Re: FLAC 1.2.1b versus 1.3.0: file size differences at level -8 (best)?

Answering my own question:

> I thought this had been answered before, but cannot find confirmation:
> if I recall correctly there's hardly any advantage (if any) to
> re-encoding from 1.2.1b to 1.3.0 at the highest compression level
> (8/best), right?
>
The following post (and subsequent replies, obviously) seems to
indicate that I can just stick with 1.2.1b:
http://hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=101082&st=25&p=836245&#entry836245

Apologies for the waste of bandwidth,

Martin