Basilisk Posted July 6, 2008 Author Posted July 6, 2008 When compressing WAV files, RAR does a much better job than ZIP. With FLAC, I don't think there is much of a difference. It is sort of like compressing JPG files; they're already compressed so the space savings are negligible. Padmapani identifies what I feel is the main issue with RAR: it seldom enjoys native OS support, particularly on Apple computers. Quote
NEMO.BOFH Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 That is why I invested in buying WINRAR. And also, there is linux rar which you can get working for OSX as well. And yeah, ive been using RAR for many years, and have not seen any particular bugs, ive seen far more with ZIP files to be honest... But hey, Whatever you want to use, use it, I could not care less Quote
reger Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 They are compressed with different compression algorithms.well, doesnt make a difference between wav.rar and flac.zip. really. ORLY! Quote
frozen dream Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 i a i a oo and a waf waf here and a knurf knurf there old mac donald had a farm Quote
NEMO.BOFH Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 i a i a oo and a waf waf here and a knurf knurf there old mac donald had a farm since I have not told you in a while what an ass you are, I will do so right here right now You are such an ass. Quote
Malevol3nt Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 Why not just store everything in a 64kbyte executable, like the demo scene does Quote
Malevol3nt Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 Btw, for those of you not aware of the demo scene, here's something you should watch: http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=10999 Click on Download on the right, and double click the 64kbyte executable in the archive. No, it's not a virus, it's something quite extraordinary, just watch what happens. Quote
rino Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 FLAC/ZIP When I listen to music on my computer, I play compressed WAVs, that is, FLACs. I'll just skip the whole what is better and so forth discussion, as I cannot hear an eventual difference in sound quality, if there is one at all, with a healthy pair of ears. Quote
frozen dream Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 since I have not told you in a while what an ass you are, I will do so right here right now You are such an ass. :dirtywinkz: :taunt: *pokes nose, wipes it under the desk* Quote
reger Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 Perhaps not, I haven't dug deeper into that. But what you asked was what the difference was, and well, that is the difference. The data is being compressed in two different ways.It thus makes no difference to sound quality and compression ratio, not at least considerable efficiency, imo. Quote
NEMO.BOFH Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 Btw, for those of you not aware of the demo scene, here's something you should watch: http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=10999 Click on Download on the right, and double click the 64kbyte executable in the archive. No, it's not a virus, it's something quite extraordinary, just watch what happens. im deeply rooted in the demo scene, this one is a very good one imo The thing is, that these Demo musicians should get their music released, sometimes the tracks of the demos are better than any electronica out there Quote
Time_Trap Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 im deeply rooted in the demo scene, this one is a very good one imo The thing is, that these Demo musicians should get their music released, sometimes the tracks of the demos are better than any electronica out there indeed well not any electronica out there, that's exagerrated, but still Quote
sunwolf Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 FLAC. rar is better than zip if you have winrar. You don't need any compression when archiving compressed audio files (FLAC, mp3, etc). If anyone wants to trade rips PM me. Quote
sunwolf Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 That is why I invested in buying WINRAR.WinRAR is the easiest program to find a cracked version ever. Quote
karan129 Posted August 28, 2008 Posted August 28, 2008 If you have 2 lossless formats, isn't the only major difference between them the size? I mean each track takes up >50 MB so I'd say anything that can reduce the size would be best. There are plugins available for any format now. Ergo, APE/RAR. Quote
Mindbender Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 I voted WAV/RAR as the music goes straight on CDR and I have RAR softs. But I don't care about file size that much, so WAV/ZIP is really just as good from my point of view. Quote
frozen dream Posted September 3, 2008 Posted September 3, 2008 if you buy winrar wav/rar can save up to 55% of space, but nobody ever buys it :drama: henceforth all these abominative lossless audio codecs appeared Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.