hello everybody. i was wondering what software is used to create these checksum files?
and also.. what settings to use to compress a lot? especially the sample packs!

 

WinRar can create the checksum as well.

Try .rar, .zip, .7z for compression and compare them. Think about cenvenience as well. People don't like having to install extra software because you used an obscure packing algorithm to compress it to save 5 mb of space.

 

i read the manual, but didn't find how to create those checsum .sfv files! i think they use an external program..

i like winrar.. what weird formats are you referring to? however you can also compress in .zip if you need to share files on the web etc..

 

when you add files to a new archive, it has an option to separate it on a determine number of archive with the same amount of space (on MB)

 

I used to just use the default setting with "best" compression.
When i first began to pay attention I found that most I downloaded were using rar4, & I figured that was for backwards compatibility.

I compared rar4 vs rar5, and rar5 seemed to compress a little better but i got different results depending on dictionary size.
I am not sure of the best way, but I settled to use rar5 & best compression.
I believe I have the other settings all default except that i increased the dictionary size to 1024 Meg (over 1 Gig) because I expect to have plenty of memory.
"Compression needs about 6 times more memory than dictionary size. Decompression takes slightly more memory than just 1 dictionary size."
So, with at least 6 Gig of memory it should not be a problem. Well these days at least 16 Gig is more common (even my old WinXP machine had 8 Gig).
---
I began to make solid archives of Kontakt libraries, as it is not often i would need to get any file from inside them.
" * WinRAR provides functionality for creating a 'solid' archive,
which can raise the compression ratio by 10% - 50% over more common
methods, particularly when packing large numbers of small files."

Winrar help says that it takes longer to extract individual items from solid archives & there is less chance of recovering a corrupted file, but I don't include recovery volumes anyway, and instead I mirror my archive drive to a second drive.
----
So, for big archives I make them solid, 1024 Meg dictionary size, best compression, store symbolic links & hard links "as LINKS", add 'quick open' information: for larger files ( i did not realizer i had that one selected, but that may be the default).

 

If you want better compression, LZMA often outperforms most common compression algorithms (winzip, winrar etc), you could also consider freearc which is comparable. 7-zip uses LZMA

 

thanks for all the compression tips! I always use rar5, better method and the dictionary at 1024 mb, I thought it could compress more! example:

 

Something I forgot... was finding R2R packages with compression ratios I could not match, no matter what settings I tried.
I wondered if they had somehow hacked Winrar to get better compression ratios.
I then also found a few 7zip files i could not match, so i am wondering ... must be some better ways, depending on the source files, or what?

 

Compression algorithms depend on the source, some work better than others. You could find the best algorithm, then use it for a different file and it sucks. It's a mix of trial and error, and experience.

I've seen 100GB compressed down to less than 30GB, but the decompression takes hours.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2021

As Haliax says, there's a lot of factors that matter in compression ratio.
For instance, when I download "no install" releases they are always 7zip files (the winrar self extracting exe's counterpart) with a huge compression ratio. But who knows how much time they take.
Considering you know quite a lot seeing your posts I wouldn't sweat it unless it's really important.

The only thing I'd add is about the solid compression. That one can do wonders when you compress many small files of the same format. The reason is that it treats all the archives as a big one containing all of them (think of it like compressing an iso file).
So you avoid the overhead of adding a lot of new files and treat them as one.

Also, for me has become indispensable a list of already compressed formats, like .flac files. Compressed file formats can't be compressed further even if the method is old and dated. Of course this includes .rar and .zip files. You tell Winrar which extensions are already compressed and it only "stores" them (like in the compression option). This boosts the speed a lot.

This is my list that includes Kontakt and Toontrack huge compressed sample formats:

Code:

*.gp7bank *.rar *.zip *.lzma *.tgz *.gz *.z *.tbz *.tbz2 *.bz *.bz2 *.7z *.mov *.mpeg *.mpg *.mkv *.avi *.flv *.mp4 *.m4v *.m4a *.mp3 *.flac *.swf *.aac *.ac3 *.ogg *.ogm *.jpeg *.jpg *.gif *.png *.jp2 *.pdf *.nkx *.nkc *.nks *.nxp *.f4v *.msi *.ncw *.xpak *.obw *.db *.bfdca *.n2v *.n2p *.n3v *.n3p *.cab *.msi *.esd *.wim *.vsix *.cab *.msi *.mshc *.klz

 

Nice! I am missing something though ..
I can't see a place to have Winrar only store those types.
Do I place the extension list in a setting someplace?

 

hy @Xupito in my example i compressed a folder of samples loopmasters .wav.. do you think it is a decent compression?

 

Open Winrar
Options menu->Settings
Compression Tab
Create default profile button
Files tab
"Files to store without compression" text input (the third at the

Damn, what a bunch of steps now that I realize. No wonder most people doesn't know about it.

I don't know, it depends of the kind of sounds. Usually 60% or lower is good compression. But it varies.

Finally, this is a nice Windows shell extension to compute or verify hashes:
https://github.com/gurnec/HashCheck/releases/latest

 

Here's some fancy nighttime reading: https://peazip.github.io/fast-compression-benchmark-brotli-zstandard.html

Note it is mainly about speed in regards to Zstd and Brotli, but in the last chapter you see comparisons to RAR/ZIP/7zip.

My settings are for archival: Format: RAR(5), 512MB dictionary size, Good compression, Solid archive, recovery record.

For "casual use" or sending files, then smaller dictionary size will do, recovery record (non-solid archive)

Also: encryption if it's going anywhere near a cloud drive.

*edit:* oh and for checksums if they're needed I use "sha256sum", though WinRAR can create blake2 hashes directly.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2021

Very interesting. My takeaway is that 7zip (LZMA2) still kicks Google and Facebook new compressions asses.
I guess brotli and zstandard are designed only for fast compression times.

 

Well they're not doing too bad on the compression amount, but I think the initial impulse for Brotli was designed to replace gzip compression in HTTP transfers, where you'd want a fast compression/decompression. Or other on-line compression effort.

But yeah, so far they're not close to RAR/7z efficiency for archiving.

 

OK Great!
I had a few profiles already set up for different compression types and formats, with & without passwords, so I will need to add this into each profile and resave them.

 

thanks for the information on compression.. hashcheck i was already using it, i didn't notice i could also create checksum files!

 

That makes a lot of sense. Sometimes one forgets that many web files are gzip compressed between the server and the browser. Or can be.