Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jazzrome]

I am new to JRiver and I want to copy my entire CD collection to a NAS serve I have decided on FLAC Files after much research an when I set up JRiver to rip the CD I see there are different compression rates available is there a difference in sound quality from the standard compression suggested (6)  to setting it to 0 (no compression) other that file size.

[ferday]

There is no difference in sound quality, and not usually that much difference in file size.  It's mostly an encoding speed thing

[mark_h]

However...  If you are streaming to a Logitech Transporter you will want to use compression 0... this gives the Transporter the least work when unpacking.  At higher compressions the Transporter sometimes struggles and you get timing issues (stutters, jitter etc).   [Edit]Sorry, I was too hasty to comment - this only applies to 96/24 and higher recordings, not CD[/edit]

[6233638]

I believe that FLAC Level 5 is supported at all sample rates.

[JimH]

If in doubt, use the default setting.

[6233638]

If in doubt, use the default setting.

Then level 5 should be the default in Media Center, as that is the "standard" FLAC compression level.

[Arindelle]

I used level 8 for 5 years now and have no problem whatsoever, and you do save space on large drives, its pretty substantial IMO.

It is slower to rip/encode on a 2 core porcessor. If you have a quad core processor though I don't see any speed decrease.

I don't stream to DLNA devices unless you count my ipad sometimes, so that might be something. Drive space is a lot cheaper than it was 5 years ago. But if you have ripped at the highest level I wouldn't worry about it.

[astromo]

Arindelle's plan is how I roll.

Works fine for me.

[jazzrome]

Thanks to all that replied. I really appreciate your feed back. I will be streaming music to a music server and I hard disk space is not a problem I have over 10TB to work with on the NAS. So I will just use the lowest compression possible.   

[Awesome Donkey]

I have all my FLAC files at level 6 and have considered mass converting everything to level 8 but I don't see a reason to.

[astromo]

I have all my FLAC files at level 6 and have considered mass converting everything to level 8 but I don't see a reason to.

Agreed. Diminishing returns. I'm applying 8 for everything going forward.

[6233638]

I believe that I used Level 8 when converting from ALAC to FLAC recently, which was a mostly-painless conversion via dBpoweramp's batch converter - the only issue was mono tracks which dBpoweramp didn't like, and MC converted to stereo. (it also mangled the PNG artwork by compressing to a lossy JPG)
 
Unfortunately I had forgotten that many hardware devices don't like anything above level 5 FLAC - especially with high-res tracks.
 
I actually have a Squeezebox 3 here that I'd like to use again some day, which makes this all the more frustrating.
 

Thanks to all that replied. I really appreciate your feed back. I will be streaming music to a music server and I hard disk space is not a problem I have over 10TB to work with on the NAS. So I will just use the lowest compression possible.   

Level 5 is "standard" FLAC as supported by any device which plays the format. Higher or lower levels may have issues on certain hardware - particularly uncompressed FLAC.
 
If you're just using a PC for playback it makes no difference - but in that case I would opt to use Level 8 rather than 0 or uncompressed.

[astromo]

I actually have a Squeezebox 3 here that I'd like to use again some day, which makes this all the more frustrating.
...
Level 5 is "standard" FLAC as supported by any device which plays the format. Higher or lower levels may have issues on certain hardware - particularly uncompressed FLAC.

Thanks for that insight. Previously unaware. If I have issues, then it will be something to look out for.

[Trumpetguy]

Unfortunately I had forgotten that many hardware devices don't like anything above level 5 FLAC - especially with high-res tracks.
 
I actually have a Squeezebox 3 here that I'd like to use again some day, which makes this all the more frustrating.

I have used FLAC standard encoding settings and have no problems with my Squeezebox 3. SB and hi-res is not a problem, it doesn't support higher sample rates than 48kHz.

[mark_h]

The Logitech Touch and Transporter support 96kHz if you need it. 

[AndrewFG]

Just another input concerning seek, fast forward and rewind functions whilst playing a file..

In an uncompressed format every second of audio is encoded using exactly the same number of bytes per second. So if the player wants to seek, fast forward, or rewind to a specific position in the track, it is a simple matter to calculate the precise seek offset within the file.

On the other hand in a compressed format like FLAC, the number of bytes per second used to encode different parts of the track will vary according to the complexity of the audio content in that segment. Therefore if you do a seek, fast forward, or rewind, the player has to make a guess of the seek offset within the file. This has two disadvantages, a) the seek destination might not be what you expect, and b) the estimated seek offset will probably not coincide precisely with the start of an audio frame, so the player has to resynch to the next valid frame boundary to avoid clicks or pops.

In other words, for best seek support the ideal audio formats are linear uncompressed PCM, WAV or AIFF; and you insist on using FLAC then the best choice is to go for zero compression (which actually means that the FLAC file will be slightly larger than an equivalent linear PCM, WAV or AIFF file -- but heigh-ho, disks are cheap now..)

[6233638]

Well Media Center plays decompressed audio anyway, and on the other-hand, seeking may be more responsive with compressed formats over a network connection since it's transferring roughly half the data.

[ferday]

Just another input concerning seek, fast forward and rewind functions whilst playing a file..

you could just add a seek table to the .flac files...they are fully supported

these days i haven't found hardware/software that has any seeking issues with any file format. and if i did, i'd probably use different hardware/software...

[jazzrome]

I have read and reread everyone's reply's and insight and I have gain a lot of knowledge about analog to digital conversion.  Must say I sill have a long way to go here. I have been ripping FLAC files at 0 compression. Thought about AIFF but the problem with Meta data lead me back to FLAC. I will see what happen as time passes. Thanks again for all the info and support.