JJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:24 PM > Subject: Re: [slim] SqueezeBox 2, Slimserver 6 and FLAC question > > > Rats. And here I've spent 2 months working on cuesheet parsing routines > > so as > > to better tag whole-disc flacs. Now, it really does seem that there is > > an > > advantage to single-track flac rips. Eh. > > What's the advantage other than slightly lower server load? > > Is there any control over the level of compression to be used in this > transcoding? There's obviously a tradeoff between CPU load used to > transcode and the bandwidth used to stream the flac, so it seems there > should be a means of letting the user determine the level and perhaps > trade CPU cycles for lowered bandwidth. >
Actually, what they've done (transcoding to compression level 0) should minimize the CPU load (as long as this transcoding has to be done anyway.) Plus, the increased bandwidth needed for level 0 (lowest) compression is pretty minimal: A typical whole-disc flac file compressed at level 5 (the FLAC default) weighs in at 282,029 kb, and the level 0 version weighs in at 291,138 kb. That's an increase of, what? 3% or so? Doesn't seem like a big deal. I can't imagine ever wanting to exercise the CPU more just to see a 3% drop in bandwidth usage. But in terms of control over the process, you could try editing the appropriate line in convert.conf and see what happens. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
