IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Comparison : 24bit/192KHz/stereo FLAC vs. APE, How can it be ?
foorious
post Jul 25 2008, 16:55
Post #1


troll / ban evasion


Group: Banned
Posts: 244
Joined: 22-April 08
Member No.: 52991



Hi everybody,

I've just made a small comparison between Monkey's Audio 3.99 (Extra High Compression) and FLAC 1.21 (Compression level 8 ), using 24bit/192KHz/stereo files (the files were generated from a vinyl rip).

Of course I expected APE to perform slightly better than FLAC, like it usually does for 16bit/44KHz/stereo files (2-3%, maybe even 5%)... but I didn't really expect this ! blink.gif



Take a look at all the file sizes : we're talking about 20% difference here ! The total file size is 1,53 Go for APE vs. 1,88 Go for FLAC.

So I don't understand. I'm a genuine FLAC enthusiast (all my files are FLAC), but... how can it be ? Is there something wrong here ? Can we do something to improve all the FLAC file sizes ?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
foorious
post Jul 27 2008, 16:38
Post #2


troll / ban evasion


Group: Banned
Posts: 244
Joined: 22-April 08
Member No.: 52991



Thanks everyone for all your interesting answers.

Well, so it looks that FLAC isn't really well-suited at the moment for low-passed files, thus for 96 and 192 KHz files. Considering the results, I think it will be better for me to stick with FLAC for 16/44 files, but to switch to another format for 24/96 and 24/192 files. I don't like the idea of handling two different lossless formats in my collection, but the gap is huge, and I don't see any reason for losing almost 350 MB of disk space for a single album.

I secretly hope Josh Coalson has some ideas in store for improving FLAC's handling of HD audio files. We'll see !

Oh, one last question : in your opinion, is this issue related only to the frequency (96, 192 KHz) or also to the bits per sample ? In other words, would FLAC perform much better with 24bit/48KHz files than it does with 24bit/192KHz files ?

This post has been edited by foorious: Jul 27 2008, 16:41
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dynamic
post Jul 27 2008, 18:36
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 833
Joined: 17-September 06
Member No.: 35307



QUOTE (foorious @ Jul 27 2008, 16:38) *
Oh, one last question : in your opinion, is this issue related only to the frequency (96, 192 KHz) or also to the bits per sample ? In other words, would FLAC perform much better with 24bit/48KHz files than it does with 24bit/192KHz files ?


In conjunction with NickC's results, perhaps resampling (fb2k/Resampler) to 44.1 kHz and/or 48 kHz in the Convert DSP while retaining 24-bit output would answer that, and offer comparison between 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 when processed through lossyWAV (though it isn't certain the 16/44.1 is the same as a straight downconversion from the 24/96 files)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jul 27 2008, 20:30
Post #4


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (Dynamic @ Jul 27 2008, 18:36) *
In conjunction with NickC's results, perhaps resampling (fb2k/Resampler) to 44.1 kHz and/or 48 kHz in the Convert DSP while retaining 24-bit output would answer that, and offer comparison between 16/44.1 and 24/44.1 when processed through lossyWAV (though it isn't certain the 16/44.1 is the same as a straight downconversion from the 24/96 files)
Taking onboard your comment regarding whether the 16/44.1 is a straight downconversion of the 24/96, I used the SSRC dsp plugin (ultra mode) in foobar2000 to resample the 24/96 version down to 48kHz and 44.1kHz and got the following:

24/96 lossless FLAC -5: 2954 kbit/s (926MiB); lossyWAV --standard|FLAC -5: 787 kbit/s (246MiB);
24/48 lossless FLAC -5: 1598 kbit/s (501MiB); lossyWAV --standard|FLAC -5: 517 kbit/s (162MiB);
24/44.1 lossless FLAC -5: 1489 kbit/s (466MiB); lossyWAV --standard|FLAC -5: 498 kbit/s (156MiB);

Also, I changed the bitdepth in foobar2000 and dithered the 24/96 version to 16/96 and got:

16/96 lossless FLAC -5: 1421 kbit/s (445MiB); lossyWAV --standard|FLAC -5: 776 kbit/s (243MiB);

This post has been edited by Nick.C: Jul 27 2008, 20:40


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Jul 28 2008, 09:17
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 922
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jul 27 2008, 21:30) *
24/44.1 lossless FLAC -5: 1489 kbit/s (466MiB); lossyWAV --standard|FLAC -5: 498 kbit/s (156MiB);

16/96 lossless FLAC -5: 1421 kbit/s (445MiB); lossyWAV --standard|FLAC -5: 776 kbit/s (243MiB);

Seems to me that FLAC has a "weakness" with compressing 24bit files (though I never have bothered with 192kHz). If you're looking for another codec (besides the mentioned Monkey or TAK), wavPack does better with 24bit files than FLAC too.

This post has been edited by GeSomeone: Aug 11 2008, 22:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Jul 28 2008, 18:04
Post #6


TAK Developer


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



QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Jul 28 2008, 09:17) *
If you're looking for another codec (besides the mentioned Monkey or TAK), wavPack does better with 24bit files then FLAC too.

Well, i have added the result for WavPack -hhx3 to my comparison above. It too seems to be less efficient with 192 KHz/ 24 Bit, only slightly better than FLAC. At least with my sample set.

This post has been edited by TBeck: Jul 28 2008, 18:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Jul 29 2008, 17:17
Post #7


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1297
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



QUOTE (TBeck @ Jul 28 2008, 10:04) *
QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Jul 28 2008, 09:17) *

If you're looking for another codec (besides the mentioned Monkey or TAK), wavPack does better with 24bit files then FLAC too.

Well, i have added the result for WavPack -hhx3 to my comparison above. It too seems to be less efficient with 192 KHz/ 24 Bit, only slightly better than FLAC. At least with my sample set.

Thanks for trying out WavPack! Since we're talking about non-standard files here, I think that -hhx4 (or higher) would be a much better choice (even though it's much slower). The -x values from 1-3 use pre-calculated filters while values from 4-6 generate custom filters.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Jul 29 2008, 20:01
Post #8


TAK Developer


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



QUOTE (bryant @ Jul 29 2008, 17:17) *
Thanks for trying out WavPack! Since we're talking about non-standard files here, I think that -hhx4 (or higher) would be a much better choice (even though it's much slower). The -x values from 1-3 use pre-calculated filters while values from 4-6 generate custom filters.

I have added the results for -hhx4 and -hhx6 to my comparison above. And the winner is... WavPack! rolleyes.gif

Seems as if i have to tune TAK still a bit more for 192 Khz. wink.gif

This post has been edited by TBeck: Jul 29 2008, 20:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Jul 30 2008, 05:33
Post #9


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1297
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



QUOTE (TBeck @ Jul 29 2008, 12:01) *
QUOTE (bryant @ Jul 29 2008, 17:17) *

Thanks for trying out WavPack! Since we're talking about non-standard files here, I think that -hhx4 (or higher) would be a much better choice (even though it's much slower). The -x values from 1-3 use pre-calculated filters while values from 4-6 generate custom filters.

I have added the results for -hhx4 and -hhx6 to my comparison above. And the winner is... WavPack! rolleyes.gif

Seems as if i have to tune TAK still a bit more for 192 Khz. wink.gif

Wow! I expected an improvement, but I sure didn't expect over 10%!

So, for almost 2 hours WavPack beat TAK ... hehe, that's cool. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- foorious   Comparison : 24bit/192KHz/stereo FLAC vs. APE   Jul 25 2008, 16:55
- - viniciusferrao   MonkeyAudio do not support 192kHz! :confused: ...   Jul 26 2008, 00:47
|- - Curtor   QUOTE (viniciusferrao @ Jul 25 2008, 17:4...   Jul 26 2008, 02:38
|- - pawelq   QUOTE (Curtor @ Jul 25 2008, 21:38) From ...   Jul 28 2008, 15:25
- - Axon   My understanding is that the lowest 8-12 bits of a...   Jul 26 2008, 00:51
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Axon @ Jul 26 2008, 00:51) My unde...   Jul 27 2008, 17:22
- - TBeck   QUOTE (foorious @ Jul 25 2008, 16:55) Tak...   Jul 27 2008, 04:48
- - foorious   Thanks everyone for all your interesting answers. ...   Jul 27 2008, 16:38
|- - Dynamic   QUOTE (foorious @ Jul 27 2008, 16:38) Oh,...   Jul 27 2008, 18:36
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Dynamic @ Jul 27 2008, 18:36) In c...   Jul 27 2008, 20:30
||- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jul 27 2008, 21:30) 24/44...   Jul 28 2008, 09:17
||- - DARcode   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Jul 28 2008, 10:17) QU...   Jul 28 2008, 11:42
||- - TBeck   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Jul 28 2008, 09:17) If...   Jul 28 2008, 18:04
|||- - bryant   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jul 28 2008, 10:04) QUOTE ...   Jul 29 2008, 17:17
|||- - TBeck   QUOTE (bryant @ Jul 29 2008, 17:17) Thank...   Jul 29 2008, 20:01
|||- - bryant   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jul 29 2008, 12:01) QUOTE ...   Jul 30 2008, 05:33
|||- - TBeck   QUOTE (bryant @ Jul 30 2008, 05:33) So, f...   Jul 31 2008, 13:01
||- - Dynamic   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Jul 28 2008, 09:17) Se...   Jul 28 2008, 19:46
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (foorious @ Jul 27 2008, 16:38) Oh,...   Jul 27 2008, 18:53
- - Enig123   I think "anything" here just means no pa...   Jul 28 2008, 15:34
- - pdq   If you treat the data as simply a series of values...   Jul 28 2008, 16:23
- - SebastianG   This is in response to the original question. FLA...   Jul 28 2008, 18:36
- - TBeck   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jul 29 2008, 20:01) Seems ...   Jul 29 2008, 21:49
- - vpa   Could you test TTA too? It's very quick but gi...   Jul 30 2008, 18:39
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (vpa @ Jul 30 2008, 18:39) Could yo...   Jul 30 2008, 19:28
- - foorious   Just a simple question : do TAK, APE and Optimfrog...   Jul 31 2008, 17:49
|- - vpa   QUOTE (foorious @ Jul 31 2008, 18:49) BTW...   Jul 31 2008, 18:13
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (foorious @ Jul 31 2008, 18:49) I...   Aug 11 2008, 22:56
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Aug 11 2008, 22:56) @T...   Aug 14 2008, 12:44
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (TBeck @ Aug 14 2008, 12:44) I am s...   Aug 14 2008, 18:54
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (TBeck @ Aug 14 2008, 19:54) But wh...   Aug 15 2008, 13:19
|- - TBeck   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Aug 15 2008, 13:19) QU...   Aug 15 2008, 15:19
- - foorious   Yes GeSomeone, no problem, my question was only ab...   Aug 13 2008, 11:51
- - jcoalson   sorry, been traveling a lot lately... it's har...   Aug 13 2008, 21:51
- - foorious   Hi josh, thanks for joining in. I understand your...   Aug 13 2008, 23:53
- - SebastianG   I actually tested some LP coefficient quantization...   Aug 14 2008, 09:24
- - SebastianG   "[...] but if someone has time to try out seb...   Aug 16 2008, 11:12
- - foorious   Are there any upcoming developments on this matter...   Sep 17 2008, 22:58
|- - jcoalson   QUOTE (foorious @ Sep 17 2008, 16:58) Are...   Sep 24 2008, 06:33
- - hidn   i encode my cd. flac compression is close to anoth...   Sep 24 2008, 05:58
- - foorious   Thanks Josh. I just hope you'll keep an eye on...   Sep 26 2008, 00:55
- - foorious   Hi there, are there any news on this matter ? It...   Mar 25 2009, 00:34
- - ktf   I just noticed the last SVN Flake is on par with M...   May 19 2009, 18:36


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: 25th December 2014 - 23:23