| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 78349 | 2007-04-12 03:51:00 | WINRAR v WINZIP | SurferJoe46 (51) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 540348 | 2007-04-12 06:49:00 | Why has nobody mentioned 7zip? 7zip is pretty good too. |
Dannz (1668) | ||
| 540349 | 2007-04-12 06:51:00 | The compression achieved by a utility depends on the input file. What compression does is remove redundancy. Compressing a compresed file can have unpredictable results, including enlarging the file. (PKZip long ago ws capable of knowing that no compression could be achieved, and doing nothing except tagging the output file accordingly.) We went through all the "my favourite compression is better than yours" arguments in the late 1970s and early 80s. There were dozens available. Phil Karn's PKZip seems to have lasted better than most. It's a waste of time to argue about them and run tests on them. Any one will do, as long as a recipient has the capability of unpacking the file. That was the problem of the "new better" compressions ... finding the damn software to unpack a file. :) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 540350 | 2007-04-12 07:59:00 | Could it be from the high bitrate? I used 960 Kbps for that MP3. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 540351 | 2007-04-12 08:04:00 | And played for 15 seconds? | Graham L (2) | ||
| 540352 | 2007-04-12 11:42:00 | Whoa!!! That means WinRAR reduced that file by close to 284 times. Would also like to see a screenshot. | beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 540353 | 2007-04-12 12:42:00 | the amount you can compress varies.. you have to look at what you're compressing and some compressors can do better than others when compressing certain files eg. if you try to compress a big big mp3 or jpg you won't get far and probably won't vary way too much between different compressors but if you try to compress a big txt file then you can shrink it a lot or if you want to compress a file full with zero's then you're in luck~ if you don't believe me go download a 5kb file here that extracts to 6Gb pearpc.sourceforge.net get the blank disk images and extract and amaze yourselves... if i'm desperate to shrink a file down i try zip rar and 7zip and see which one wins :D normally it's a battle between rar and 7zip really but i find it weird how sometimes there can be a great difference in final filesize sometimes rar can compress more and sometimes 7zip can.. still haven't figured out a rule telling me which one to use when i'm faced with what files... |
heni72847 (1166) | ||
| 540354 | 2007-04-12 13:34:00 | WinRAR its superior and its a crime to suggest it isnt. WinRAR is by far the best compression utility on the market. I have actually seen i t compress a 700MB ISO to 2.47MB Yep, superior Amazing. Must have been a strange ISO file to compress that much... Anyways I like WinRAR best too, but WinUHA has better compression than both RAR and ZIP |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 540355 | 2007-04-12 23:51:00 | This debate seems to be more RAR vs. PKZIP formats rather than the utilities themselves. As already said by several others, MP3 files are already highly compressed using an audio-aware, lossy algorithm so they should not be compressed again - all you will do is add the overheads of the compression format. You will get different results for different types of workloads. You could try compressing files such as binary Word documents (not the newer XML), HTML files, or uncompressed WAV audio. Audio example (extremely compressible frog calls): Original WAV File: www.umesc.usgs.gov Original: 2500 KB PKZIP: 1993 KB GZIP: 1993 KB BZIP2: 1494 KB FLAC: 1020 KB (Lossless audio codec) MP3: 454 KB (lossy, bit rate 128 KB/s) OGG Vorbis: 250 KB (lossy, quality "4" - average bit rate 70 KB/s) FLAC is an audio codec which can perfectly reproduce the original audio (like the general compression formats do). Both MP3 and Vorbis actually discard information during compression and produce only an output that sounds the same to the human ear as the original, not the original audio itself. For both of the lossy codecs I was unable to hear the difference in sound quality. Vorbis is a more modern codec and produces a better audible quality for any given bit rate than MP3. I can't test RAR as I don't have a decent encoder. I would be interested to see other people's sizes for compressing this file. |
TGoddard (7263) | ||
| 540356 | 2007-04-13 00:07:00 | Just tried RAR and UHA with that same file (both on highest compression): RAR - 1404KB UHA - 1253KB As you can see, RAR is good but UHA is better. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||