best archiver? (for music)
kline at thought.org
Fri Mar 13 20:06:05 PDT 2009
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:31:50PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >- 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).
> 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
> lame -h -b 96 - i was able to tell the difference on every song, but it
> wasn't really huge deal.
hm. oh, yeah, my new box has to have a superior soundcard. and
i'll pony up for even better speakers too. (so when i'm ready,
i'll ask what's best. maybe find something on ebay.)
my hearing is exceptionally good and while call myself an
audiophile, having all my tunes right here at fingertips is
a major win. having said that, can you point me to a basic
tutorial on lame? i've got 1581620 blocks of mp3 @ 128kbit.
lectures. when i tried to cut the quality even by a bit it was
evident immediately. rar compresses these file to
1482404 blocks very very slowly. it probably makes sense to just
burn the mp3 files to a dvd and be safe.
Gary Kline kline at thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix
The 2.23a release of Jottings: http://jottings.thought.org/index.php
More information about the freebsd-questions