Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec (Read 249940 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #25 –
Wow great codec...I like FLAC but hates how it takes forever to encode it if you want decent compression...if this gains some more support (like: plugins, being used by more than just HA users etc.) this will become my (and many others) lossless codec of choice
Les mots d'amour...

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #26 –
Congratulations Thomas on the final release. I've been silently following the development of this codec and I must say it is one of the most exciting things that emerged on HA lately. Very impressive work and thank you for sharing it. I think it was on April Fool's Day that TAK was first mentioned and most people took it for a joke. That fact alone should make it clear how impressive TAK is.

Regards

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #27 –
Upon further reflection it occured to me that, due to my non-fancy way of archives my CDs, I can really start using TAK right now.  I don't really need a foobar plugin (though it would be nice), and I don't care about any embedded stuff or the like. 

I bought a few CDs yesterday.  When I get around to ripping them this weekend I'll be archiving them in TAK format.  I don't know if anyone else has begun using TAK for true archiving rather than merely testing, but if I happen to be the first, I'll be proud. 

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #28 –
hmmm. i can't use TAK due to its buggy WAV handling. everytime i create a .wav file from foobar2000, TAK complains that it can't read the file...

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #29 –
Strange, all the WAVEs that I have used for testing were created by foobar (from WavPack archives).

Can you elaborate?

Bear in mind, as detailed in the readme, that the current implementation can only process "Sample rates  from 8000 to 96000 Hz. Bit depths of 8, 16 or 24. Channels: Mono or Stereo.".
I'm on a horse.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #30 –
the wav file that i made came from an mp3(wanted to test out TAK's prefilter). but for some reason, TAK doesn't like it.

what's also weird is that if i use LAME to decode the mp3, the wav file will play nicely with TAK.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #31 –
Perhaps you could take a look at the WAVE file in foobar ("Properties" > "Properties" tab) and report the details.  You can highlight all the info using Ctrl+A, and copy all info including names using Ctrl+Shift+C, e.g.:

File Name : 06.wav
File Path : D:\FLAC Corpus\source\06.wav
Subsong Index : 0
File Size : 98 031 404 bytes
Last Modified : 2006-05-03 19:19:14
Duration : 9:15.733 (24507840 samples)
Sample Rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 2
Bits Per Sample : 16
Bitrate : 1411 kbps
Codec : PCM
Encoding : lossless

I wonder whether you are creating 32 bit WAVE files from foobar.
I'm on a horse.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Mangix on
hmmm. i can't use TAK due to its buggy WAV handling. everytime i create a .wav file from foobar2000, TAK complains that it can't read the file...

Quote from: Mangix on
the wav file that i made came from an mp3(wanted to test out TAK's prefilter). but for some reason, TAK doesn't like it.

what's also weird is that if i use LAME to decode the mp3, the wav file will play nicely with TAK.

As you probably can imagine, i am absolutelyl interested to clear this up!

I am a bit surprised because of the huge count of files (from the tests i know it has to be far more than 1000, one secret tester compressed and verified more than 60 GB without any trouble!) that have been tested without problems.

The only problem i can remember was the 2 GB file size issue and this has been fixed.

There must be something very special with this file. I really would appreciate, if you could provide the information Synthetic Soul asked for. This could be helpful.

And what exactly is the error message?


  Thomas

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #33 –
Quote from: TBeck on
I am a bit surprised because of the huge count of files (from the tests i know it has to be far more than 1000, one secret tester compressed and verified more than 60 GB without any trouble!) that have been tested without problems.

I only know of two conditions, which possibly have not been tested often:

1) 8-bit Mono files.

2) Wave files with non audio meta data appended to the end.

Is it possible, that Foobar writes additional meta data to the file? Possibly the content of the ID3 tag?

Could someone please answer this question?

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #34 –
foobar2000 did it (optional writing of APEv2 tags at the end of the file) in the past, but this feature was removed since 0.9

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #35 –
Quote from: guruboolez on
foobar2000 did it (optional writing of APEv2 tags at the end of the file) in the past, but this feature was removed since 0.9

For good reasons i asume...

Thank you!

Then this is one possible reason for the failure, although TAK'a ability to read trailing meta data has been tested (a bit)...

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #36 –
I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accident...

Quote
Perhaps you could take a look at the WAVE file in foobar ("Properties" > "Properties" tab) and report the details.  You can highlight all the info using Ctrl+A, and copy all info including names using Ctrl+Shift+C, e.g.:
the wav file is
Code: [Select]
File Name : 07-Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche.wav
File Path : C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\07-Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche.wav
Subsong Index : 0
File Size : 68 212 644 bytes
Last Modified : 2007-01-27 14:56:47
Duration : 3:13.346 (8526575 samples)
Sample Rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 2
Bits Per Sample : 32
Bitrate : 2822 kbps
Codec : PCM (floating-point)
Encoding : lossless

and the original mp3 file is

Code: [Select]
File Name : 07 - Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche-vbr.mp3
File Path : C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\My Music\Rock\Nile\Amongst The Catacombs Of Nephren-Ka\07 - Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche-vbr.mp3
Subsong Index : 0
File Size : 7 535 120 bytes
Last Modified : 2006-12-26 23:40:43
Duration : 3:13.346 (8526575 samples)
Sample Rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 2
Bitrate : 312 kbps
Codec : MP3
Codec Profile : MP3 VBR
Encoding : lossy
Tag Type : id3v2|id3v1
Track Gain : -6.73 dB
Track Peak : 1.038791
Album Gain : -9.13 dB
Album Peak : 1.070377
<MP3_ACCURATE_LENGTH> : yes
<MP3_STEREO_MODE> : stereo

i think the only thing which causes that is mp3packer since i used it on the mp3 file.

also as i said, LAME makes a good wav file so no worries about that.

also, just so i'm clear, i'm using the latest version of foobar2000.

edit:also, the original mp3 file is not 32-bit. it's a 16-bit file with 2-channels

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Mangix on
I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accident...
...
i think the only thing which causes that is mp3packer since i used it on the mp3 file.

also as i said, LAME makes a good wav file so no worries about that.

Thank you very much for the fast reply!

This lightens me enormously!

  Thomas

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #38 –
As Sintetic Soul suggested, you are creating a 32bit floating point wave, not an 8/6/24bit integer wave. In other words, it is not mp3packer, nor a bug in foobar2000.

Simply change the "preferred bit depth" in foobar preferences ( tools- converter , and then at the bottom ).


"Also", mp3 has no bitdepth. only PCM (wave) does.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #39 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote from: Mangix on

I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accident...
...
i think the only thing which causes that is mp3packer since i used it on the mp3 file.

also as i said, LAME makes a good wav file so no worries about that.

Thank you very much for the fast reply!

This lightens me enormously!

  Thomas

To make it clear: Mangix' problems had not been caused by a bug in TAK, but by his Foobar configuration. Foobar created a 32-bit floating point wave file instead of the standard 16-bit integer format.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #40 –
Rock on Thomas!  This is really a revolution in lossless audio.  I'm glad all the testing is done and the format is finally public.  Though when such breakthroughs happen, you should always have a copy of your code with someone you trust (IMO), in case something bad happens to your computer, yourself, etc. (Not that I wish to worry you, of course)

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #41 –
Quote
' date='Jan 29 2007, 07:29' post='467819']
Rock on Thomas!  This is really a revolution in lossless audio.  I'm glad all the testing is done and the format is finally public.  Though when such breakthroughs happen, you should always have a copy of your code with someone you trust (IMO), in case something bad happens to your computer, yourself, etc. (Not that I wish to worry you, of course)

Should i take care for this before visting my dentist in about 3 hours?

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #42 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Should i take care for this before visting my dentist in about 3 hours?
Only if he has criminal friends who know where you live...

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.
I'm on a horse.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #43 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote
' date='Jan 29 2007, 07:29' post='467819']
Rock on Thomas!  This is really a revolution in lossless audio.  I'm glad all the testing is done and the format is finally public.  Though when such breakthroughs happen, you should always have a copy of your code with someone you trust (IMO), in case something bad happens to your computer, yourself, etc. (Not that I wish to worry you, of course)

Should i take care for this before visting my dentist in about 3 hours?


yes

edit: Good Morning Synthetic

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Synthetic Soul on
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.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #45 –
Quote from: cabbagerat on
Quote from: Synthetic Soul on

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

May the byte be with you...

MaB_fr

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #46 –
Quote from: MaB_fr on
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.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #47 –
He came from nowhere at the fool's day last year and announced that he's intend to create a new lossless codec that have almost all virtues of current ones. I guess a lot of people here thought it's just a joke. Now here it is, a mature product.

Thanks TBeck for all your effort. I'll try it when some of the major players support the playback.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #48 –
Danke, Anke!

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #49 –
Quote from: MaB_fr on
I'm sorry, i did not consult the old TAK/Yalac forum thread, so some point may be inacurate...

A bit of reading would have saved you and me time. I am really boared from having to answer the same questions over and over again. Earlier i thought, a faq could help, but it wouldn't: if someone isn't willing to look into some recent posts, how should he find a faq?

Quote from: gib on
Quote from: MaB_fr on

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 couldn't say it better!

Quote from: MaB_fr on
If you prefer to go closed, say it now. It's your choice, but you must be clear with all of your users.

Thank you for telling me what to do. I hope, it was ok to answer this question in the previous page of this thread, or was this too late?

Quote from: MaB_fr on
Sorry for the bad vibes

It's perfectly ok to have a different opinion, but please don't waste my time!

  Thomas