On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:31:34PM +0100, mva...@gmail.com wrote: > It's not a good idea, except when you want to ruin FLACs reputation. One > of the reasons FLAC is (alongside ALAC) one of the two most popular > lossless codecs is because of the well-defined subset. I've tried Flake > -9, -10, -11 and -12 on my portable years ago, and while -9 did > reasonable, anything higher would just choke the player.
I found that flake at higher preset compression levels would not even produce files that the FLAC command line tool could decompress. And I 100% agree that we shouldn't change the subset, or do anything to make any existing decoder fail. > If you want more compression, you can do it yourself. The -0 through -8 > switches are just presets, you can use FLAC 1.0's -9 yourself with -l 32 > -b 4608 -m -e -E -r 16 -p on FLAC 1.2.1, there's just no shortcut -9 > anymore. I haven't studied Zopfli closely, but a similar "find the absolute best compression" iteration for FLAC is possible without altering the subset. There was some discussion on this list a few years ago about a preprocessor, but all I can find now is a preprocessor that makes WAV data easier to compress smaller (in a slightly lossy way). -- -Dec. --- (no microsoft products were used to create this message) "Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994 _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
