IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V  « < 11 12 13  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Which is the best lossless codec?, Discussion thread
includemeout
post Apr 4 2014, 14:38
Post #301





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



(And to avoid further edition of the previous post)

Hence my considering WavPack as the best of both worlds when it comes to lossless encoding (and just to stick to the now-ancient OP).


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
marc2003
post Apr 4 2014, 14:43
Post #302





Group: Members
Posts: 4754
Joined: 27-January 05
From: England
Member No.: 19379



QUOTE (includemeout @ Apr 4 2014, 14:25) *
That you only have to worry about tagging the files in a supposed lossless/lossy library once, not a second time, as it would be the case with one consisting of say, FLAC and MP3.


it's actually very easy to manage tags across a lossless/lossy collection using foobar2000. you can copy/paste from one set of files to another with ease. obviously it's imperative that each set are in the exact same order. i'm pretty sure only it only updates files where differences have been found, even if you do you whole collection at once.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti..._sets_of_tracks

QUOTE (includemeout @ Apr 4 2014, 14:38) *
Hence my considering WavPack as the best of both worlds when it comes to lossless encoding (and just to stick to the now-ancient OP).


yep, but i suspect a large chunk of people won't have that choice because of the portable device they use.

This post has been edited by marc2003: Apr 4 2014, 14:49
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
includemeout
post Apr 4 2014, 14:53
Post #303





Group: Members
Posts: 282
Joined: 16-December 09
From: Maringá, Brazil
Member No.: 76067



QUOTE (marc2003 @ Apr 4 2014, 10:43) *
obviously it's imperative that each set are in the exact same order.

IMO, that alone, deems this solution less practical than WP's.

QUOTE (marc2003 @ Apr 4 2014, 10:43) *
i'm pretty sure only it only updates files where differences have been found, even if you do you whole collection at once.

That I didn't know. Thanks.


--------------------
Listen to the music, not the media.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Apr 11 2014, 08:29
Post #304





Group: Members
Posts: 1158
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



Now that the table (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison#Comparison_Table) is updated, why ID3/APEv2 is worst than APEv2 or Vorbis tags?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Apr 11 2014, 10:07
Post #305





Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



QUOTE (eahm @ Apr 11 2014, 09:29) *
why ID3/APEv2 is worst than APEv2 or Vorbis tags?

Please read this post in this topic a few weeks back.

Having two allowed (by which I mean the official software and plugins support it) tagging schemes means that you can have two sets at once. Different versions of ID3 alone can give problems, see this topic, especially post #6. I think it's quite a downside to have two possibly conflicting versions of tags in one file.

This post has been edited by ktf: Apr 11 2014, 10:08


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Nov 10 2014, 17:11
Post #306





Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



For anyone wondering, as a reminder this thread accompanies this wiki article: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title...less_comparison

I've noticed some editing which I do not find reasonable, so I'd like to discuss it. A while ago, I removed TTA from the main section of the mentioned wiki page because it doesn't seem to attract much attention (at least not at HA). The edit summary: Stripped table from and shortened text about Shorten, LA, TTA, ALS, SLS and Real Lossless

Recently, a TTA dev (Ald) has added it to the table again, but added an extra row with the feature "Password protection". I subsequently removed this, because it is only a minor feature that is supported by only one codec. There are other features much more noteworthy like cuesheet embedding and having an MD5 hash for security. Furthermore, I sorted the table on popularity.

Apparently the TTA dev didn't agree, because the changes were undone. Furthermore, the flexibility of TTA was named 'adaptive', which is just an eufemism for not having any options, which is what the flexibility means.

What do you think? Should I go ahead and undo Ald's undo-edits? It starts to look like edit-warring

This post has been edited by ktf: Nov 10 2014, 17:21


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Nov 10 2014, 17:36
Post #307





Group: Developer
Posts: 3436
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE (ktf @ Nov 10 2014, 19:11) *
Furthermore, the flexibility of TTA was named 'adaptive'


Yes, this surprised me when I saw it several days ago.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tuffy
post Nov 11 2014, 14:47
Post #308





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 20-August 07
Member No.: 46367



QUOTE (ktf @ Nov 10 2014, 10:11) *
Apparently the TTA dev didn't agree, because the changes were undone. Furthermore, the flexibility of TTA was named 'adaptive', which is just an eufemism for not having any options, which is what the flexibility means.

I'm not sure I'd rate "flexibility" on a good or bad scale the same way that decoding speed or compression ratio are. FLAC encoding has a lot of tunable parameters whereas ALAC has nearly no tunable parameters and TTA has none at all. But I wouldn't consider the presence of lots of possible encoding knobs to necessarily be a virtue or the lack of them to be a fault.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Nov 11 2014, 16:34
Post #309





Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



QUOTE (tuffy @ Nov 11 2014, 14:47) *
But I wouldn't consider the presence of lots of possible encoding knobs to necessarily be a virtue or the lack of them to be a fault.

Why?

If you don't like buttons, you can use all codecs without them. FLAC will default to compression level 5. So I wonder, how do you think having more options, and thus more flexibility, can be a bad thing? Just because it might frighten people to do something wrong?

I agree, that a codec like OptimFROG has so many options and combinations of them (if I set mode, should I set optimize as well? Which combination is best? etc.) but most codecs have a relatively simple system for this.


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tuffy
post Nov 11 2014, 17:16
Post #310





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 20-August 07
Member No.: 46367



QUOTE (ktf @ Nov 11 2014, 09:34) *
Why?

If you don't like buttons, you can use all codecs without them. FLAC will default to compression level 5. So I wonder, how do you think having more options, and thus more flexibility, can be a bad thing? Just because it might frighten people to do something wrong?

I agree, that a codec like OptimFROG has so many options and combinations of them (if I set mode, should I set optimize as well? Which combination is best? etc.) but most codecs have a relatively simple system for this.

I just think that the effects of flexibility are more important than the presence of flexibility. Like it's noteworthy that FLAC offers a tradeoff between encoding speed and compression ratio, but I wouldn't hold a lack of options against some hypothetical codec that doesn't offer any tune-able parameters but compresses very well.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 11 2014, 17:44
Post #311





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10256
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



What if a codec is faster at both encoding and decoding and compresses better, but has no options?

Some codecs have so many options, to the point that it's far more confusing than effective, especially when some new codec comes along and blows it out of the water in terms of performance.

IMO, that row should either be reworked or removed. That it requires a note to explain what the title means is ridiculous.

This post has been edited by greynol: Nov 11 2014, 17:46


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ktf
post Nov 11 2014, 17:52
Post #312





Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 22-March 09
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 68263



QUOTE (tuffy @ Nov 11 2014, 17:16) *
I just think that the effects of flexibility are more important than the presence of flexibility.

Those possible effects are already mentioned in the table: compression and speed are mentioned at the top. TTA chose to be inflexible, and I might compress better/faster because of this tradeoff (less development time needed tuning, less format header for different modes etc.) So, yes, not being flexible might be a advantage for a codec, but that advantage is already clearly visible someplace else in the table.

QUOTE
but I wouldn't hold a lack of options against some hypothetical codec that doesn't offer any tune-able parameters but compresses very well.

In that case, just ignore that row in the table. That is no reason not to leave it in for others to take into account, right?

edit:
QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 11 2014, 17:44) *
What if a codec is faster at both encoding and decoding and compresses better, but has no options?

In that case, those benefits are already mentioned in the table.

QUOTE
IMO, that row should either be reworked or removed. That it requires a note to explain what the title means is ridiculous.

What about naming it presets and mentioning the number of presets that are available (for FLAC that would be 9, WavPack 4 or 4*6 if you count the x options, Monkey's 5, TTA 1 etc)

This post has been edited by ktf: Nov 11 2014, 17:58


--------------------
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Nov 11 2014, 18:55
Post #313





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10256
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



With no color coding, yes, I think that would be an improvement.

I agree that the password row should be removed. I had similar reservations about 1-off features added to the secure ripper comparison page.

I often wonder:
What good are rows where there is no variation between participants?


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Nov 13 2014, 13:22
Post #314





Group: Members
Posts: 1957
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 11 2014, 19:55) *
I often wonder:
What good are rows where there is no variation between participants?


Depends on whether everybody knows already, that they need not spend time digging up that piece of information.


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

13 Pages V  « < 11 12 13
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: 26th November 2014 - 07:38