Bytec;534102 Wrote: > Well there is no such thing as "more deeply encoded" in FLAC world. > > Encoding result is one approximation function regardless of encoding > level. The complexity of approximation function is quite stable across > encoding levels but not constant. > > (Higher FLAC encoding level simply means that encoder puts more effort > into finding better approximation function for the given signal.)
By "more deeply encoded" I meant that more time was spent finding a better approximation, thus reducing the size of the residual error that has to be Rice encoded and stored. It also means that there is less residual to be recovered via Rice decoding. However, the consequence is that the decode needs (slightly) more CPU to regenerate the original data from the more complex approximation function/algorithm that was selected. There is no such thing as a truly free lunch :-) If you follow the link below to the Flac Authors own reference website, you will find the proof of the fact that -8 takes 10% more cpu approx than -5 to decode. http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison_all_ratio.html -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/XP) - TACT 2.2X (Linear PSU) + Good Vibrations S/W - MF Triplethreat(Audiocom full mods) - Linn 5103 - Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Townsend Supertweeters, Blue Jeans Digital,Kimber Speaker & Chord Interconnect cables Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77080 _______________________________________________ Touch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch
