IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
OptimFROG stability
_m_
post Dec 29 2010, 15:55
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



I'm considering converting my collection for OptimFROG, but seeing that the latest version is alpha, "for testing purposes only", I'm unsure what to do...It's been quite a few years and I haven't seen any post about it being unreliable, so I think it may not be very risky to try...
What do you think?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Remedial Sound
post Dec 29 2010, 16:04
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 505
Joined: 5-January 06
From: Dublin
Member No.: 26898



Check out:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

What are you considering converting from and why? Nothing against OptimFROG, but there's little if anything to be gained by converting to it from another lossless codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
larryfine
post Dec 29 2010, 16:33
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 21-September 10
Member No.: 84040



I don't recommend this, Optimfrog development is frozen since 2006 and it's outdated . A good choice would be Wavpack (lossless or hybrid), good compression, high quality, fast response. smile.gif


--------------------
loquor mee menti: factus de materia, cinis elementi...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WonderSlug
post Dec 29 2010, 16:48
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-February 08
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 51066



QUOTE (larryfine @ Dec 29 2010, 07:33) *
I don't recommend this, Optimfrog development is frozen since 2006 and it's outdated . A good choice would be Wavpack (lossless or hybrid), good compression, high quality, fast response. smile.gif


So? That doesn't mean anything. FLAC has been 'frozen' since September 2007, when version 1.2.1 came out. No new significant version has been released in over 3 years. Does that mean FLAC is also outdated and shouldn't be recommended?

The more pertinent question was posed by Remedial Sound.

Converting from Lossless Codec A to Lossless Codec B doesn't gain much of anything, unless whatever you want to play the files on do not support Codec A.

This post has been edited by WonderSlug: Dec 29 2010, 16:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ron spencer
post Dec 29 2010, 17:04
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2-February 05
Member No.: 19539



I am not sure why you would use esoteric codecs...is it supported anywhere?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 29 2010, 17:08
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



QUOTE (Remedial Sound @ Dec 29 2010, 16:04) *
Check out:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

What are you considering converting from and why? Nothing against OptimFROG, but there's little if anything to be gained by converting to it from another lossless codec.


From TAK.
I'm very well aware how much can I gain and I think it's worthwhile. If experience with it makes me change my mind, theoretically it's not a problem to go back. What I'm asking for is how does it look in practice.

ADDED:
QUOTE (ron spencer @ Dec 29 2010, 17:04) *
I am not sure why you would use esoteric codecs...is it supported anywhere?

Why? Because it's strong.
Perl Audio Converter and XMMS and that's enough for me. Though while digging I stumbled upon quite a few more programs that do.

This post has been edited by _m_: Dec 29 2010, 17:12
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WonderSlug
post Dec 29 2010, 17:37
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-February 08
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 51066



QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 29 2010, 08:08) *
QUOTE (ron spencer @ Dec 29 2010, 17:04) *
I am not sure why you would use esoteric codecs...is it supported anywhere?

Why? Because it's strong.
Perl Audio Converter and XMMS and that's enough for me. Though while digging I stumbled upon quite a few more programs that do.


FLAC is also supported in Perl Audio Converter and XMMS, and I'd be willing to bet that FLAC is also much more supported than OptimFROG in other devices as well. There are PMPs that support FLAC that do not support OptimFROG, for example the Cowon family, and the Nationite S:Flo2.

This post has been edited by WonderSlug: Dec 29 2010, 17:37
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
washu
post Dec 29 2010, 17:42
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 16-February 03
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 5032



If you are looking for more compression than TAK why not use Monkey's Audio? Almost as good compression as Optimfrog, way faster and way more software support.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 29 2010, 17:58
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



I don't have problems with software support, it's good enough already. And hardware doesn't matter. I really thought it out well enough to know that I want to do it.
The only problem is that I'm afraid it might break my files.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
larryfine
post Dec 29 2010, 18:44
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 21-September 10
Member No.: 84040



FLAC is a good choice; WAVPACK is a good choice; APE is a good choice etc etc etc...

Optimfrog IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE.
Have you seen Florin Ghido in this forum lately? Or in his own Optimfrog's page?

This post has been edited by larryfine: Dec 29 2010, 18:51


--------------------
loquor mee menti: factus de materia, cinis elementi...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 29 2010, 20:21
Post #11





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Why not give us new reasons other than tell us it isn't and point us to a web page? Obviously your other stated reasons aren't being given much credibility.

It seems pretty clear that _m_ doesn't much care about additional compatibility or his carbon footprint.

QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 29 2010, 08:58) *
The only problem is that I'm afraid it might break my files.

Set up a script to encode, then decode and compare against the previous lossless source. If they are identical then you can safely delete the previous lossless source. This should give you a good idea about OptimFROG's performance. If you're satisfied then good for you.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ron spencer
post Dec 29 2010, 22:12
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2-February 05
Member No.: 19539



QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 29 2010, 10:08) *
QUOTE (Remedial Sound @ Dec 29 2010, 16:04) *
Check out:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison

What are you considering converting from and why? Nothing against OptimFROG, but there's little if anything to be gained by converting to it from another lossless codec.


From TAK.
I'm very well aware how much can I gain and I think it's worthwhile. If experience with it makes me change my mind, theoretically it's not a problem to go back. What I'm asking for is how does it look in practice.

ADDED:
QUOTE (ron spencer @ Dec 29 2010, 17:04) *
I am not sure why you would use esoteric codecs...is it supported anywhere?

Why? Because it's strong.
Perl Audio Converter and XMMS and that's enough for me. Though while digging I stumbled upon quite a few more programs that do.



strong? Is FLAC or APE not strong? Just trying to see why OptimFrog is useful
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 29 2010, 22:38
Post #13





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I guess it depends on how much importance you put on a 2-3% improvement in compression (over flac; Monkey's Audio provides comparable compression to OptimFROG).

From the point of efficiency Monkey's Audio is a far better choice than OptimFROG. If you're willing to sacrifice a half-percent in compression TAK is a far better choice than Monkey's Audio. It used to be that WavPack was the best compromise taking into account both speed (encoding and decoding) and compression, but since it was released TAK has soundly beaten it at any metric associated with efficiency. In fact TAK is probably the most efficient codec available.

That the OP has decided to move away from TAK would indicate other reasons, perhaps ultimate compression ratio or compatibility. If it is based on compression, I wonder if he's looked at Lossless Audio:
http://www.lossless-audio.com/

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 29 2010, 22:45


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Dec 29 2010, 22:51
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



OptimFrog claims to have a verify function (don't remember precisely, been too long time since I tried that format), but if I were to make a batch transcoding job, I'd first convert and then use e.g. Foobar2000's bit-compare feature to compare the audio. Then you can actually read off the size difference (OptimFrog vs. TAK? Sure you will gain anything at all?)

(Edit: don't get me started with "takes an extra hard drive and I don't have backup!" talk tongue.gif.)

Like others, I do not see the point though, unless you really, really need to cut down size by a percent to fit a single hard drive (and you are one of those rare instances of someone whose collection won't be expanding wink.gif ).

This post has been edited by Porcus: Dec 29 2010, 22:56


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Dec 29 2010, 22:59
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Porcus @ Dec 29 2010, 13:51) *
OptimFrog claims to have a verify function
Verify functions typically only make sure the file can be properly decoded and may perhaps compare the hash of the decoded output with one that was generated upon encoding and stored within the file. There is no guarantee that this hash is correct for the original source file however (it might not be if there was a hardware problem during encoding).

QUOTE (Porcus @ Dec 29 2010, 13:51) *
but if I were to make a batch transcoding job, I'd first convert to another disk and then use e.g. Foobar2000's bit-compare feature to compare the audio.
It's simple enough to write a script that will include the comparison. I've successfully done it and I'm no programming wiz.

This post has been edited by greynol: Dec 29 2010, 23:14


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 30 2010, 12:51
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



Thank you greynol.
Hmm... checking seems the right thing to do. The only problem is that ofr decompression takes time and will push the slowness by anither notch. But it's probably the only thing that will make me sure.

You guessed correctly, my motivation to leave TAK is compatibility as I'm switching from Windows to FreeBSD. At first I wanted to use MAC Insane, but considered also:
FLAC
Wavpack
OptimFROG
WMAL
LA
MPEG ALS
staying with TAK

And decided that ofr strength is worth a try. In particular, LA lost because ID3v1 tags are insufficient for me.

2 ron spencer:
For me FLAC is definitely not strong. MAC is quite strong, but ofr 4.6 experimental is the king. I won't be using experimental because it's probably incompatible with XMMS plugin though...but it's still clearly the strongest option that seems viable.

This post has been edited by _m_: Dec 30 2010, 12:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Dec 30 2010, 13:11
Post #17





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1029
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



Why anyone would waste his time encoding with rather unsupported lossless codecs in the age of 1TB/50 HDs is quite fascinating.


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 30 2010, 13:15
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Dec 30 2010, 13:11) *
Why anyone would waste his time encoding with rather unsupported lossless codecs in the age of 1TB/50 HDs is quite fascinating.


See...for me the strength of ofr is fascinating. That's precisely the reason.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Dec 30 2010, 13:47
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 30 2010, 07:15) *
QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Dec 30 2010, 13:11) *
Why anyone would waste his time encoding with rather unsupported lossless codecs in the age of 1TB/50€ HDs is quite fascinating.


See...for me the strength of ofr is fascinating. That's precisely the reason.

What is this "strength" you keep mentioning?
You can't be talking about compression ratio, or else the point regarding cheap hard drives would warrant at least some consideration...


This post has been edited by Soap: Dec 30 2010, 13:48


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 30 2010, 13:56
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



QUOTE (Soap @ Dec 30 2010, 13:47) *
QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 30 2010, 07:15) *
QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Dec 30 2010, 13:11) *
Why anyone would waste his time encoding with rather unsupported lossless codecs in the age of 1TB/50 HDs is quite fascinating.


See...for me the strength of ofr is fascinating. That's precisely the reason.

What is this "strength" you keep mentioning?
You can't be talking about compression ratio, or else the point regarding cheap hard drives would warrant at least some consideration...



I am talking about compression ratio. And I don't need more drives, my current ones are well sufficient. I'm just a compression hobbyist and like when things are small.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Dec 30 2010, 14:01
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 1015
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 30 2010, 07:56) *
I am talking about compression ratio. And I don't need more drives, my current ones are well sufficient. I'm just a compression hobbyist and like when things are small.


If you were to convert all your TAK to FLAC would you end up needing more hard drives?
(Just curious).
Or is this some OC need for small things? wink.gif


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 30 2010, 14:18
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



QUOTE (Soap @ Dec 30 2010, 14:01) *
QUOTE (_m_ @ Dec 30 2010, 07:56) *
I am talking about compression ratio. And I don't need more drives, my current ones are well sufficient. I'm just a compression hobbyist and like when things are small.


If you were to convert all your TAK to FLAC would you end up needing more hard drives?
(Just curious).
Or is this some OC need for small things? wink.gif



No. But I have only one disk which fits my whole collection and 2-3 copies of everything, it's all scattered and it's a big mess. Conversion to FLAC now would make it even more messy. FreeBSD's ZFS solves the issues in a very elegant way and once I'm done I should have a healthy 1 TB free. Or 0.5 with 2 copies (handled automatically by ZFS). Well enough to go with FLAC, but I don't want it.
Though some time ago I moved from FLAC to TAK because I needed space and being unemployed, couldn't afford a new drive, so I know how it is like to have really tight space. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post Dec 30 2010, 14:34
Post #23





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 681
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Italy
Member No.: 18968



I fiddled a bit with OptimFROG about 4 years ago out of fascination for its compression ratio, then chose WavPack for several obvious reasons, anyway no stability issues whatsoever: compared MD5 of original WAV with OFR's decompressed one, always matched, we're talking about a dozen albums though.

I kinda dislike the tendency of this forum to always question the motives of posters for their request, it seems only greynol gets it in this thread, let the OP experiment all he wants, if he's having fun doing it he won't mind re-encoding if his findings call for that.


--------------------
WavPack 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.41 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
_m_
post Dec 30 2010, 14:43
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 231
Joined: 6-April 09
Member No.: 68706



QUOTE (DARcode @ Dec 30 2010, 14:34) *
I fiddled a bit with OptimFROG about 4 years ago out of fascination for its compression ratio, then chose WavPack for several obvious reasons, anyway no stability issues whatsoever: compared MD5 of original WAV with OFR's decompressed one, always matched, we're talking about a dozen albums though.

Thanks for the info.
QUOTE (DARcode @ Dec 30 2010, 14:34) *
I kinda dislike the tendency of this forum to always question the motives of posters for their request, it seems only greynol gets it in this thread, let the OP experiment all he wants, if he's having fun doing it he won't mind re-encoding if his findings call for that.

I understand this tendency...it's about newbies hurting themselves. In almost any case OFR would be a bad choice. Pragmatically, in my case too. This time it just isn't about pragmatism.
But I do think that it went a bit too far.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Dec 30 2010, 21:08
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



Are you sure that OptimFrog does out-compress TAK on your particular material?

If not: Sure you can't get foobar2000 + TAK to work with FreeBSD+Wine? Considering how slow OptimFrog decoding is, you might even save CPU time.

By the way, since you mention ZFS: Myself I tried WinXP + foobar2000 virtualized under OpenSolaris, without success. I also tried NexentaStor virtualized (with raw drive access) on a WinXP box. I couldn't get realtime music playback in either, though I didn't try very hard before I gave up. YMMV.


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

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 September 2014 - 07:59