IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yet another lossless audio compressor..., Would it make any sense?
TBeck
post Apr 1 2006, 03:04
Post #1


TAK Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1095
Joined: 1-April 06
Member No.: 29051



Hi,

(sorry, my english isn't very good...)

i have been working (for fun) on lossless audio compression since about 1997. Finally i would like to bring this thing (especially the never-ending-search for just a tenth of a percent more compression...) to an end. In the light of the big bunch of existing Compressors, i am not quite sure, if it would be of any use to add one more Compressor to the public. The preparations for a useful release would be much further work, and i wouldn't like to waste my time for something not needed.

My Compressor uses similar techniques like FLAC, but far more elaborated. Compression ratios lie between Monkey's Audios High- and Extra-High-Mode (Can be better than Extra High at the expense of a considerable increase of encoding time). Encoding Speed is a bit slower than Monkey's, Decoding Speed is much higher on most Files. Seek-Times should also be better cause of the maximum (independent) frame length of 250 ms.

I would like to read some opinions. Would it make any sense to release it?

Thanks

Thomas
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
kornchild2002
post Apr 1 2006, 03:48
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2067
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



In the beginning, I really didn't understand lossless (this was back in 2003). I didn't really see the 10% compression ratio as being significantly smaller than the original wav and, to me, a much smaller mp3 had the same sound.

Now I understand the importance of lossless encoders in that they can retain tags (something wav files can't do), some offer better than 10% compression ratios, and many programs now support them.

I would welcome another lossless encoder. After all, competition is good. Your encoder may not use newer technology when compared with Apple lossless for Monkey's Audio but still, it would be nice to see.

I am currently in the process of ripping my entire library to Apple lossless (I live in a iPod world).

Then again, my interest is purely for curiousity. Sadly, I am afraid that many people are set with their lossless encoders with most people going with FLAC. Unless your lossless encoder would obtain a high compatibility with current software and hardware, then I really don't see it going anywhere beyond curiosity and testing. Please, don't take this in the wrong way what so ever. I would love to see a lossless format developed by a HA poster. I just don't know if it would have any practical use or not.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Apr 1 2006, 04:28
Post #3


TAK Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1095
Joined: 1-April 06
Member No.: 29051



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Apr 1 2006, 04:48 AM)
Unless your lossless encoder would obtain a high compatibility with current software and hardware, then I really don't see it going anywhere beyond curiosity and testing.  Please, don't take this in the wrong way what so ever.  I would love to see a lossless format developed by a HA poster.  I just don't know if it would have any practical use or not.
*


Thanks.

My Thinking goes into the same direction. Sigh...

Building of the compression engine has been very much work. The creation and promotion of a new (free) format, which seems to be necessary to make the technology useful, would be even more work. My biggest respect for Josh Coalson, who has made FLAC some standard.

I'm in doubt that i myself would be able to establish some new standard. And i'm not sure, if it would make sense. It's a pity, that i am too late. Some years ago my work possibly would have had a chance to enrich the development of FLAC.

Thomas
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Apr 2 2006, 06:51
Post #4


FLAC Developer


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



QUOTE (TBeck @ Mar 31 2006, 10:28 PM)
Building of the compression engine has been very much work. The creation and promotion of a new (free) format, which seems to be necessary to make the technology useful, would be even more work.

I would agree with that... from my experience, development of the actual compression algorithm takes the least part of time for a successful codec. algorithm-wise FLAC is not that much different than shorten. the vast majority of time for me was spent in trying to make it useful (format spec, portable libraries, docs, test suites, all the features people want in a codec like a metadata system, support tools, etc.) and external stuff like project administration, releases, ...

QUOTE (TBeck @ Mar 31 2006, 10:28 PM)
I'm in doubt that i myself would be able to establish some new standard. And i'm not sure, if it would make sense. It's a pity, that i am too late. Some years ago my work possibly would have had a chance to enrich the development of FLAC.

it still could if it's compatible with the FLAC goals; it's not too late. your table doesn't have the FLAC decoding times to compare against but if you are getting an extra 10% without more decode complexity that is very promising.

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Apr 2 2006, 18:16
Post #5


TAK Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1095
Joined: 1-April 06
Member No.: 29051



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 2 2006, 07:51 AM)
I would agree with that... from my experience, development of the actual compression algorithm takes the least part of time for a successful codec.  algorithm-wise FLAC is not that much different than shorten.  the vast majority of time for me was spent in trying to make it useful (format spec, portable libraries, docs, test suites, all the features people want in a codec like a metadata system, support tools, etc.) and external stuff like project administration, releases, ...

QUOTE (TBeck @ Mar 31 2006, 10:28 PM)
I'm in doubt that i myself would be able to establish some new standard. And i'm not sure, if it would make sense. It's a pity, that i am too late. Some years ago my work possibly would have had a chance to enrich the development of FLAC.

it still could if it's compatible with the FLAC goals; it's not too late. your table doesn't have the FLAC decoding times to compare against but if you are getting an extra 10% without more decode complexity that is very promising.

Josh
*



Hello Josh,

very glad to read this "It's not too late..."! To be honest, there is an EMail in my draft box, that should have been sent to the FLAC Dev List, but never found its way...

I'm aware of the really big work needed to make a good format. And to be honest, i wouldn't like to do this. Especially as it would be some reinvention of the wheel and so quite useless.

It has been some time since i last carefully read the flac goals, but if there wasn't a big change, there should be no problem.

I didn't provide speed data for flac in my comparison, cause i was a bit in a hurry. But i will add that soon. It should be no problem to reach the speed advantage needed, cause the fastest of my compression modes allready uses 128 Predictors, which could easily be changed to 64 or 32 too get more speed.

If it would be possible to to add my compression methods (possibly as an alternative to keep backwards compatibility) to FLAC, i would be very happy.

But it would take some time and i would need help.

My code is written in Borland delphi (pascal) and nasm. I', not a wizzard in c, so it will take some time to translate it. And i don't know nearly nothing about programming for platform compatibility. Last but not least, my skills in writing english aren't very good, so a proper documentation would't be easy. Would there be help from the flac-dev-community? Could it be practicable?

Very exited

Thomas
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- TBeck   Yet another lossless audio compressor...   Apr 1 2006, 03:04
- - kornchild2002   In the beginning, I really didn't understand l...   Apr 1 2006, 03:48
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Apr 1 2006, 04:48 AM)U...   Apr 1 2006, 04:28
|- - neomoe   QUOTE (TBeck @ Mar 31 2006, 07:28 PM)QUOTE (k...   Apr 1 2006, 09:18
|- - jcoalson   QUOTE (TBeck @ Mar 31 2006, 10:28 PM)Building...   Apr 2 2006, 06:51
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 2 2006, 07:51 AM)I woul...   Apr 2 2006, 18:16
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 2 2006, 07:51 AM)it sti...   Apr 2 2006, 19:40
|- - Shade[ST]   Is there any way we can get a sourcecode release o...   Apr 2 2006, 20:20
|- - jcoalson   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 2 2006, 01:40 PM)QUOTE (jc...   Apr 3 2006, 01:33
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 3 2006, 02:33 AM)Thomas...   Apr 3 2006, 02:02
- - William   In my opinion, competition is always welcome. Take...   Apr 1 2006, 03:48
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (William @ Apr 1 2006, 04:48 AM)If the ...   Apr 1 2006, 04:42
|- - kwanbis   QUOTE (William @ Apr 1 2006, 02:48 AM)In my o...   Apr 1 2006, 14:56
- - Enig123   TBeck, Sounds interesting. I'm really happy t...   Apr 1 2006, 04:06
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Enig123 @ Apr 1 2006, 05:06 AM)TBeck, ...   Apr 1 2006, 04:55
- - MusicLover   QUOTE (TBeck @ Mar 31 2006, 06:04 PM)Hi, (so...   Apr 1 2006, 10:38
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (MusicLover @ Apr 1 2006, 11:38 AM)Hey,...   Apr 1 2006, 16:35
|- - pest   I've worked on something similiar the last yea...   Apr 1 2006, 16:42
- - Skymmer   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 1 2006, 05:04 AM)I would l...   Apr 1 2006, 13:11
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Skymmer @ Apr 1 2006, 02:11 PM)QUOTE (...   Apr 1 2006, 16:37
- - Triza   Nobody needs another one that is only 1-2% better....   Apr 1 2006, 18:21
- - rutra80   An encoder with compression ratio as high as Monke...   Apr 1 2006, 18:26
|- - Duble0Syx   QUOTE (rutra80 @ Apr 1 2006, 09:26 AM)An enco...   Apr 1 2006, 18:53
- - xmixahlx   you really don't need an official release righ...   Apr 1 2006, 20:22
- - boombaard   QUOTE IMHO Monkey's Audio is a poor codec simp...   Apr 1 2006, 21:26
- - Skymmer   QUOTE (rutra80 @ Apr 1 2006, 08:26 PM)An enco...   Apr 1 2006, 21:31
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Skymmer @ Apr 1 2006, 10:31 PM)Agree h...   Apr 1 2006, 23:55
|- - TBeck   The Table in the previous post contains results fr...   Apr 1 2006, 23:57
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 1 2006, 07:55 PM)CODE-----...   Apr 2 2006, 01:22
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Apr 2 2006, 02:22 AM)QUOTE ...   Apr 2 2006, 01:45
|- - rjamorim   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 1 2006, 09:45 PM)But it...   Apr 2 2006, 01:57
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Apr 2 2006, 02:57 AM)QUOTE ...   Apr 2 2006, 02:13
|- - William   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 2 2006, 01:13 AM)Yes. And ...   Apr 2 2006, 06:42
- - Skymmer   Truly speaking I'm little bit impressed. The r...   Apr 2 2006, 00:56
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Skymmer @ Apr 2 2006, 01:56 AM)Truly s...   Apr 2 2006, 01:23
|- - pest   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 1 2006, 04:23 PM)Furthermo...   Apr 2 2006, 13:52
- - Cartman_Sr   This discussion reminds me of that episode of the ...   Apr 2 2006, 07:15
- - Eric   IHMO, if you could transform your ideas into some ...   Apr 2 2006, 15:20
- - Mo0zOoH   Hey, that's really something special! I do...   Apr 2 2006, 15:30
- - Skymmer   QUOTE (Cartman_Sr @ Apr 2 2006, 09:15 AM)Let ...   Apr 2 2006, 18:04
|- - Liisachan   QUOTE (Skymmer @ Apr 2 2006, 05:04 PM)For TBe...   Apr 2 2006, 18:33
- - bryant   If I understand your table correctly, you are sayi...   Apr 2 2006, 20:40
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (bryant @ Apr 2 2006, 09:40 PM)If I und...   Apr 2 2006, 21:07
||- - bryant   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 2 2006, 12:07 PM)So i woul...   Apr 2 2006, 22:02
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (bryant @ Apr 2 2006, 09:40 PM)If I und...   Apr 2 2006, 21:22
|- - Shade[ST]   I'm sure many people will wish to donate for u...   Apr 2 2006, 21:39
- - pepoluan   Well, I am currently performing a Lossless Compres...   Apr 2 2006, 20:59
- - TBeck   Possibly time for some summary. Especially because...   Apr 2 2006, 22:04
- - TBeck   If nothing unexpected happens, i will release an e...   Apr 3 2006, 09:34
|- - Garf   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 3 2006, 10:34 AM) Woul...   Apr 12 2006, 13:17
- - Emanuel   If none of the moderators object, you can use the ...   Apr 3 2006, 10:17
- - Squeller   TBeck, could you describe your basic algorithm ide...   Apr 3 2006, 10:25
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Squeller @ Apr 3 2006, 11:25 AM)TBeck,...   Apr 3 2006, 11:24
- - Skymmer   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 3 2006, 11:34 AM)Would it ...   Apr 3 2006, 11:39
|- - john33   QUOTE (Skymmer @ Apr 3 2006, 10:39 AM) QU...   Apr 12 2006, 13:24
- - towolf   QUOTE (jcoalson @ Apr 3 2006, 02:33 AM)if you...   Apr 4 2006, 10:28
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (towolf @ Apr 4 2006, 11:28 AM)QUOTE (j...   Apr 4 2006, 10:36
|- - towolf   QUOTE (TBeck @ Apr 4 2006, 11:36 AM)QUOTE (to...   Apr 4 2006, 10:46
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (towolf @ Apr 4 2006, 11:46 AM)QUOTE (T...   Apr 4 2006, 10:50
- - TBeck   Links to 24 bit files i have used I think, they a...   Apr 12 2006, 16:17


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: 29th July 2014 - 22:46