Сайт о сжатии >> ARCTEST
Сравнительные тесты Альтернативные тесты
Русский текст
Английский текст
Исходники
WinWord-файл
Excel-файл
EXE-файл
Новые тесты
|
|
Сжатие изображений без потерь
|
|
Архив новостей
|
|
Архив рассылки
|
|
Файл-менеджеры
Арх.-модули для FAR
Арх.-модули для Win. Commander
|
|
Статьи, интервью
Теория, алгоритмы
Self-описания архиваторов
FAQ
Разное
|
|
Архиваторные
COM/EXE/DLL-пакеров
|
|
О программе
Новости свежих версий
Архив новостей
|
Подписка на рассылку новостей
Архиваторные опросы
Об авторе
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Сайт о сжатии >>
Новинки |
О сервере
(Compression Catalog! |
ENGLISH)
Книга "Методы сжатия данных" >> Без потерь | Изображений | Видео Разделы >> Cтатьи | Видео | Arctest | Ссылки | Ru.compress | Форум Проекты >> Д.Ватолина | А.Ратушняка | М.Смирнова | В.Юкина | Е.Шелвина | Д.Шкарина |
||
 |
||
SFArk
sfArk compresses SoundFont files for the purpose of saving disk space and transmission time when sent via email or other form of file transfer such as downloading from a web site. The compression is lossless - the audio quality of the SoundFont is preserved. This is different to the compression used in formats such as MP3 or Real Audio which provide much higher compression ratios but sound quality is lost.
sfArk compressed files are generally between 45% and 80% of the original file size, depending on the nature of the SoundFont file. The compression is invariably much better than can be achieved by conventional compression tools such as WinZip on the same material because sfArk's compression is optimised for handling the digital audio data present in SoundFont files. sfArk is a true 32-bit Windows application.
Comparison of sfArk to other compression programs:
SoundFont files contain digital audio data which is relatively difficult to compress to any great extent. Nonetheless, sfArk achieves significantly better compression than other popular compression utilities such as
WinZip and WinRAR. The compression speed of sfArk is generally about the same as
WinZip and WinRAR in their maximum compression modes. We also feel that sfArk is significantly quicker and easier to use than those programs (though in fairness, they are general-purpose whereas sfArk is optimised for a specific purpose).
As a general rule, compression will be better on SoundFonts containing relatively simple sounds with less high-frequency content. With both grandpno.sf2 and flute.sf2above sfArk yielded a compression factor (output/input) of around 50%, i.e. half the original size, whereas with more complex sounds the compression ratio may be only 60-70% or even 80% in some cases. Conversely, we've seen ratios of between 30% and 40% in the case of some simple synth and guitar sounds.
Сайт о сжатии
>>
ARCTEST
>>
Сравнительные тесты
|
Альтернативные тесты
|
Графические тесты
|
Новости
|
Утилиты
|
Файл'менеджеры
|
Описания
|
Линки
|
Necromancer's DN
|
Поддержка
|
|
Сайт о сжатии >>
Новинки | О сервере | Статистика
Книга "Методы сжатия данных" >>
Универсальные | Изображений | Видео
Разделы >> Download (статьи+исходники) | Ссылки | Ru.compress | Arctest | Видео | Каталог ссылок | Форум
Проекты >> Д.Ватолина | А.Ратушняка | М.Смирнова | В.Юкина | Е.Шелвина | А.Филинского | Д.Шкарина | С.Оснача
