IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec, offers superior performance
TBeck
post Jan 26 2007, 11:00
Post #1


TAK Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1098
Joined: 1-April 06
Member No.: 29051



TAK 1.0 - Final release

It's been a long time...

About

TAK is a lossless audio compressor, similar to FLAC, WavPack and Monkey's Audio. On average, lossless compression reduces the file size to about 50 percent of the original size; however the compression can vary between approximately 30 and 70 percent, depending on the file. Decompression restores a bit identical copy of the original audio data (that's why we call it lossless).

My goal was to develop a compressor which combines good compression with optimal decoding speeds. On average, the current implementation should match the compression efficiency of Monkey's Audio High, while achieving decompression speeds similar to FLAC.

Features

- Good compression. The strongest mode (Extra) is on par with Monkey's Audio High and OptimFrog Normal. TAK's fastest mode (Turbo) easily outperforms FLAC's strongest mode. This classification is based upon the evaluation of hundreds of files of different genres; it may not be the case for every file that you compress.
- Fast compression speed. Currently I know of no other compressor which compresses faster than TAK's Turbo and Fast modes, while providing similar compression ratios.
- Very fast decompression speed. The decoding speeds achieved are similar to, and often surpassing, those achieved by FLAC.
- Support for any common audio format (not fully implemented).
- Streaming support. An info frame, which contains all the information required to decompress a file, is inserted into the compressed audio data every 2 seconds.
- Error tolerance. A single bit error will never affect more than 250 ms of the audio data, as the compressed data is being stored in independent frames no more than that duration. The decoder is able to decompress even badly damaged files, by removing corrupt frames or replacing them with silence.
- Error detection. Each single frame is protected by a 24-bit checksum (CRC).
- Fast and sample accurate seeking. The file header contains a seektable with seekpoints (at 1 second intervals). In the absence of the seektable seeking can still be achieved by using the sync codes of the frame headers and the (optional) relative offset values contained in each info frame, which are pointing to the previous and next info frame.
- Meta data. A flexible and extensible structure in which to embed non audio data.

Changes

Improved:

- Synthetic Soul was so kind to correct my bad english in the ReadMe.

Fixed:

- Decoding with the command line version: if you specified wildcards for the file selection and the source directory contained only 1 TAK file, the decoder always threw the message 'File already exists'. Even worse: using the overwrite option in this situation led to deletion of the compressed source file!

- Usually the decoder ignores any data appended to the file end of the compressed file (for instance APEv2 tags). But it failed, if the file size was an integer multiple of the frame size (in samples).

Both bugs affected only the decoder, therefore there is no need to re-encode TAK files created with beta 2. Files created with earlier versions than beta 2 should be replaced.

Thank you

Thank you to all the members who have supported the development of TAK!

Firstly, you have provided encouragement to build yet another lossless audio compressor. Otherwise I would have dropped the whole project!

You helped to evaluate and optimize TAK. There have been 13 releases over a period of 8 months before the alpha version, and all of them have been evaluated by you!

Special thanks to the following members (in alphabetical order):

Destroid
Josef Pohm
Synthetic Soul

Download

The final can be downloaded from rarewares.org (Thanks to rjamorim!):

TAK 1.0 (Final)

Future

Some important features are missing in this release. Please find below my current to-do list:

- Plugins for other applications, such as Winamp or foobar2000 (a Winamp plugin is already close to completion).
- An SDK for other developers.
- Internal tagging.
- Unicode support.
- Piping support.
- MD5 audio checksums for verification and identification.
- A german version.
- Embedded cue sheets.
- Embedded cover art.
- Multi channel audio.
- Even more speed and better compression.

This post has been edited by TBeck: Jan 30 2007, 05:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
cabbagerat
post Jan 29 2007, 09:33
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27-September 03
From: Cape Town
Member No.: 9042



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 28 2007, 23:51) *
Shade[ST] (welcome back!) raises an interesting point. Do any of the zip programs have strong encryption? I think WinZip may. You could always zip everything up, encrypt it, and store it online somewhere.
Zip the file, then encrypt the archive with a passphrase using GPG. WinZip does supports good (AES based, afaik) encryption, but the format is non-standard and may change in the future, rendering the backup useless. The OpenPGP standard is open, meaning finding a program to open your backup in the future should be trivial.


--------------------
Simulate your radar: http://www.brooker.co.za/fers/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaB_fr
post Jan 29 2007, 10:17
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 30-October 05
Member No.: 25458



QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Jan 29 2007, 09:33) *
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 28 2007, 23:51) *

Shade[ST] (welcome back!) raises an interesting point. Do any of the zip programs have strong encryption? I think WinZip may. You could always zip everything up, encrypt it, and store it online somewhere.
Zip the file, then encrypt the archive with a passphrase using GPG. WinZip does supports good (AES based, afaik) encryption, but the format is non-standard and may change in the future, rendering the backup useless. The OpenPGP standard is open, meaning finding a program to open your backup in the future should be trivial.


I'm sorry, i did not consult the old TAK/Yalac forum thread, so some point may be inacurate...

As a developper, my advice would be : open the source now with an explicit "not documented" sign on it.
Forbid anyone to modify, copy partially or fork it (by adding these specific order in each file near the copyright and the date).

In my opinion, keeping it closed at the time of release is a bad move. For many reasons.
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...
Also, you take the risk of fading from your own velocity (are you able to keep the pace with your users needs (in the codec department the needs are wide)...they will grow exponentially as you release the features...will you ?).
And last, are you accepting to shrink the range of users you want to target. Some of the developpers out there will very kindly port your soft in any language/plateform they see fit. It only depends of your willing, and you can adopt any politic you see as the good one (elect your own developpers on merit, choose some skilled friend, do a loterie, make a three month release cycle, plan "on-going" port, choose your birthday as the Java port release date, etc...).

I think, the important thing here is to make choice and communicate on it. A codec is an important piece of software. In our "media age", i may be the root of many uses. HydrogenAudio present some of the cutting-edge users in our current "audio world". Messing up with them is not something you should overlook, i would say...

I'm sorry to be the bad guy here, it may be a great advance in audio codec, but nowadays, we can't take anything for granted before reversing it (at least in software).

If you prefer to go closed, say it now. It's your choice, but you must be clear with all of your users.
If you go on radar now, you will endure the damage for a long time...

Sorry for the bad vibes smile.gif

May the byte be with you...

MaB_fr

This post has been edited by MaB_fr: Jan 29 2007, 10:19
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gib
post Jan 29 2007, 12:11
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 227
Joined: 20-January 03
From: A Tropical Isle
Member No.: 4640



QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 28 2007, 23:17) *
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...

Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here. But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)? I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pepoluan
post Jan 29 2007, 13:34
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 1455
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Jakarta
Member No.: 25929



QUOTE (gib @ Jan 29 2007, 18:11) *
QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 28 2007, 23:17) *
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...
Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here. But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)? I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.
I agree. Even looking at the source code is no way to determine if a complex algorithm (which I believe TAK is) works. The only way to know if it works or not is to test.

Thomas has provided the binaries. All you need to "... be sure that the benefits claimed are true ..." is to compress a WAV file using the binaries, and time it with whatever means you have. Then decompress it, again timing it. Then compare the result of the decompression with the original.

I am very sorry to say that some open source advocates in some way resemble audiophooles.


--------------------
Nobody is Perfect.
I am Nobody.

http://pandu.poluan.info
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
...Just Elliott
post Jan 31 2007, 19:19
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 446
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 34002



QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 29 2007, 12:34) *
QUOTE (gib @ Jan 29 2007, 18:11) *
QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 28 2007, 23:17) *
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...
Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here. But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)? I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.
I agree. Even looking at the source code is no way to determine if a complex algorithm (which I believe TAK is) works. The only way to know if it works or not is to test.

Thomas has provided the binaries. All you need to "... be sure that the benefits claimed are true ..." is to compress a WAV file using the binaries, and time it with whatever means you have. Then decompress it, again timing it. Then compare the result of the decompression with the original.

I am very sorry to say that some open source advocates in some way resemble audiophooles.

For a codec, source code is a very important matter.

Now, if you made a convrter or player - fine, that doesn't matter.

If you're making a codec which people may rely on, you need to guarantee that:

- they will be able to use it on any platform with interest, or make it work themselves
- they will be able to verify the algorithm will always be 100% flawlessly lossless
- etc

Right now, it's a windows only closed source codec. This offers none of those benefits, and at least one person (me) is unable to use it or listen to TAK files at all.


--------------------
err... i'm not using windows any more ;)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Jan 31 2007, 19:51
Post #7


TAK Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1098
Joined: 1-April 06
Member No.: 29051



QUOTE (...Just Elliott @ Jan 31 2007, 19:19) *
If you're making a codec which people may rely on, you need to guarantee that:

- they will be able to use it on any platform with interest, or make it work themselves
- they will be able to verify the algorithm will always be 100% flawlessly lossless
- etc

Right now, it's a windows only closed source codec. This offers none of those benefits, and at least one person (me) is unable to use it or listen to TAK files at all.

I am aware of this point of view, but repetition will not change anything.

I am already spending all (more than i should) of my free time for TAK developement. There simply aren't any resources left. The neccessary source code conversion can start, when TAK's feature set is quite complete and i have time again.

While i respect, that some people insist on the source code, i can not agree to all of their arguments.

"windows only" sounds very limiting, but given it's huge user base i don't have to be worried about lack of potential users before the source code release.

QUOTE
- they will be able to verify the algorithm will always be 100% flawlessly lossless

Only in theory.

The source code is quite complex. Someone would have to be very knowledgeable and spend very much time to find errors. Would you guarantee that this will happen? If the source code has been released, will you wait until some expert has checked it before using the codec? How do you know, if a trustable expert has checked it?

There are open source codecs available since years, and the developers are still finding bugs. Obviously source code availability can not provide you any guarantee, that the code is bug free.

This post has been edited by TBeck: Jan 31 2007, 19:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post Jan 31 2007, 20:19
Post #8


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 31 2007, 15:51) *
"windows only" sounds very limiting, but given it's huge user base i don't have to be worried about lack of potential users before the source code release.


Besides, linux whiners can use wine.


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post Jan 31 2007, 22:44
Post #9





Group: Developer
Posts: 1318
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 31 2007, 20:19) *
Besides, linux whiners can use wine.

wine is nice but I've yet to figure out how to pass PCM data via a pipe or fifo to a "wine"-ed encoder. I'd like to avoid intermediate .WAV files for transcoding. Doesn't seem to work with wine. (I only tried it with Nero's aac encoder)

This post has been edited by SebastianG: Jan 31 2007, 22:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- TBeck   TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec   Jan 26 2007, 11:00
- - gib   I just wanted to say congratulations. It's be...   Jan 26 2007, 11:19
- - askoff   What is TAK? What are the advantages over rivals?   Jan 26 2007, 12:26
|- - Sunhillow   QUOTE (askoff @ Jan 26 2007, 12:26) What ...   Jan 26 2007, 13:05
- - PoisonDan   askoff, you're kidding, right? Did you really...   Jan 26 2007, 13:02
- - Synthetic Soul   I can't believe that it's been almost ten ...   Jan 26 2007, 13:14
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 26 2007, 13:1...   Jan 26 2007, 14:48
- - askoff   I'm sorry if I hurt someones feelings for aski...   Jan 26 2007, 15:01
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (askoff @ Jan 26 2007, 15:01) I...   Jan 26 2007, 15:08
- - skamp   Uh, what about unix users?   Jan 26 2007, 15:32
- - Synthetic Soul   QUOTE (askoff @ Jan 26 2007, 14:01) And i...   Jan 26 2007, 16:12
|- - kwanbis   QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 26 2007, 15:1...   Jan 26 2007, 16:19
|- - Sunhillow   QUOTE (kwanbis @ Jan 26 2007, 16:19) free...   Jan 27 2007, 02:00
|- - pepoluan   I also agree with kwanbis and Sunhillow. Kinda of...   Jan 27 2007, 05:27
- - Gow   Do we have a media player that can play Tak? Hope...   Jan 26 2007, 17:04
- - Synthetic Soul   Glad to see that people read my posts. No, no pl...   Jan 26 2007, 17:28
- - spockep   Just like to add my congratulations!! TAK...   Jan 27 2007, 01:03
- - keytotime   Excellent release. I hope the source will be relea...   Jan 27 2007, 02:47
- - Synthetic Soul   I was going to leave this for Thomas to answer, as...   Jan 27 2007, 07:50
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 27 2007, 07:5...   Jan 27 2007, 08:51
- - krmathis   Great to see that TAK have reach version 1.0, as t...   Jan 27 2007, 09:13
- - TBeck   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 27 2007, 08:51) QUOTE ...   Jan 27 2007, 09:25
|- - krmathis   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 27 2007, 09:25) QUOTE ...   Jan 27 2007, 11:09
- - Mr Bungle   Thomas, Congratulations and thanks for your effor...   Jan 27 2007, 11:07
- - fairway   Since TAK is really interesting for all those peop...   Jan 27 2007, 11:23
- - leokennis   Wow great codec...I like FLAC but hates how it tak...   Jan 27 2007, 11:32
- - Gecko   Congratulations Thomas on the final release. I...   Jan 27 2007, 11:53
|- - gib   Upon further reflection it occured to me that, due...   Jan 27 2007, 14:08
- - Mangix   hmmm. i can't use TAK due to its buggy WAV han...   Jan 27 2007, 19:37
- - Synthetic Soul   Strange, all the WAVEs that I have used for testin...   Jan 27 2007, 20:04
- - Mangix   the wav file that i made came from an mp3(wanted t...   Jan 27 2007, 20:26
- - Synthetic Soul   Perhaps you could take a look at the WAVE file in ...   Jan 27 2007, 21:16
- - TBeck   QUOTE (Mangix @ Jan 27 2007, 19:37) hmmm....   Jan 27 2007, 22:44
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 27 2007, 22:44) I am a...   Jan 27 2007, 22:59
- - guruboolez   foobar2000 did it (optional writing of APEv2 tags ...   Jan 27 2007, 23:36
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jan 27 2007, 23:36) f...   Jan 27 2007, 23:44
- - Mangix   I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accide...   Jan 28 2007, 00:02
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Mangix @ Jan 28 2007, 00:02) I thi...   Jan 28 2007, 00:08
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 28 2007, 00:08) QUOTE ...   Jan 28 2007, 20:26
- - [JAZ]   As Sintetic Soul suggested, you are creating a 32b...   Jan 28 2007, 00:22
- - Shade[ST]   Rock on Thomas! This is really a revolution i...   Jan 29 2007, 07:29
|- - TBeck   QUOTE ' date='Jan 29 2007, 07:29' post...   Jan 29 2007, 08:07
|- - Synthetic Soul   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 29 2007, 07:07) Should...   Jan 29 2007, 08:51
|- - boombaard   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 29 2007, 09:07) QUOTE ...   Jan 29 2007, 08:53
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Jan 28 2007, 23:5...   Jan 29 2007, 09:33
|- - MaB_fr   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Jan 29 2007, 09:33) Q...   Jan 29 2007, 10:17
|- - gib   QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 28 2007, 23:17) At fi...   Jan 29 2007, 12:11
|- - pepoluan   QUOTE (gib @ Jan 29 2007, 18:11) QUOTE (M...   Jan 29 2007, 13:34
||- - ...Just Elliott   QUOTE (pepoluan @ Jan 29 2007, 12:34) QUO...   Jan 31 2007, 19:19
||- - Synthetic Soul   You will be pleased to know that the intention is ...   Jan 31 2007, 19:47
||- - TBeck   QUOTE (...Just Elliott @ Jan 31 2007, 19...   Jan 31 2007, 19:51
||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 31 2007, 15:51) ...   Jan 31 2007, 20:19
||- - krmathis   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 31 2007, 20:19) QUO...   Jan 31 2007, 21:13
|||- - rjamorim   QUOTE (krmathis @ Jan 31 2007, 17:13) Wha...   Jan 31 2007, 23:43
|||- - krmathis   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 31 2007, 23:43) QUO...   Feb 1 2007, 17:19
|||- - boombaard   QUOTE (krmathis @ Feb 1 2007, 18:19) QUOT...   Feb 1 2007, 17:48
||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (rjamorim @ Jan 31 2007, 20:19) Bes...   Jan 31 2007, 22:44
||- - towolf   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Jan 31 2007, 23:44) Q...   Jan 31 2007, 23:11
|- - boombaard   QUOTE (gib @ Jan 29 2007, 13:11) QUOTE (M...   Jan 29 2007, 13:39
|- - MaB_fr   That's a lot to answer and many misunderstandi...   Jan 29 2007, 14:32
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 29 2007, 14:32) Again...   Jan 29 2007, 14:55
|- - MaB_fr   I'm about to make a volcano of yourself Bu...   Jan 29 2007, 15:25
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 29 2007, 15:25) I...   Jan 29 2007, 15:38
|- - MaB_fr   Then, sorry for your users and the willing develop...   Jan 29 2007, 15:43
|- - Shade[ST]   I'm making a FAQ for you, Thomas. I'll li...   Jan 29 2007, 17:16
|- - TBeck   QUOTE ' date='Jan 29 2007, 17:16' post...   Jan 29 2007, 17:32
|- - Shade[ST]   Yeah, sorry. I edited it again. I do need a descri...   Jan 29 2007, 17:37
- - Enig123   He came from nowhere at the fool's day last ye...   Jan 29 2007, 12:20
- - Squeller   Danke, Anke!   Jan 29 2007, 13:29
- - TBeck   QUOTE (MaB_fr @ Jan 29 2007, 10:17) I...   Jan 29 2007, 13:30
- - PabUK   Congratulations Thomas on the first final release ...   Jan 29 2007, 14:23
- - Synthetic Soul   For someone who wants to look at the source code o...   Jan 29 2007, 15:35
- - Martin H   TBeck has said numerous times that the sources wil...   Jan 29 2007, 15:38
- - Eli   Sounds pretty good. Well will it be added to the l...   Jan 29 2007, 18:14
- - rjamorim   http://www.rarewares.org/ http://www.rarewares.or...   Jan 30 2007, 03:36
- - jido   Glad that version 1.0 is out. Congratulations...   Jan 30 2007, 12:13
- - vhl   Is it possible to make version with multicore supp...   Jan 30 2007, 19:01
|- - jcoalson   QUOTE (vhl @ Jan 30 2007, 13:01) Is it po...   Jan 30 2007, 19:55
|- - Shade[ST]   TAK's actual implementations are generally onl...   Jan 30 2007, 20:09
|- - vhl   QUOTE (jcoalson @ Jan 30 2007, 12:55) QUO...   Jan 30 2007, 20:26
|- - Martin H   QUOTE (vhl @ Jan 30 2007, 20:26) Why i mu...   Jan 31 2007, 00:54
- - Fandango   I'm pretty sure that this has to wait.   Jan 30 2007, 19:14
- - sPeziFisH   Thanks Thomas, the coding/decoding-abilities of th...   Jan 30 2007, 21:35
- - Firon   QUOTE (vhl @ Jan 30 2007, 14:01) Is it po...   Jan 30 2007, 21:59
- - JunkieXL   Just wanted to say Thank You Tbeck! I'm r...   Jan 30 2007, 22:12
- - TBeck   QUOTE (sPeziFisH @ Jan 30 2007, 21:35) Th...   Jan 31 2007, 01:44
|- - spockep   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 30 2007, 20:44) My Win...   Jan 31 2007, 04:15
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (spockep @ Jan 31 2007, 04:15) To a...   Jan 31 2007, 19:15
- - Funkdude   Wow, I've only recently started following what...   Jan 31 2007, 03:59
- - Fandango   I don't understand all the fuss about this sou...   Jan 31 2007, 21:04
- - Psyphre   This sounds really interesting, however im curious...   Jan 31 2007, 22:55
|- - boombaard   QUOTE (Psyphre @ Jan 31 2007, 23:55) This...   Jan 31 2007, 23:05
||- - Shade[ST]   QUOTE (boombaard @ Jan 31 2007, 17:05) QU...   Jan 31 2007, 23:39
|- - jcoalson   QUOTE (Psyphre @ Jan 31 2007, 16:55) it c...   Jan 31 2007, 23:21
|- - gaekwad2   QUOTE (Psyphre @ Jan 31 2007, 22:55) This...   Jan 31 2007, 23:47
- - Martin H   Fast decoding is not an issue for playback purposs...   Feb 1 2007, 01:56
- - TBeck   QUOTE (jcoalson @ Jan 31 2007, 23:21) QUO...   Feb 1 2007, 02:59
|- - Heliologue   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 31 2007, 19:59) Compet...   Feb 1 2007, 06:41
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (Heliologue @ Feb 1 2007, 06:41) QU...   Feb 1 2007, 07:22
- - pest   I've just tested TAK against the best codecs. ...   Feb 2 2007, 11:36
2 Pages V   1 2 >


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: 2nd October 2014 - 07:50