IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
FLAC 1.1.4, smaller, faster, better
jcoalson
post May 2 2007, 16:24
Post #151


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



QUOTE
ston3y[=' date='Apr 30 2007, 15:57' post='489198']
QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 30 2007, 22:08) *
are you saying that if you metaflac --import-picture-from several large pictures, that it will rewrite the file for each picture addition? it's written to only rewrite the file once after all ops have been processed.
No, I meant that to avoid such long command lines I would like to add every image separately (in a batch file) - after adding sufficient padding first. But even with several times the amount of padding needed (e.g. after adding it while encoding with flac.exe - which seems to allow bigger paddings) metaflac still rewrites the file even when there is more than enough padding left.

there are corner cases where this can happen, e.g. where the padding block would have to be shrunk below the minimum block size (4 bytes). to really tell what's going on I would have to see the 'metaflac --list' output before and after.

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
=]ston3y[=
post May 2 2007, 20:32
Post #152





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9750



QUOTE (jcoalson @ May 2 2007, 17:24) *
there are corner cases where this can happen, e.g. where the padding block would have to be shrunk below the minimum block size (4 bytes). to really tell what's going on I would have to see the 'metaflac --list' output before and after.

Josh

No problem - but the text files with the output are quite big, so I compressed them with 7-zip.
I will send you a PM with the link as soon as the upload is complete.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
=]ston3y[=
post May 5 2007, 13:09
Post #153





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9750



It's interesting that after adding over 33 MB of padding (with flac.exe) "metaflac --list" shows no padding block at all, although the padding obviously wasn't used entirely (judging by the increase in size when embedding the images with metaflac). Also when examining the flac file with an hex editor there are still about 32 megabytes of zeros in the flac file...

When filtering seektable and picture blocks (metaflac --list --except-block-type=SEEKTABLE,PICTURE) the list output gets quite short:

CODE
METADATA block #0
  type: 0 (STREAMINFO)
  is last: false
  length: 34
  minimum blocksize: 4096 samples
  maximum blocksize: 4096 samples
  minimum framesize: 0 bytes
  maximum framesize: 0 bytes
  sample_rate: 44100 Hz
  channels: 2
  bits-per-sample: 16
  total samples: 126655200
  MD5 signature: 00000000000000000000000000000000
METADATA block #2
  type: 4 (VORBIS_COMMENT)
  is last: false
  length: 40
  vendor string: reference libFLAC 1.1.4 20070213
  comments: 0


Since the streaminfo block looked the same before embedding the pictures, it seems to me that flac.exe already screwed up this file when creating it with this large padding. Here the output after encoding without extra padding:

CODE
METADATA block #0
  type: 0 (STREAMINFO)
  is last: false
  length: 34
  minimum blocksize: 4096 samples
  maximum blocksize: 4096 samples
  minimum framesize: 1326 bytes
  maximum framesize: 13798 bytes
  sample_rate: 44100 Hz
  channels: 2
  bits-per-sample: 16
  total samples: 126655200
  MD5 signature: 8ed6a82d92937bab05a3e693ccedfc1f
METADATA block #2
  type: 4 (VORBIS_COMMENT)
  is last: false
  length: 40
  vendor string: reference libFLAC 1.1.4 20070213
  comments: 0
METADATA block #3
  type: 1 (PADDING)
  is last: true
  length: 65536
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post May 8 2007, 21:54
Post #154


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



QUOTE (agentk7 @ Apr 30 2007, 17:21) *
On a different note, the author of the Windows FLAC Tester program, would he allow that program to be included with the Windows installer? I have found that to be a great tool to test my flacs after I back them up to a different drive, etc.

yes, I added it to the latest installer (flac-1.1.4b.exe)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
=]ston3y[=
post May 10 2007, 22:16
Post #155





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9750



I just tried the new installer flac-1.1.4b.exe out of curiosity (actually I already had 1.1.4 anyway) and it worked just fine. Except: When you had flac installed previously it uninstalles the old version and deletes the complete folder along with all files in it. Even if those files where not created during the last installation of flac. huh.gif


There were several rather extensive batch scripts I'm just working on in this folder... crying.gif


...but fortunately I made a backup right before starting the new (un)installer. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post May 11 2007, 00:31
Post #156


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



that is a property of mike's old uninstalller I think. the new one I wrote only deletes files that it installed and only removes the c:\program files\FLAC (or whatever) dir if it is empty.

so from now on it will be safer that way.

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
=]ston3y[=
post May 14 2007, 21:57
Post #157





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 9-November 03
Member No.: 9750



QUOTE (jcoalson @ May 11 2007, 01:31) *
the new one I wrote only deletes files that it installed and only removes the c:\program files\FLAC (or whatever) dir if it is empty.

Great, that's much better! Will try it as soon as 1.1.5 is ready. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sina
post May 26 2007, 03:06
Post #158





Group: Banned
Posts: 43
Joined: 19-May 07
Member No.: 43603



Good work.
But very slow encoding speed. mellow.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post May 26 2007, 11:13
Post #159





Group: Members
Posts: 1797
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



Can you define "very slow" ???

Especifically in the context of one of the fast lossless encoders. ( http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison , and note that the speed of FLAC has improved since that table)

This post has been edited by [JAZ]: May 26 2007, 11:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sina
post May 26 2007, 12:35
Post #160





Group: Banned
Posts: 43
Joined: 19-May 07
Member No.: 43603



FLAC Setting: Preset 8


WavPack Setting: V high with Max comp mode:



The True Audio:
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post May 26 2007, 12:51
Post #161





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



@Sina
You should check out this sites:
Synthetic Soul lossless comparison
FLAC comparison


FLAC -0 is one of the (if not the) fastest loosless encoders!

This post has been edited by gottkaiser: May 26 2007, 12:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2014 - 22:54