Comments on: RAR vs ZIP http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip Free Music Portal and Psytrance Netlabel - MP3, FLAC, and WAV Downloads Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:34:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Basilisk http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-17916 Basilisk Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:33:04 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-17916 Ektoplazm has been FLAC-friendly for a good six months now... thanks again to the discussion this topic provoked! Ektoplazm has been FLAC-friendly for a good six months now… thanks again to the discussion this topic provoked!

]]> By: murph http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-16523 murph Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:14:52 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-16523 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). 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).

]]> By: Darwin http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-16291 Darwin Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:35:58 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-16291 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. 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.

]]> By: Malevol3nt http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14802 Malevol3nt Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:51:58 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14802 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. 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.

]]> By: klapton http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14420 klapton Fri, 09 May 2008 03:55:01 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14420 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeroen http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14236 Jeroen Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:14:41 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14236 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 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

]]> By: Basilisk http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14133 Basilisk Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:47:19 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14133 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. 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.

]]> By: Rabbitfrog http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14022 Rabbitfrog Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:17:44 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14022 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. 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.

]]> By: Spirit http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14021 Spirit Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:25:52 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14021 Not to mention that 320kbps is bloat compared to v0: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Remarks Ridiculously large indeed. :p Not to mention that 320kbps is bloat compared to v0: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Remarks
Ridiculously large indeed. :p

]]> By: Alien http://www.ektoplazm.com/journal/rar-vs-zip#comment-14020 Alien Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:51:05 +0000 http://www.ektoplazm.com/blog/rar-vs-zip/#comment-14020 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. 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.

]]>