the higher settings is taken upen by the encoder looking for more efficient compression strategies, depending on the nature of the music this can sometimes result in a compressed file that is slightly quicker to decode. There's a comparison table here.

HH, it really depends on whether you're listening to FLAC or transcoding to WAV.

Level 8 is the highest compression (albeit still lossless) so takes some processing power to unpack the file. This makes an audible difference when listening as FLAC, as the hard work is done on the streamer.

If you're transcoding to WAV the unpacking and transcoding is done by the server, so the streamer gets a 'clean' file to play; some would say this is the optimal approach.

I prefer FLAC to WAV so rip at level 0, uncrompressed.

"Level 8 is the highest compression (albeit still lossless) so takes some processing power to unpack the file. This makes an audible difference when listening as FLAC..."

I'd like to see that subjected to a blind test - I may be incorrect, but at present I'm not buying.

Usual caveat; to my ears / in my room / blah blah...

But yes, I can hear a significant difference between the default level 5 compression and level 0. I've posted on it several times in the past.

Maybe try it before commenting?

Level 0 is compressed. Uncompressed setting is uncompressed. 

If you have dbpoweramp 14.4 or higher you need to change your setting from 0 to uncompressed.

All I said is I'd like to see the results of a blind listening test (kind of a funny concept if you think about it), and did leave it open that I may be incorrect.  I think that is a fairly balanced comment.

If you are convinced that you hear a difference and are happy, that is fine, and you should do what makes you happy.  But be that the case, it is a far cry from anything one could term demonstrable proof.

It's all very confusing. Some say 8, some say 0. Maybe it's just easiest to stick with the default 5. One wonders whether all these levels are ultimately pointless. 

+1 no reason for compressions anymore.

Just checked; I meant uncompressed, not zero. Thanks.

Chris you are welcome. 

Yes I use max compression... The nice thing assuming you are not using un compressed FLAC, is that the decoding load is effectively the same no matter how effectively you have encoded. Simply put the higher the compression, the more efficient it has been encoded.

You could take a theoretical stance that higher compression could sound better, as less data is having to be piped into the decoder so there are less digital noise side effects, but I have never heard any SQ benefit from this.. and I tend to transcode to WAV for my streamer anyway  .. 

Simon

Indeed, compression and decompression are asymmetric.  Higher compression levels just means that the computer will spend more time analyzing the file to optimize the compression.  Decompression effort shouldn't change between levels.

I use uncompressed simply because disk space is cheap plus it's what I was originally advised to use.

A related question...

If I have a hi def flac file (anything greater than 16/44) that I wish to downsize to 16/44, how best to do it in dBpoweramp?

If I use the Music Converter tool, I can add a DSB effect to reduce the bit depth but then it is suggested that I use "dither" and I am given a choice between "triangular" and "rectangular" and I'm unsure how to proceed (if I had been told to "procrastinate" I'd know exactly what to do).

I can't find anything to reduce a hi def flac file to 44Hz.

The thing that seems to work is to convert to wav at 16/44 then convert back to flac but is that really the best and most efficient way?