Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:31:50 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> Cc: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: best archiver? (for music) Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0903132128460.33043@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20090313202226.GA47453@slackbox.xs4all.nl> References: <20090313191520.GA14233@thought.org> <20090313202226.GA47453@slackbox.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> - The general archivers can compress the wav somewhat without loss, but > none do as well as the dedicated lossless compression program flac. > - Trying to compress mp3, ogg and flac files further is a waste of time. > - If you want smaller files, use lossy compression like mp3 or ogg > vorbis, and pick the lowest quality level that sounds acceptable to you. i did actual hearing blind-tests with 4 people that title themself "audiophile", on their hardware THEY tell have excellent sound output (actually it was really good for me). results lame -h -V 3 - nobody could tell the difference, it gives <200kbps bitrate lame -h -b 192 - as above lame -h -b 128 - they were able to tell difference, but not on all music/songs lame -h -b 96 - i was able to tell the difference on every song, but it wasn't really huge deal.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0903132128460.33043>