home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.netmbx.de!mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE!zappe
- From: zappe@mikro.ee.tu-berlin.de (Harald Zappe)
- Newsgroups: comp.compression
- Subject: Re: SQZ compression
- Date: 6 Nov 1992 01:01:31 GMT
- Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
- Lines: 29
- Distribution: comp
- Message-ID: <1dcg5bINNpc8@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
- References: <1992Nov2.133953.15692@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <3287@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mikro.ee.tu-berlin.de
-
- In <3287@accucx.cc.ruu.nl> nevries@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Nico E de Vries) writes:
-
- >In <1992Nov2.133953.15692@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> mmy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
-
- >>It seems that SQZ is able to compress slightly better than PKZIP 1.93 or ARJ
- >>2.30, does anyone know what kind of compression it uses? And how is it able to
- >>outperform PKZIP/ARJ in terms of compression ratio?
-
- >There are two "tricks" SQZ uses. First one is it takes more time to look
- >for matches. Second one is that its directory structure is smaller than
- >than of PKZIP and ARJ (e.g. no extra central directory). Beyond this
- >SQZ does not differ much from ARJ or PKZIP.
-
-
- Because of this you CAN get better results with ARJ. In the special case of
- MOD-files (header+song+div. samples) I knew that ARJ produced the best results
- with a Huffman Buffer Size of 3KB (arj option -jh3072). SQZ was worse than
- ARJ, but only in this special case.
-
- Harald
-
-
- #----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- zappe@mikro.ee.tu-berlin.de | |
- zappe@sony1.sietec.de |-+-
- zappe@idefix.sietec.de | |/
- /
- /__
-