Author Topic: FLAC profiles silly questionning  (Read 5957 times)

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5869
That would all be an improvement to the current wording in my opinion.
I can understand your hesitation about some users perhaps not understanding 'optimal'.
(while technically very defendable: optimal file size vs. cpu burden)

Not strongly against it, but choosing something like 'small file size' for the FLAC preset suggests there will be a noticeable difference with the optimal/common setting.
No. it really won't.
Just try it out yourself. Encode a wav to flac with both -5 and -8 settings and see what it brings.
I just did that on a 10 min. track:



That's why I suggested a bland sounding 'custom'. It will be hard to find another word that is actually making much sense here.

But I do understand we can't cover all bases here, so for me 'smaller file size', 'common' etc. could be acceptable options, or perhaps slightly better: 'Recommended'. (which it actually is, when you do a web search on any forum/website that has a good understanding of the matter)

As long it isn't going to be 'archival', 'portable', 'jazz', 'classical', 'vocal', you won't hear me again about this.
(haha, sorry, couldn't help myself)
Last Edit: March 10, 2017, 06:42:30 PM by hiccup

vincent kars

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
- small file size
- standard quality
- high quality
- maximum quality

The first is about file size, the rest about quality?
I suggest "Low quality" for the first one
"Medium" for the second (what the F*** is standard?)
Either talk quality or talk file size or talk both (if space allows for it but in case of interface design the answer is No most of the time)

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5869
I'm not sure this matter deserves getting so worked up about so it needs f words to make a point.

Yes, due to the vast amount of options and features, space is limited in some places.
But let's not assume users are stupid.
Why would a user choose the lowest (1) setting? Because (s)he wants a small file size. Not because (s)he wants the worst sound quality.
Why would a user select the highest (4) setting? Because (s)he wants the best sound quality. Not because (s)he wants the largest file size.
I think that human intention and expectation is more important here than plain logical correctness.
While you indeed could argue about a word as 'standard', I don't think any user will get confused about it.

hiccup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5869
Perhaps something like this (if space is indeed sparse for more some more complete descriptions):



Steven

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32737
i havent forgotten this but will put things on hold for a bit while i look at something else

Steven

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32737
for the next v3.1 update, i have changed the wording:
for lossy:
- small file size
- standard quality
- high quality
- maximum quality

for lossless:
- maximum compression
- standard compression

the actual values for the lossless encoders wont change unless you click Reset but will default correctly for new users.

http://musicbee.niblseed.com/V3_1/MusicBee31_Patched.zip
Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 05:31:43 PM by Steven