Author Topic: new names for File Converter presets  (Read 2699 times)

hiccup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7790
This had been discussed in the past, and I remember Steven agreeing he might want to improve on this some day:

Currently in the File Converter settings for flac, it presents options called 'file archiving' and 'portable use'.
Those terms may be well suited for lossy formats (well not really true also, since you wouldn't want to 'archive' using mp3), but for lossless they don't really cover it.

It should be clear that whatever setting you choose for flac, it is always going to be 'archival quality'
The general consensus on flac is that the -5 setting is optimal. There is really no sensible reason to change it, and any gain in smaller file sizes is almost negligible, but for those who do want to play around with it, the descriptions should be a little more to the point.

I would suggest having the option for 3 presets for flac.
Something like:

- optimal balance size/cpu (default)
- smaller size over higer cpu
- larger size over lower cpu

The wording might be improved on, but I believe the general idea makes sense.


For other formats, some improvements probably also could be made.
I don't know much about alac, but I understand there is a lossy implementation, which should never be called 'archival quality', but there is also lossless alac, which would deserve to be called 'archival'.
Maybe others can chip in with some thoughts on those?

Alumni

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Agreed, those descriptions could be more clear.
I would suggest making it even simpler;
- high quality/large filesize
- medium quality/average filesize
- low quality/small filesize

hiccup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7790
Thnx, but concerning flac, that goes exactly contrary to my point.
For flac, whatever setting you choose, there is no difference in quality.

Alumni

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1007
Thnx, but concerning flac, that goes exactly contrary to my point.
For flac, whatever setting you choose, there is no difference in quality.

Oh true, I was only referring to lossy codecs.

redwing

  • Guest
It is obvious the current portable/archival distinction was adopted for some formats mainly to be used with lossyWav option together in that compact space.
To me it's fine with FLAC as the wording mentions nothing about quality. My only suggestion is to change "0" to the default "5" for the FLAC file archiving setting as we should discourage people from using a compression level below 4 which will create a lot bigger files in almost the same encoding time.

BTW why is the mouse scrolling so slow in file converters setting section?
Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 10:46:32 AM by redwing

hiccup

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7790
To me it's fine with FLAC as the wording mentions nothing about quality.

For one flac preset currently the word 'Archival' is used. To less knowledgeable users that will surely suggest that the other presets are less in quality.
So what is the added value of using 'Archival' for flac presets?
Also since the exact same term is used for some lossy presets, where it most certainly is an indication of sound quality.

It's not the most important matter, but it is something Steven in the past agreed on that it might be improved on.
Considering 3.1 coming up, and some translations being finalized and improved on, this might be a good moment for it.