IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Recommend me a lossless codec—looking for a nice compression–to–speed
Dario
post Jan 26 2012, 00:15
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 20-September 11
Member No.: 93842



Howdy, people from Hydrogenaudio

As per the topic's title, I am looking for a lossless codec that offers a nice compression (something around Monkey's Audio's High) along with a nice encoding/decoding speed (I am more concerned about the decoding). I initially stumbled upon TAK, which had everything I could ask for, but much to my demise, I found out that the playback of TAK is rather buggy—the official Winamp plug-in does not work well with 24/96 files (even though the TAK format supports high resolutions). Furthermore, I would ideally want the codec to be stable.

I would be very grateful to anyone who helps.

PS: Before mentioning FLAC, I have to say that I am dissatisfied with the compression it offers, as my storage space is pretty limited (and won't be improving until this summer at earliest).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Jan 26 2012, 00:40
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



FLAC and TAK are within 2% of each other.......

FLAC vs TAK
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Jan 26 2012, 00:43
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



If decoding speed is an issue you apparently aren't using a desktop or tethered laptop for playback, so at the minimum you've left out one important piece of information. More details needed - you've made an unusual request and don't appear to have adequately explained what your constraints are.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dario
post Jan 26 2012, 00:50
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 20-September 11
Member No.: 93842



QUOTE (Ouroboros @ Jan 26 2012, 00:40) *
FLAC and TAK are within 2% of each other.......

FLAC vs TAK

That test was made with TAK 2.0.0, the later versions (2.1.0 and 2.2.0) improved both compression and speed by a nice amount. As a matter of fact, TAK offers a much nicer compression than FLAC—even higher than Monkey's Audio's High (albeit by a tiny bit) on most of the albums I had ripped.

QUOTE (Soap @ Jan 26 2012, 00:43) *
If decoding speed is an issue you apparently aren't using a desktop or tethered laptop for playback, so at the minimum you've left out one important piece of information. More details needed - you've made an unusual request and don't appear to have adequately explained what your constraints are.

I am using a desktop, but it's pretty old (Pentium D @ 3 GHz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM), so decoding and playing back a file compressed with Monkey's Audio's Very High (or something similar) is a—pardon my language—pain in the ass.

I remember trying WavPack with the -x 6 switch, but the encoding took way too much time.

This post has been edited by Dario: Jan 26 2012, 00:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ouroboros
post Jan 26 2012, 01:24
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 291
Joined: 30-May 08
From: UK
Member No.: 53927



TAK 2.2.0 vs FLAC

Between 1 and 4%......
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dario
post Jan 26 2012, 01:37
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 20-September 11
Member No.: 93842



3–4% is quite a nice amount, at least in my eyes. I really don't know what's wrong with the decoding library, but 24/96 rips (from vinyl) showed incorrect duration and sampling rate. Well, even the author himself stated in the readme:

QUOTE
Because of my very old sound card, i could not test 24-bit playback. Futhermore: Some visualization plugins don't support 24-bit data. It has to be converted to 16 bit before sending it to those plugins. This has not been implemented yet! It's very easy to do, but i don't want to include code, which i am not able to test. I will soon buy a better soundcard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Jan 26 2012, 02:30
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (Dario @ Jan 25 2012, 18:50) *
I am using a desktop, but it's pretty old (Pentium D @ 3 GHz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM), so decoding and playing back a file compressed with Monkey's Audio's Very High (or something similar) is a—pardon my language—pain in the ass.

Monkey's Audio High decoded at 14x realtime (7% CPU) on MUCH older hardware than yours back in 2005. I am having a hard time believing its CPU consumption is a problem.

http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jan 26 2012, 02:46
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



My old Pentium 3-550 could play monkeys normal-high just fine. CPU was like 5-7%. I built that machine back in 1999

This post has been edited by shadowking: Jan 26 2012, 02:47


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jan 26 2012, 02:52
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



You could try wavpack -h or -hh should be close to monkeys. Very fast encoding and still decent decoding considering the compression. Wavpack is mature, stable supported on all platforms. Its supposed to have the best support for hi-res audio.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
marc2003
post Jan 26 2012, 03:01
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 4469
Joined: 27-January 05
From: England
Member No.: 19379



have you tried reporting your problems with TAK playback? the developer is active on these forums.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jan 26 2012, 04:07
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



SyntheticSoul's speed and compression comparison as of 3 years ago: http://www.synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison...sless/index.asp
In that test corpus, you could not simultaneously improve both decoding speed and compression ratio over Monkey's High.

Notice that there are 3rd party FLAC implementations which improve on compression. Brief overview at http://www.cuetools.net/wiki/CUETools_FLAC...ders_comparison – if you really want to save those extra percents, you would probably not worry about going outside the Subset.


However ...
* There are very few tests done with a 24/96 vinyl rip test corpus.
* You have noticed that some of the codecs (you mention TAK) are not optimized for that resolution ...
* ... and certainly not for the content, where, frankly, you are paying to store a lot of noise. Probably makes a bit more sense for professionals' archives than for a consumer ...

If you insist on 24/96, you would probably have to test for yourself to get an idea of compression ratios. (By all means, post results here – even though myself I think it has limited practical relevance, I am a curious geek, and not the only one in this forum ...)

This post has been edited by Porcus: Jan 26 2012, 04:09


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
washu
post Jan 26 2012, 05:48
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 16-February 03
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 5032



QUOTE (Dario @ Jan 25 2012, 18:50) *
I am using a desktop, but it's pretty old (Pentium D @ 3 GHz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM), so decoding and playing back a file compressed with Monkey's Audio's Very High (or something similar) is a—pardon my language—pain in the ass.


As someone who has used Monkey's Audio extra high since a PIII was a fast computer I find this comment strange. Even on my single core Atom netbook playback takes an insignificant amount of CPU.

Now conversion is another matter, I wouldn't want to use my Atom regularly for that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dario
post Jan 26 2012, 14:31
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 20-September 11
Member No.: 93842



Whenever I try to open a file encoded in Monkey's Audio Very High, my CPU needs like 2-3 seconds to start playing back—the same happens with seeking. I don't really like that (I don't like it at all), seeing as I use lossless files for listening purposes as well as for archiving.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Jan 26 2012, 15:43
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1233
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (Dario @ Jan 26 2012, 13:31) *
Whenever I try to open a file encoded in Monkey's Audio Very High, my CPU needs like 2-3 seconds to start playing back—the same happens with seeking. I don't really like that (I don't like it at all), seeing as I use lossless files for listening purposes as well as for archiving.


But that's not necessarily the CPU, slow hard disc drive, fragmented drives, there could be any number of reasons but as others have said it's not the codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Jan 26 2012, 15:53
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 1314
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



QUOTE (Dario @ Jan 26 2012, 14:31) *
Whenever I try to open a file encoded in Monkey's Audio Very High, my CPU needs like 2-3 seconds to start playing back


Strange. Based on your specs alone, that really shouldn't be happening. Just by numbers, your computer is quite sufficient by a very wide margin to decode audio instantly.

Does it also happen with the other higly compressed lossless formats? What about other formats? Other applications? Video playback? Have you checked DPC latency?

This post has been edited by dhromed: Jan 26 2012, 15:55
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jan 26 2012, 19:47
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Have you set up your player for buffering? Decoding way into the future could leave it busy for a couple of seconds.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HorsePower73
post Feb 7 2012, 10:06
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 14-July 09
Member No.: 71477



Try dsfTAKSource: http://liviocavallo.altervista.org/
It will enable playing TAK files quite well in all DirectShow players.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
n0v!ze
post Jul 8 2012, 20:42
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 9-June 07
Member No.: 44197



For years, I've been using FLAC and only recently switched to True Audio. Two to five out of hundred rips didn't play properly in Winamp with cue_in, some songs stopped right in the middle. Time display is always a few seconds behind. Well, this may all be related to cue_in or other things related to my machine and not to FLAC. Don't want to blame FLAC here, it's a great tool.

The True Audio Encoder ttaenc has two perceived disadvantages: Nearly no compression options and inability to redirect output to a pipe. For the type of music I listen to, which is mostly Heavy Metal, I found that the generated files sizes of .flac and .tta are nearly identical when compression to FLAC is done with second best ratio (Q 7 out of 8). Both encoding and decoding speed are at least on the same level, my (unverified) impression is that True Audio is often faster. Should I ever need the pipe output, I will apply the patch provided by the sox developer.

An advantage of True Audio is that it supports ID3 Tags. I create both lossless and lossy files when I rip. Having the very same id3 tags in both formats makes file management easier (for example file and folder name generation from tags). True Audio lacks a metatta utility but I didn't use metaflac anyway so I'm not missing it. True Audio is Open Source Software like FLAC is. Like FLAC, it lacks active development for a couple of years. Perhaps WavPack is the better, actively developed alternative? I don't know.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 8 2012, 20:48
Post #19





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (n0v!ze @ Jul 8 2012, 20:42) *
For years, I've been using FLAC and only recently switched to True Audio. Two to five out of hundred rips didn't play properly in Winamp with cue_in, some songs stopped right in the middle. Time display is always a few seconds behind. Well, this may all be related to cue_in or other things related to my machine and not to FLAC. Don't want to blame FLAC here, it's a great tool.
This is probably due to TTA. Another reason to ask why you bothered to switch?

QUOTE
The True Audio Encoder ttaenc has two perceived disadvantages: Nearly no compression options and inability to redirect output to a pipe. For the type of music I listen to, which is mostly Heavy Metal, I found that the generated files sizes of .flac and .tta are nearly identical when compression to FLAC is done with second best ratio (Q 7 out of 8). Both encoding and decoding speed are at least on the same level
Again, why?

QUOTE
Both encoding and decoding speed are at least on the same level, my (unverified) impression is that True Audio is often faster.
This is a contradiction in terms. Are they the same, or is TTA better?

QUOTE
An advantage of True Audio is that it supports ID3 Tags. I create both lossless and lossy files when I rip. Having the very same id3 tags in both formats makes file management easier (for example file and folder name generation from tags).
What is the benefit of having ID3 rather than Vorbis Comments? There are applications that can use the latter to name files/folders, too.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 8 2012, 21:17
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (n0v!ze @ Jul 8 2012, 21:42) *
True Audio is Open Source Software like FLAC is. Like FLAC, it lacks active development for a couple of years. Perhaps WavPack is the better, actively developed alternative? I don't know.


Whether stability or active development is better, is a matter of opinion and subject to the need for development of the particular applications. Now if my impression is correct, much of last few years' development of WavPack, is on the lossy or hybrid features. Anyway, the developer himself is an active member of this forum (well, FLAC's Josh Coalson is here too, but not very active ... and I seem to recall some TTA devs in old threads). The TAK developer is also here.


QUOTE (n0v!ze @ Jul 8 2012, 21:42) *
Both encoding and decoding speed are at least on the same level, my (unverified) impression is that True Audio is often faster.


If you are curious about decoding speeds, then foobar2000 has a speed tester. On a fairly recent computer with a moving-parts harddrive (as opposed to a portable device or SSD), then decoding could very well be constrained by the harddrive, as FLAC is very fast (never tested TTA, but on my computer, FLAC usually decodes at least 50% quicker than mp3.)

Encoding? If you are switching formats every now and then, you would worry about that. But most of us do encode an average of 1-point-something times wink.gif


QUOTE (n0v!ze @ Jul 8 2012, 21:42) *
mostly Heavy Metal,
[...]
An advantage of True Audio is that it supports ID3 Tags.


... so that you can have a tagging scheme which disallows AC/DC tongue.gif
(Seriously, who the f(x) designed that?)


If you could see yourself using Linux, then there is the MP3FS virtual file system, which creates mp3s on-the-fly from FLAC (currently only that format supported).


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jan S.
post Jul 9 2012, 10:51
Post #21





Group: Admin
Posts: 2550
Joined: 26-September 01
From: Denmark
Member No.: 21



Sad to see that noone linked to our own wiki.. sad.gif

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jul 9 2012, 13:22
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Jan S. @ Jul 9 2012, 11:51) *
Sad to see that noone linked to our own wiki.. sad.gif


... sorry. But I did use it to find sources I linked to, does that count? wink.gif


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 22nd September 2014 - 06:16