IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TAK 2.1.0
TBeck
post Jan 8 2011, 21:04
Post #1


TAK Developer


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



Final release of TAK 2.1.0 ((T)om's lossless (A)udio (K)ompressor)

This release brings speed optimizations and multi core support for the encoder. The dedicated LossyWav-codec that was available in the beta releases has been removed.

It consists of:

- TAK Applications 2.1.0.
- TAK Winamp plugin 2.1.0.
- TAK SDK 1.1.1.
- TAK Decoding library 2.1.0.

Download

Download the archive in the upload section: TAK 2.1.0

What's new

Improvements:

- Encoding speed improvements of about 10 to 20 percent (depends on preset and cpu) for cpus with the SSSE3 instruction set. Since SSSE3 (note the three 'S') isn't supported by AMD, only Intel users will benefit from those optimizations.
- The encoder now creates up to four threads to utilize multiple cpu cores. Specify the thread number in the General Options dialog of the GUI-version or with the -tn option of the command line version. By default only one thread is created. You will only notice a speed up, if the encoding speed isn't already limited by the performance of your drives.

Modifications:

- Added the -cpu# switch to the command line version, which lets you control some cpu optimizations.
- The file info function now also shows the name of the codec used to compress the file.
- Moved the verify-option from the details-dialog to the general compression options dialog.
- All dialogs with an Add-files-option locked the source folder until the dialog was closed. Hopefully this is no longer the case.

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.

Why is it called 2.1 and not 2.0.1?

Usually i increase the second place of the version number if some option has been added which isn't backwards compatible (can not be decoded by earlier versions) but will only take effect, if it is explicitly activated by the user. This was true for the LossyWav-codec that now has been removed. But i didn't want to go down to 2.0.1 because of the possible confusion occuring when i later released another 2.1 which would have nothing in common with the current beta 2.1.

More information

You can find some useful information and speed comparisons in the Beta 3 thread.

Have fun...

Thomas

This post has been edited by TBeck: Jan 9 2011, 04:06
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
TBeck
post Jan 10 2011, 12:50
Post #2


TAK Developer


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



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 8 2011, 22:42) *
QUOTE (TBeck @ Dec 13 2010, 14:01) *
QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Dec 12 2010, 19:04) *
And now, can you add the switch for choosing what CPU's encoder must use?
It can be useful for dual core processors with hyperthreading technology (like Core i) - to prevent using of two threads of one physical CPU
...
Look how a big difference is there between results for enabled and disabled Hyper Threading...

I am just working on it, but i think you will have to wait until V2.1.1 for a solution. That because a lot of testing on different systems may be required.


I hope this will be fixed in the near future..

-tn2 on systems with 2 and 4 physical/logical processors respectively (HyperThreading) is really slow sad.gif

As i wrote in the beta 3 thread, i am still quite reluctant to add such an option, because it is generally recommended to let the OS distribute the cores. I will think a bit more about it.

QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Jan 9 2011, 07:28) *
Wish List (only wish):

1) Support for HDCD bit recognition

I don't think this is the business of a lossless codec...

QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Jan 9 2011, 07:28) *
2) Optimization for AMD CPU

There is nearly no CPU specific code. I always try to optimize in a way that is advantegous for most Intel and Amd CPUs. The only exception are the SSSE3 optimizations. But since AMD doesn't support them, there is nothing i can do.

QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 9 2011, 14:24) *
I've noticed a quite strange thing.

On my system two threads encoding is slowed down even when HT is disabled!

The only difference between the beta 3b and the final release is the removal of the dedicated LossyWav-codec. Nothing else has changed.

One ad hoc explaination: Some functions of the new build may be a tiny bit faster or slower because of a different code alignment. It is possible, that even speed variations of only a couple of percent result in a worse syncronization with foobars activity. Such an interaction can be extremely subtle and is usually very system dependend.

QUOTE (Corpulencio @ Jan 9 2011, 21:13) *
Thomas, can you say what number on your "to do" list is multichannel support smile.gif? Thank you.

It's on the top! One reason, why i haven't alreday done it, is the contrast between the large amount of work required and the lack of user requests.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- TBeck   TAK 2.1.0   Jan 8 2011, 21:04
- - Steve Forte Rio   Gteat work! Thank you! And now let's...   Jan 8 2011, 21:31
- - meDveD.spb   BIG THX!   Jan 8 2011, 22:17
- - Steve Forte Rio   QUOTE (TBeck @ Dec 13 2010, 14:01) QUOTE ...   Jan 8 2011, 22:42
- - jc3213   Thanks for your great work! I have been waitin...   Jan 9 2011, 05:02
- - johnsonlam   Thank you very much Thomas! Wish List (only w...   Jan 9 2011, 07:28
- - Steve Forte Rio   I've noticed a quite strange thing. On my sys...   Jan 9 2011, 14:24
- - Corpulencio   Big thanks! Thomas, can you say what number o...   Jan 9 2011, 21:13
- - TBeck   QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 8 2011, 22:4...   Jan 10 2011, 12:50
|- - Destroid   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 10 2011, 11:50) There ...   Jan 11 2011, 08:13
|- - johnsonlam   QUOTE (TBeck @ Jan 10 2011, 19:50) 1) Sup...   Jan 13 2011, 04:32
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Jan 13 2011, 05:32) Q...   Jan 13 2011, 10:11
|- - johnsonlam   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Jan 13 2011, 17:11) QU...   Jan 20 2011, 19:41
- - sauvage78   The lack of requests for multichannel is IMHO simp...   Jan 11 2011, 09:20
- - list   Congratulations. And thanks a lot great job...   Jan 29 2011, 14:33
- - zver   Just a fast question; I started using tak few mont...   Jan 31 2011, 02:36
- - Manlord   With every version of TAK you advance one step bey...   Feb 5 2011, 22:52
- - TBeck   QUOTE (johnsonlam @ Jan 13 2011, 04:32) Q...   Feb 14 2011, 22:28
|- - zver   QUOTE (TBeck @ Feb 14 2011, 13:28) QUOTE ...   Feb 15 2011, 07:20
- - krafty   My wishlist: A linux version! tak (a binary)...   Feb 14 2011, 22:35
|- - sl1pkn07   QUOTE (krafty @ Feb 14 2011, 22:35) My wi...   Nov 27 2011, 21:54
- - greynol   Thomas is well aware of any and all comments/discu...   Feb 14 2011, 23:16


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: 31st July 2014 - 17:26