m1abrams wrote: > -8 is not a little slower than -5, it is significantly slower. But the > size difference between -8 and -5 is on avg. less than 1%.
Have you tested it recently? I did. I tested with Rock And Roll from Led Zep 4 (3:40 long) To summarise (full output below): flac -5 4.25 seconds flac -8 6.75 seconds So, yes, flac -8 takes approx 50% longer, but it's still pretty damn fast - much faster than ripping. BTW, processor is: model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz cpu MHz : 2393.998 cache size : 32 KB bogomips : 5988.09 R. Full output: [r...@boom tmp]# time flac -5ef 02\ -\ Rock\ And\ Roll.wav flac 1.2.1, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details. 02 - Rock And Roll.wav: wrote 28689649 bytes, ratio=0.737 real 0m4.244s user 0m4.048s sys 0m0.160s [r...@boom tmp]# time flac -8ef 02\ -\ Rock\ And\ Roll.wav flac 1.2.1, Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Josh Coalson flac comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Type `flac' for details. 02 - Rock And Roll.wav: wrote 28602210 bytes, ratio=0.735 real 0m6.750s user 0m6.564s sys 0m0.124s _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
