Comment by HakanAbbas
2 years ago
The compression rate in audio compression is really limited. In most cases it is difficult to decrease below 50 percent.
Therefore, it is not a logical choice to increase the process rate in order to provide a few percent more compression between audio codecs. As a result, high processing times are high energy.
>Therefore, it is not a logical choice to increase the process rate in order to provide a few percent more compression between audio codecs.
Why not? And for what applications? Example: for a media streaming service, where each file is transferred many times, the bandwidth costs dominate, so it is worthwhile to spend a great deal of time on encoding to maximize efficiency. In the case of an archive, where a large amount of information is stored, accessed infrequently, storage space becomes the constraint, once again. In general, 1 marginal second of CPU time is usually cheaper than 10Mib of marginal storage (or whatever the figure works out to be). Finally, why not just write a fast FLAC encoder?
The only reason Flac is the most popular sound code is that both compression and code -solving is faster than others. The same applies to many formats such as JPEG, MP4, MP3, Rar, Zstandart. What is fast is always advantageous and is a reason for preference. Even if they are not free. As you mentioned, of course, it does not apply to every situation.
Flac is already existing. There are also a lot of workers on it. I always want to try independent and different things.