RAR vs ZIP
Journal | March 26, 2008 | Updated: August 10, 2008 | Posted by Basilisk
I have recently heard of a few visitors experiencing difficulty with the RAR file format. Nearly every free release on this site is packaged using RAR, which offers superior compression when compared to the more popular ZIP file format. RAR is being used mainly to save on bandwidth–those lossless packages are significantly smaller when compressed with RAR. Of course, there isn’t nearly as strong a case for compressing MP3 packages with RAR; the space savings are negligible when compared to ZIP. As for ZIP compression–about the only thing going for it is that most computers already support it without any need to muck about with proprietary software (in this case, WinRAR or one of its equivalents).
Given that some people have begun to report trouble with dealing with RAR files, would it make sense to use ZIP for the MP3 packages and RAR for the lossless packages? One might assume that visitors downloading CD-quality audio are “power users” familiar with RAR compression. On the other hand, it seems a bit messy not to adopt a single compression standard and stick with it. What do you think?
This post will be updated whenever a decision is reached based on your feedback. In the meantime, the free music section and downloads chart has been updated with an explanatory blurb informing visitors how to decompress RAR packages. Hopefully this helps!
Update: you can read my response below. I think it makes sense to return to using the ZIP format for the MP3 packages since support is universal. There has also been a very good discussion about the use of FLAC in the comments. Thanks everyone! We’ll come back to this issue in the future.



Rated 86.05% 