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.
Subscribe By Email
RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
I vote for .rar, I haven’t expirienced any problem with your releases so far, however, .zip also isn’t problem, because the difference is so small, that probably it would be better to make releases more available to anyone..
huh, good luck anyway!
The sole usage of archives for music distribution is to bundle the files into one. The compression is done on the music files one step earlier. So use no compression at all when putting the files into an archives. Otherwise extracting (creating too of course) takes much longer.
Maybe if you are using uncompressed WAV files you can actually safe some megabytes, but (in my opinion) there is no reason for distributing WAV files. There is FLAC and FLAC is compressed.
Here are some reallife examples:
FLAC: 392.4 Megabytes
FLAC in a stored RAR: 392.4 Megabytes
FLAC in a maximum compressed RAR: 393.4 Megabytes (no joke)
FLAC in a stored ZIP: 392.4 Megabytes
FLAC in a maximum compressed ZIP: 392.3 Megabytes
And some random MP3s (APS/V2):
MP3: 94.6 Megabytes
MP3 in a stored RAR: 94.6 Megabytes
MP3 in a maximum compressed RAR: 94.3 Megabytes
MP3 in a stored ZIP: 94.6 Megabytes
MP3 in a maximum compressed ZIP: 94.3 Megabytes
As you can see the compression of the archiver does no good, instead it makes the un-/archiving process last longer (in case of RAR *much* longer).
So, use ZIP and “store”. I am using “zip -0 -r file.zip folder/” for that, maybe you are using a shell too. :)
winRAR w00t :D
Spirit, I agree with you that there is no need for RAR compression when using FLAC. The problem is that FLAC is probably even less supported than RAR is! Deciding what to do in this case is a matter of balancing compression needs with what people are already familiar with… and I think RAR wins out in this regard, but I do welcome further commentary on the option of using FLAC for lossless packages.
While I think you are being very considerate, it seems to be more logical to stick to RAR.
Well, i had no problems with RAR or other archive formats, and what comes to RAR vs ZIP, there are pros for both.
I’ve just tested compression of a single 98 mb WAV:
—————
RAR: 73 mb
ZIP: 96 mb
FLAC: 67 mb
APE: 65 mb
—————
So RAR sure helps to save bandwidth, but FLAC 8 or APE compression is even more powerful.
With ZIP compression, there’s an option to download a single file from the archive, or some files of choice, not the whole ZIP: some download managers like Download Master and software like LoadScout offer this option.
As for me, i’d like to see lossless releases in ZIP, to download just the tracks i really need, usually after listening to MP3 version of a whole release.
It seems to me that optimal in terms of bandwidth and usability to deliver FLAC->ZIP archives, and some info for users not familiar with FLAC and/or partial ZIP downloads will help balance things.
I’ve had no trouble with any of the distributions. Ended up getting 7-Zip at some point in time, handy utility.
If you want to make things dumbnessproof, what about making a selfextracting rar/zip for the noobs and rar for freaks?
Hi. I am very saticeficed with things the way they are. I download all of your waw`s, and some mp3`s. No problems here.. Thanks for all :¤)
Ah, somehow I managed to overread and totally forget that you are distributing WAV files. :)
Well, I have written my thoughts about already. FLAC is so much superior to WAV.
For me the ability to use tags alone would be enough to choose it. WAV has no “right to exist” in the web. People should learn about FLAC instead. It is free and great. Plus good portable mediaplayers support it. The official “What is FLAC” text is nice: http://flac.sourceforge.net/features.html
It is sad enough that the people don’t acknowledge Ogg Vorbis’ superiority to MP3. :(
perfectly happy with the current set up :)
I vote for .rar, I haven’t experienced any problems with your releases so far.
it is a more advanced type of compression software and if its good for the
lossless recording its got to be great for the .mp3.
I’m happy either way, whatever is good for you – excellent web site by the
way, brill music.
Rar is fine.
As for FLAC: I couldn’t care less, FLAC files ar so big that they could be WAV just the same. I don’t like files that ridiculously large. 320kbps Mp3 in a RAR is fine for me. And even for DJ’s I believe 320kbps is so near to WAV quality that there’s no problem in playing them live.
So if you really want to save bandwith (which seems important because we all love Ektoplazm): ditch the FLACs, or the WAV’s, or both, but I have a feeling a lot of people will disagree with me.
I’d be the first to disagree.
First, as you can see from my comment, FLAC 8 cjmpression ratio is close to 30%.
As for DJing, mp3 aren’t good enough, so i’m always looking for lossless tracks.
Not to mention that 320kbps is bloat compared to v0: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Remarks
Ridiculously large indeed. :p
Basilisk, you say that nearly every free release is packaged using RAR, I just flipped through the free music section and I’d have to say that the majority of the MP3 releases are in ZIP actually. Currently when you click on free music, pages 1 and 2 have at least one MP3 release in ZIP. And starting from page 3 95% or so releases are in ZIP. So if you were to settle on one format and wanted to change others you’d spend a lot more time changing ZIP releases into RAR then the other way around. So if you are asking for an opinion based on the information provided ( that for any MP3 release the difference in ZIP size and RAR size is negligible ) I’d vote for sticking with ZIP for MP3s because it’s more accessible.
But for lossless I’d have to say the smaller the better, the WAV is a huge file so RAR is a much more rational choice and it so has been. If everyone is ok with FLAC I’d go with that as well.
Thank you, everyone, for all your input! At this time I will return to using ZIP format for MP3 packages as support is nearly universal. I plan to continue using RAR to compress the lossless packages. This ensures a good balance between ease of use and file size. I figure that anyone wanting access to CD-quality audio should be able to figure out what to do with a RAR file (if they don’t already know). FLAC is an interesting alternative and I appreciate the benefits it offers but I am not sure it is time to try it out just yet.
Go for 7zip (.7z).
It is an open standard, open source implementations are available, its highly portable, and its producing higher compression (with less CPU time) than RAR or ZIP. It falls in your philosophy because its free whereas WinRAR is shareware. Archive.org uses it too. ZIP doesn’t allow good compression (“Compression ratio results are very dependent upon the data used for the tests. Usually, 7-Zip compresses to 7z format 30-70% better than to zip format. And 7-Zip compresses to zip format 2-10% better than most of other zip compatible programs”), and RAR is a closed / undocumented format (Although unpacking usually works…).
See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z the Windows version is available on http://www.7-zip.org
I prefer FLAC over RAR/WAV simply for the fact that, like mp3 files, FLAC supports tags where WAV doesn’t. FLAC may be daunting to the uninitiated at first, but a short FAQ should be sufficient to lead them in the right direction to add support to their platform. For example, I’m on Mac OS X so I had to install XiphQT and Set OggS in order to get iTunes to read my FLAC files. But installing that once is far easier than manually typing in artist and track names after importing WAV files. FLAC should be a no-brainer for Linux users. On Windows, Winamp already supports FLAC and Windows Media Player will play the files after installing a filter driver. Those who can’t wrap their head around loading a program or two should just stick with mp3.
A good feature would be to put a playlist file in all those zip’s / rar’s. I like to just double click & listen to the whole album. Makes it even easier to preview in archives as double clicking a playlist file automatically exports all the tracks from the zip/rar into a temporary folder and your player can start playing the music without all the hassle of finding the music in the download directory etc, and, If you don’t really like the music, you don’t have to worry about deleting the tracks, as it’s only stored in a temporary folder.
It’s a non-existant problem. There will always be people who have difficulties with .rar just as others have difficulties with .zip, and others still, with using computers. Some even coordinating the mental and physical effort required to go through a door or cross a street.
My point: stick to RAR and let the basic laws of Darwin, which are the true and only laws, follow their proper course. We don’t want to end up with a genetic poll that points out to a two-digit IQ population.
I agree with what Jeroen has said, I have used 7 zip on every file on this site and have had no problems on any of them. P.S. Sorry for late reply, (Great Site love it thanks).
Ektoplazm has been FLAC-friendly for a good six months now… thanks again to the discussion this topic provoked!