IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
A multicore FLAC encoder
Glenda
post Jan 22 2011, 03:40
Post #101





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 27-November 07
Member No.: 49067



QUOTE (GeorgeFP @ Jan 18 2011, 06:47) *
If you haven't installed the Visual C++ redistributables yet, you can download them here. They are required.



Duh, I missed that part. Running like a dream now, compresses so fast all I see is a flicker of the fpFlac.

Thankyou
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seanyseansean
post Jan 22 2011, 13:41
Post #102





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 487
Joined: 12-August 02
From: Cheltenham, UK
Member No.: 3029



I've just noticed this. Good work smile.gif

1 question though - is it still subject to the same bug as in the Windows version of FLAC - i.e. is it limited to files of around 2GB due to the libraries used?

Reason I ask is because I try to merge all my multi-disc titles into 1 file, with the standard Windows FLAC I have to split them into around 2/3 disc files.

Thanks again!

p.s. the bug I am on about is referenced here:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=483172
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jan 22 2011, 13:55
Post #103





Group: Developer
Posts: 3731
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
is it limited to files of around 2GB due to the libraries used?


1. from the very 1st post:
QUOTE
- Win64 version: The total WAV file size sum must not exceed 400GiB.


2. take a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=725304
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
seanyseansean
post Jan 22 2011, 14:10
Post #104





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 487
Joined: 12-August 02
From: Cheltenham, UK
Member No.: 3029



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jan 22 2011, 13:55) *
QUOTE
is it limited to files of around 2GB due to the libraries used?


1. from the very 1st post:
QUOTE
- Win64 version: The total WAV file size sum must not exceed 400GiB.


2. take a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=725304


Can't believe I missed that text in the FP, thanks, but double thanks for the Case version of the original FLAC encoder. You've just saved me a lot of grief and time smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeorgeFP
post Jan 22 2011, 15:03
Post #105





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 2-August 09
Member No.: 71959



QUOTE (seanyseansean @ Jan 22 2011, 13:41) *
1 question though - is it still subject to the same bug as in the Windows version of FLAC - i.e. is it limited to files of around 2GB due to the libraries used?

The max supported file size of 4GB is limited by the WAVE format which is the only supported format in fpFLAC right now. Internally, fpFLAC is able to process files up to 500GB.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeorgeFP
post Jan 22 2011, 15:11
Post #106





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 2-August 09
Member No.: 71959



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Jan 22 2011, 13:55) *
QUOTE
is it limited to files of around 2GB due to the libraries used?


1. from the very 1st post:
QUOTE
- Win64 version: The total WAV file size sum must not exceed 400GiB.



Did I say 400GiB, not 500? rolleyes.gif
I haven't calculated the exact value but this limit is not because of the WAV format. It comes from the internal memory handling (max process virtual memory (2TiB) / number of memory buffers (4 or 5)) .
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vaako
post Sep 20 2012, 00:53
Post #107





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68707



if I use this command line options
CODE
-8 -f %s %d
and if I do the "Test encoder" or like to Save the settings I receive an error message: Invalid replacement tag found!

What would be a correct command line?

This post has been edited by Vaako: Sep 20 2012, 01:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vaako
post Sep 20 2012, 01:28
Post #108





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68707



QUOTE (GeorgeFP @ Dec 26 2009, 21:18) *
BTW, I've decided to add some missing command-line options into fpFLAC (-b, -m, -M, -e, -A, -l, -p, -q, -r and --replay-gain).


Can you list the total command-line options and it's intentions of fpFLAC?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Sep 20 2012, 04:09
Post #109





Group: Developer
Posts: 3731
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (Vaako @ Sep 20 2012, 03:53) *
if I use this command line options
CODE
-8 -f %s %d
and if I do the "Test encoder" or like to Save the settings I receive an error message: Invalid replacement tag found!

What would be a correct command line?


It's a EAC related question.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeorgeFP
post Sep 20 2012, 19:18
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 2-August 09
Member No.: 71959



QUOTE (Vaako @ Sep 20 2012, 02:28) *
Can you list the total command-line options and it's intentions of fpFLAC?


Just call fpFLAC.exe in the command line to see the options.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wildstoo
post Jan 20 2013, 00:00
Post #111





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 19-January 13
Member No.: 106019



Is it normal that fpFLAC creates files with different sizes than standard FLAC with the same compression setting? I'm a noob so feel free to educate me tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Glenda
post Oct 12 2013, 10:40
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 27-November 07
Member No.: 49067



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Sep 19 2012, 23:09) *
QUOTE (Vaako @ Sep 20 2012, 03:53) *
if I use this command line options
CODE
-8 -f %s %d
and if I do the "Test encoder" or like to Save the settings I receive an error message: Invalid replacement tag found!

What would be a correct command line?


It's a EAC related question.



EAC question or not fpflac.exe many of us can't get fpflac to work with the latest EAC. Something to do with the way EAC is handing filenames as far as I can tell. Anyone have a command line that works ?

This post has been edited by Glenda: Oct 12 2013, 10:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Isabelxxx
post May 14 2015, 21:25
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 23-March 15
Member No.: 118983



I suposse this one is dead but... this is a copy of the post I put in the cuda encoder.

QUOTE
Hi Gregory, have been following yours and the fpflac implementation and noted there is one important missing feature (at least for me): the --test option.

Checking an existing flac file like you do with -v option but without the wav requirement and no output, just verifying if the calculated MD5 matches the stored signature.
I suppose in your implementation the idea would be a bit different than the work you have been done up to now since the point is not checking if the output matches the input with your new gpu encoding but making use of the GPU to calculate faster the MD5 hash, independent of the flac "enconding".

Just with that and a batch file you would make an entire 3TB audio database verification a matter of minutes instead of hours.


Gregory said the GPU would not be very good for that task so any possibility to make add it to the multicore enconder?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
slks
post May 16 2015, 04:50
Post #114





Group: Members
Posts: 454
Joined: 31-March 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 29046



Is there any advantage to a multicore encoder versus starting a separate encoder on each core (like foobar's converter?)

My experience with multicore encoders (not this particular one) has been that they keep my four cores at 60 or 75% usage, whereas simply starting four single threaded encoders will keep each core 100% utilized.


--------------------
http://last.fm/user/sls
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Isabelxxx
post May 16 2015, 18:40
Post #115





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 23-March 15
Member No.: 118983



?
The approach is totally different, not sure what are you asking.

A multicore encoder takes 1 file and use X cores in the process.
A multi-instance encoder takes X files and uses X cores.

Both have their advantages and limitations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
slks
post Jun 5 2015, 10:47
Post #116





Group: Members
Posts: 454
Joined: 31-March 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 29046



I know the approach is different. What I'm asking is what's the advantage?


--------------------
http://last.fm/user/sls
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 5 2015, 15:50
Post #117





Group: Members
Posts: 5578
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (slks @ Jun 5 2015, 05:47) *
I know the approach is different. What I'm asking is what's the advantage?


Multiple instances is obviously faster if you have multiple tracks, but I guess doesn't help you at all if you only have one track.

Probably the best approach would be to cut an input into multiple tracks, encode them in parallel and then stitch them together.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
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: 5th September 2015 - 05:22