what about time taken for that file
have you checked that file
currently i am compressing a 70 mb audio file, which will take about 1 hr to complete (using paq7, maximum compression level and highest priority), current ratio is 93.5%
using winrar i compressed that file with 95% ratio, saving only 5% data
I would use it as the last resort, not as a storage solution.
Like Pyree wrote, compressing compressed files will not result in great compression.
Don't use it as effective solution. Its good for data that are not meant to open anytime soon. U will hate me later, because it takes the time to re-compress the data as well.
Also don't compress your data and burn them to DVD.
If u will have small scratch, u may never open the archive again. But, I think u know that.
Audio, video and picture files are compressed already (like aac, h.264, jpeg). They will not give you significant size reduction when compressed and sometimes even gets a tiny bit bigger.
i know that
i canceled that audio compression(final reading 93.5%)
i tried it on exe,txt,bmp files and got around 30% more compression than winrar
i will not hate you anyway
i am just giving it a try, it takes too much time then other compressors, it is better than other at compression ratio but take too.......much time
for storage and time saving i will prefer 7-zip and winrar
KGB is known to do that type of compression. But there are issues that on high compression the files somehow get corrupted. So after extraction the files turn out bad. It is a hit and a miss thing. If you are unlucky the files may go bad!
Most popular is of course WinRAR and WinZip. 7-Zip as mentioned is also good. Have KGB as for serious requirements.
kgb is using paq algorithm and peazip also offer paq algorithm so peazip can be the replacement for kgb(on high compression the files somehow get corrupted stated by hell_storm2004)
also peazip contains many other compressors
which is best compressor in terms of:
2.compressing speed at high compression
1. PAQ is the best, it won many awards.
PeaZip features latest PAQ versions, while KGB Archiver and RK Archiver uses older versions of PAQ.
Anyway, this point is not really relevant if you are going to compress multimedia, as it is already compressed with lossy protocols, specialized in getting better compression/quality ratio for that type of file.
2. Speed and compression ratio are two opposite goals.
It is not much a matter of compressor, even if an implementation may be more efficient than another, but mainly of what compression format you will use.
On most benchmarks most efficient compression at "usable" speed is with .7z, .arc and (only for some file types) .rar and .zipx.
But if you are going to work on an huge backup, you may find .zip speed/compression is more reasonable, while working on small files you may also spend some more times for .7z at highest compression settings, or even .paq.
3. As for point two, generally speaking speed does not cope well with high compression
Anyway amongst strong compressors .zipx generally seems the most inefficient as for decompression speed while .7z and .rar behaves well, see i.e. this benchmark http://www.peazip.org/peazip-benchmark-3.html
4. It depends on what features you are searching for, most common formats has built-in support for encryption, while only .rar and .arc supports recovery records.
It should not be confused with feature set offered by compressor software itself, i.e. number of supported formats, routines to convert archives, or to save backup scripts, a good file manager etc.
In my opinion PAQ8 (all types) and Kgb archiver are the best compressors but take a stupid amount of time, for more reasonable compression and speed you have freeArc, UHARC, WinRK, If you are looking for speed try 7-zip or winrar. and ofcourse the comp. ratio depends on the file type. i compressed 1.6GB to 1.01 and 4.5GB to 400MB!!