IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
TAK 1.1.2
TBeck
post Jul 27 2009, 22:20
Post #1


TAK Developer


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



Final release of TAK 1.1.2 ((T)om's lossless (A)udio (K)ompressor)

This version brings tagging support for the command line encoder and speed improvements of up to 10 percent.

It consists of:

- TAK Applications 1.1.2.
- TAK Winamp plugin 1.1.2.
- TAK SDK 1.1.1.
- TAK Decoding library 1.1.2.

Download

Download the archive in the upload section: TAK 1.1.2 Final

What's new

New Features:

- Tagging support for the command line encoder.

Improvements:

- Depending on preset and cpu up to 10 percent faster encoding and decoding compared with V1.1.1.
- Slightly faster encoding and decoding of LossyWav files.
- Slightly faster encoding and decoding if MMX is disabled and the pure pascal code is beeing used.
- Removed some more assembler routines and simplified a lot of code. The binaries are again smaller now.

Fixes:

- The new filter introduced in V1.1.1 revealed a bug in the encoder, which resulted in suboptimal performance especially when compressing LossyWav-files with the presets -p3 or -p4 (BTW: It doesn't make sense to go higher than -p2m when compressing LossyWav-files...).

Known issues:

- If you use pipe decoding and the application reading the pipe is beeing terminated before the whole file has been read, TAKC may get into an endless loop and has to be manually killed with the task manager. I don't think this is a big issue but i will try to fix it in one of the next versions. BTW: Big thanks to shnutils for testing the pipe decoding!
- There seem to be some compatibility issues with pipe decoding to some other applications ("crc1632.exe" has been reported). I will try to fix it in the next release.

More information

You may find some useful information in the beta thread.

Plans for V1.1.3

I don't know yet.

Have fun...

Thomas

This post has been edited by TBeck: Jul 27 2009, 22:28
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TrNSZ
post Jul 28 2009, 00:38
Post #2





Group: Developer
Posts: 717
Joined: 25-September 01
From: ... The Studio
Member No.: 20



Congratulations on a fine release.

Using this under Linux/x64 with Wine 1.1.5 on a Turion 64 X2 TL-58 system and notice a speed improvement of at least 5% for all settings. Keep up the good work on your promising codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post Jul 28 2009, 06:59
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



Thanks for the continuing development. For my lossless, I use 100% tak, because of its great speed/size ratio and its reliability.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
randal1013
post Jul 28 2009, 15:11
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 306
Joined: 1-March 06
Member No.: 28189



does foobar use pipe decoding?




TBeck: thanks for your work!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Scidd0w
post Jul 28 2009, 20:47
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 22-December 02
Member No.: 4204



TBeck;

Thank you for all the hard work on this codec!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Jul 28 2009, 20:53
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



QUOTE
does foobar use pipe decoding?


Yes.

Here's a couple of tests, all default settings (all compression ratios were identical):
CODE


P3 (733MHz)
TAKC 1.1.0 18.81x 37.92x
TAKC 1.1.1 21.77x 40.63x
TAKC 1.1.2 22.22x 39.44x

Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0 GHz)
TAKC 1.1.0 114.36x 191.00x
TAKC 1.1.1 112.09x 191.83x
TAKC 1.1.2 115.12x 198.82x


Great work!


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Jul 28 2009, 21:58
Post #7





Group: Developer
Posts: 3357
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



Foobar doesn't use pipe decoding.

I mean, it doesn't use TAKC.exe for decoding and doesn't read pipe from TAKC. Instead, TAK component for foobar2000 relies on tak_deco_lib.dll.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eli
post Jul 29 2009, 00:19
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1056
Joined: 16-October 03
Member No.: 9337



Tom, thank you for your continued work. One day TAK may replace FLAC for me. It definitely is a very promising codec.


--------------------
http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?t=21072
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HisInfernalMajes...
post Jul 31 2009, 02:30
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 15-October 03
Member No.: 9325



I did some tests out of curiosity.. and it seems like 1.1.2 is slower on my computer than 1.1.1 is!

with v1.1.1 encoding with TEST in the GUI i got:
Compression: 70.22 %
Duration: 82.75 sec
Speed: 205.07 * real time

and with 1.1.2 i got:
Compression: 70.22 %
Duration: 157.40 sec
Speed: 107.81 * real time

v1.1.1 seemed to max out at 213x when encoding and 1.1.2 seemed to max out at around 111x or so. This was on a collection of 57 songs

I'm running Windows Vists Ultimate 64bit with an Intel i7 920 (@3.2GhZ) (if you need to know more i can tell you)

One thing i noticed was that was weird was while encoding some songs the encode rate would drop down to 50 to 70x then shoot back up on the next song. I don't know if this is normal or not, so i just wanted to mention it. Also, it wasn't the song that caused it, as one test it would encode at it's max speed then in another test it would slow down to 50x..

I'm willing to do other tests, just let me know what i can do smile.gif


--------------------
http://www.last.fm/user/mattimeo18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ssjkakaroto
post Aug 1 2009, 02:57
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 203
Joined: 22-May 02
Member No.: 2096



Thanks for the release Thomas! wink.gif

Do you plan on adding raw pcm encoding/decoding on the next version?


--------------------
Allegari nihil et allegatum non probare, paria sunt.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Seeking_Lossless
post Aug 1 2009, 06:42
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 11-May 09
Member No.: 69698



can you make your official website to english because i can't read German.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post Aug 1 2009, 08:01
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de...FTak%2FTak.html

This post has been edited by Squeller: Aug 1 2009, 08:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Shy Guy
post Aug 5 2009, 02:07
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 5-August 09
Member No.: 72027



Very much been a fan of TAK for a long time now. Thanks for the ongoing work, Tom. Much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Aug 5 2009, 05:05
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



QUOTE (HisInfernalMajesty @ Jul 31 2009, 02:30) *
I did some tests out of curiosity.. and it seems like 1.1.2 is slower on my computer than 1.1.1 is!

Which settings did you use?

QUOTE
One thing i noticed was that was weird was while encoding some songs the encode rate would drop down to 50 to 70x then shoot back up on the next song. I don't know if this is normal or not, so i just wanted to mention it. Also, it wasn't the song that caused it, as one test it would encode at it's max speed then in another test it would slow down to 50x..

That sounds more like something in the background eating cycles, is my guess. I can't imagine that being normal behavior, usually the opposite. There's a few friend's machines I fixed where that was infested with malware, so it might be a good idea to check that since slow encoding is the least worrisome in that scenario.


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dB
post Aug 8 2009, 07:19
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 1-November 01
Member No.: 388



Many thanks Tom smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Aug 24 2009, 19:43
Post #16


TAK Developer


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



QUOTE (Destroid @ Jul 28 2009, 21:53) *
Here's a couple of tests, all default settings (all compression ratios were identical):
...
Great work!

Thank you very much! Especially for appreciating even small improvements!

QUOTE (HisInfernalMajesty @ Jul 31 2009, 03:30) *
I did some tests out of curiosity.. and it seems like 1.1.2 is slower on my computer than 1.1.1 is!

with v1.1.1 encoding with TEST in the GUI i got:
Compression: 70.22 %
Duration: 82.75 sec
Speed: 205.07 * real time

and with 1.1.2 i got:
Compression: 70.22 %
Duration: 157.40 sec
Speed: 107.81 * real time

v1.1.1 seemed to max out at 213x when encoding and 1.1.2 seemed to max out at around 111x or so. This was on a collection of 57 songs

I'm running Windows Vists Ultimate 64bit with an Intel i7 920 (@3.2GhZ) (if you need to know more i can tell you)

One thing i noticed was that was weird was while encoding some songs the encode rate would drop down to 50 to 70x then shoot back up on the next song. I don't know if this is normal or not, so i just wanted to mention it. Also, it wasn't the song that caused it, as one test it would encode at it's max speed then in another test it would slow down to 50x..

I'm willing to do other tests, just let me know what i can do smile.gif


QUOTE (Destroid @ Aug 5 2009, 06:05) *
QUOTE (HisInfernalMajesty @ Jul 31 2009, 02:30) *
I did some tests out of curiosity.. and it seems like 1.1.2 is slower on my computer than 1.1.1 is!

Which settings did you use?

QUOTE
One thing i noticed was that was weird was while encoding some songs the encode rate would drop down to 50 to 70x then shoot back up on the next song. I don't know if this is normal or not, so i just wanted to mention it. Also, it wasn't the song that caused it, as one test it would encode at it's max speed then in another test it would slow down to 50x..

That sounds more like something in the background eating cycles, is my guess. I can't imagine that being normal behavior, usually the opposite. There's a few friend's machines I fixed where that was infested with malware, so it might be a good idea to check that since slow encoding is the least worrisome in that scenario.

A really good reply!

I want to add another possible explaination: TAK is using extremely optimized code in the filters, which may drive CPU's into areas, where the cooling isn't sufficient and they use clock-throttling.


QUOTE (ssjkakaroto @ Aug 1 2009, 03:57) *
Do you plan on adding raw pcm encoding/decoding on the next version?

It's on my todo list... But no promises: I am also working hard on the TAK 2.0 codec, and i am progressing faster than expected... I am not sure, if there will be a 1.1.3 release (with new functionality) before the 2.0 release. Possibly you will have to wait for 2.0.1...

QUOTE (Seeking_Lossless @ Aug 1 2009, 07:42) *
can you make your official website to english because i can't read German.

Given my rather bad english, i am a bit in a trouble here...

While i myself can tolerate my bad english in some of TAK's documentation (sorry to the readers), i don't want to let it show up on my homepage, where i am also presenting my self employeed work.

I have to look for a solution.

Thomas


Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Destroid
post Aug 25 2009, 10:47
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 4-June 02
Member No.: 2220



I thought a few major players here in HA were affluent in your language, smile.gif I'm trying to remember them by alias since they would be able to translate your technical terms correctly. And you are correct, people visiting your home page should have the professional prose that equates to the the professional program, if I must say. smile.gif

Also, thanks for the excellent news about upcoming TAK releases. I, for one, will be eagerly awaiting.

edit: typos

This post has been edited by Destroid: Aug 25 2009, 10:51


--------------------
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Aug 25 2009, 11:14
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



I have had the embarrassment of having my English grammar corrected by fusion. biggrin.gif

Personally I am amazed at how well many members here use English. Sebastian Mares and Lyx spring to mind, as proficient English-writing Germans.

Edit: Oh, and I should point out that your English, Thomas, is one thousand times better than any second language I have attempted (which probably totals French and Spanish).

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Aug 25 2009, 11:17


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post Sep 3 2009, 21:11
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 551
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



Agreed. Your English is quite up to par with the norm you see from FIRST-LANGUAGE speakers lately. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Perun
post Sep 7 2009, 12:46
Post #20





Group: Validating
Posts: 17
Joined: 7-September 09
Member No.: 72969



I have been using TAK since its first final release (having switched to it from Monkey's Audio) and I must say that, while there are many other great (some even awesome) lossless codecs, I love TAK for its rich set of excellent features.

Alas, I must woefully confess that I have had to use WavPack lately. The trouble is TAK doesn't support multichannel audio so far. WavPack is a truly awesome codec, and I respect its developer as much as I do Thomas. Yet I prefer TAK for its speed/compression ratio, and since I always try to get the highest compression a codec offers, I do the same with WavPack using the following options: wavpack.exe -hh -m -x6 *.wav. Space is something always worth saving, and hi-rez multichannel audio certainly calls for that. It is, however, almost intolerable to wait for a file to take five to eight times longer to get compressed than its own length. (I say "almost" because I still tolerate this.)

Indeed, the WavPack help warns that using the -x[4-6] option is very slow, and it is my own choice to do so. Yet from the fact that TAK offers even better compression within a fraction of that time when tested on some 24-bit stereo files I infer (and truly hope) that the speed/compression ratio will be the same for multichannel audio when support for that is implemented.

Itching to see the next TAK release (whether 1.1.3 or 2.0.1).

Big thanks to Thomas. Nice day to all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
twistedddx
post Sep 28 2009, 00:38
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 27-October 05
Member No.: 25383



Hi TBeck.
It appears that tak_SSD_Create_FromFile can not handle unicode names. It would be nice if multibyte filenames could be used or a function that can accept widechar filenames was created.
Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Perun
post Oct 18 2009, 18:45
Post #22





Group: Validating
Posts: 17
Joined: 7-September 09
Member No.: 72969



By the way, hopefully, the next releases of TAK will support resolutions of up to 192 kHz.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Oct 27 2009, 00:20
Post #23


TAK Developer


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



QUOTE (Perun @ Oct 18 2009, 18:45) *
By the way, hopefully, the next releases of TAK will support resolutions of up to 192 kHz.

It does already support 192 KHz, but unfortunately no multichannel audio. I will work on it after the 2.0 release.

Thomas

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Perun
post Oct 29 2009, 12:36
Post #24





Group: Validating
Posts: 17
Joined: 7-September 09
Member No.: 72969



QUOTE (TBeck @ Oct 27 2009, 00:20) *
It does already support 192 KHz, but unfortunately no multichannel audio. I will work on it after the 2.0 release.

Thomas

Indeed, my mistake.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Perun
post Jan 2 2010, 22:56
Post #25





Group: Validating
Posts: 17
Joined: 7-September 09
Member No.: 72969



QUOTE (Perun @ Oct 29 2009, 12:36) *
QUOTE (TBeck @ Oct 27 2009, 00:20) *
It does already support 192 KHz, but unfortunately no multichannel audio. I will work on it after the 2.0 release.

Thomas

Indeed, my mistake.

Well, then it obviously doesn't support wav files bigger than 4 GB, does it?
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: 21st August 2014 - 04:11