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 250142 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 #50 –
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 agree. Even looking at the source code is no way to determine if a complex algorithm (which I believe TAK is) works. The only way to know if it works or not is to test.

Thomas has provided the binaries. All you need to "... be sure that the benefits claimed are true ..." is to compress a WAV file using the binaries, and time it with whatever means you have. Then decompress it, again timing it. Then compare the result of the decompression with the original.

I am very sorry to say that some open source advocates in some way resemble audiophooles.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #51 –
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.


Some people perhaps don't understand the notion 'bit identical before and after compression & at the stated compression level when compressed'?

I suppose it is logically conceivable that the TAK encoder was actually a rootkit that made any files with the extension .tak have an arbitrary cool-looking %age compared to encodes with other lossless codecs of the same input data, but it seems more likely the individual in question here has been effectively conditioned by the (imo sometimes somewhat idiotically zealous F/OSS crowd that is commanded by the FSF).

It's really odd how think about how his question would have sounded lots more reasonable if he had said he was "just curious to see how and what algorithms were implemented", in order to understand why FLAC(wavpack too¿?) was so much slower and compressed so much worse (no offense josh ), rather than this rather idiotically skeptical sounding question "just because the source isn't available YET" (mind you, it's not as if it hasn't already been pretty much guaranteed it will at some time in the reasonably near future be released).

yes, the FSF has its uses.. but the crusading it inspires seems almost medievally unreasonable

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #52 –
Congratulations Thomas on the first final release of your incredible new lossless codec. I'm yet another person who has been silently watching the development of TAK since your first post on April Fool's day (and at that time was sure you were just joking). It's been really enjoyable to watch it grow from there to this point, and I look forward to seeing what comes next.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #53 –
That's a lot to answer and many misunderstanding to correct.
[beside, calling me idiotic and stupid will in no way affect me...so you can go on ]

First, i'm in no way related to any work and/or people involved in ANY activity in the FSF or ANY OpenSource movement (apart from the fact that i've a computer with Ubuntu installed...one on so many, and that i've released WMPTSE under a "public domain" license).

Anyway, my point wasn't about "i dont believe your codec isn't doing what your are claiming".
My point was, if you choose to not release the source SAY it right now.
Everybody can endure a closed source codec, and as the developper of WMPTSE, i'm totally open to this.

We just want to know without having to browse all Hydrogen Audio Thread about your codec.

For the "rootkit part", it is true that i believe a piece of closed source software is a security danger in ANY operating system and especially under Windows. There's ways to ensure a program is not doing anything wrong (anti virus and such) to a certain extend.

I DO NOT say that's what your program is doing, i'm just saying that you will endure SUSPICION (mostly from paranoid people like me) as soon as some user have any kind of strange configuration problem with it.

Now, if you are already bored of answering stupid question, i'm sorry to predict nightmarish days when you widely release it (outside HA). 

Last, i don't need the source code to compare a file bit-to-bit, thank you for the tips... 
I need the source code to have confidence. I can trust a program to behave as deeply as i am permitted to understand its inner working...
You don't give source, i don't give full thrust...That was my point.

Again, i can live with it. But i NEED TO KNOW your politics... in the related thread, you give no answers TAK & License. First you say no to "publish code on release", then you say yes to "publishing code someday", and you conclude by "i've no time to spend on deciding"...

In a way, i was trying to put pressure on you to decide.
To me, it seems Release is the time to make these choices.

Maybe you don't agree...

At least, let's discuss it.


MaB_fr

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #54 –
Quote from: MaB_fr on
Again, i can live with it. But i NEED TO KNOW your politics... in the related thread, you give no answers TAK & License

Well, i should be more service oriented... It wasn't sufficient to guide you to the previous page of this thread. I better had copied the post from page 1 for you:
Quote
My current plan:
...
3) Source code conversion will be performed in small (bearable) portions, when i have time. Absolutely no promises about a release date!


Quote from: MaB_fr on
In a way, i was trying to put pressure on you to decide.

Your "Pressure" has been the reason for me to react less reserved than usual. Probably it on it's own would not have been sufficient, but trying to put pressure on me while putting absolutely no effort into own (easy) evaluation of this question simply is too much!

Quote from: MaB_fr on
Now, if you are already bored of answering stupid question, i'm sorry to predict nightmarish days when you widely release it (outside HA).

Thanks for beeing so careful! But 'already' seems a bit misplaced here, if you take into account that i am answering thoses questions since about 9 months. Usually no problem. There must be something special with your post. But i told you above.

  Thomas

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #55 –
I'm about to make a volcano of yourself 

But i'm sorry, you didn't answer the question just yet...

What will it be (i simplify to make all things crystal clear) :
- Totally close (ok, you say no to this one, so we just pass it) ?
- Closed source (other will not be able to modify it [even if you publish the code]) ?
- Open source (other will be able to modify it under certain condition) ?
- Public domain (you let your code in the wild without condition) ?

Are you exploding yet ?

MaB_fr

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #56 –
For someone who wants to look at the source code of every application they use you seem incredibly bad at reading posts.  You said that you'd looked at the TAK - Source code release and conversion thread, in which is written (on whatever it is they write on up there):

Quote from: TBeck on
When i  release the source code i want it to be used by others. I will choose a  license which makes this easy. Probably GNU. But i have to admit, that  i don't know too much about the differences of open source licenses. I  will deal with this when the source code is ready.

Now, this may not be a definitive or conclusive answer, but if you bothered to read the single page in that thread, and the first in this, you would have all the answers you are going to get at this time.  If you don't have faith in Thomas' word then please, move on.
I'm on a horse.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #57 –
TBeck has said numerous times that the sources will be opened when he has ported them from Delphi to C/C++, but that this project will take some time, so no release date is promised(for the sources, i mean).

Sorry, Synthetic Soul was faster than me

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #58 –
Quote from: MaB_fr on
I'm about to make a volcano of yourself 

Any indication for this happening?

Quote from: MaB_fr on
But i'm sorry, you didn't answer the question just yet...

What will it be (i simplify to make all things crystal clear) :
- Totally close (ok, you say no to this one, so we just pass it) ?

And this already answers your earlier question:

Quote
I need the source code to have confidence. I can trust a program to behave as deeply as i am permitted to understand its inner working...
You don't give source, i don't give full thrust...That was my point.


Quote from: MaB_fr on
- Closed source (other will not be able to modify it [even if you publish the code]) ?
- Open source (other will be able to modify it under certain condition) ?
- Public domain (you let your code in the wild without condition) ?

Why raise new questions?

I will not answer them now, simply because i am not sure about the details. I am prefering to write (hopefully useful) code instead of dealing with open source bureaucracy.


Quote from: MaB_fr on
Are you exploding yet ?

Continue dreaming...

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #59 –
Then, sorry for your users and the willing developer...

I will not bother you anymore...just enjoy the release

Good luck anyway, keep containing the fumes


MaB_fr

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #60 –
I'm making a FAQ for you, Thomas.  I'll link it here when I'm done.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #61 –
Quote
' date='Jan 29 2007, 17:16' post='467940']
I'm making a FAQ for you, Thomas.  I'll link it here when I'm done.

Thank you!

Put please let me read it first, before publishig it.

Nice to see(read) you again

  Thomas

edit1: You have been faster! It's perfectly ok!

edit2: Now i have been too fast.

Two corrections:

1) My name is Thomas Becker, not Thomas Beck.

2) "it is most likely to be very easy to decode on hardware, even in its most compressing modes"

"even in its most compressing modes" is questionable.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #62 –
Yeah, sorry. I edited it again. I do need a description for forward prediction.

Here's the link. Keep it in your sig?

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=52276

I updated to your 11:40 edit.
I was wondering... what's the take on 32-bit floating point files?  Can you compress 'em?  Should I read the readme? Probably, eh?

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #63 –
Sounds pretty good. Well will it be added to the lossless comparison chart? It will need alot more support before I could consider migrating. To bad its not OS, or the support may be able to be added faster.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #65 –
Glad that version 1.0 is out. Congratulations!
               


Looking forward to see someone experiment with a freepascal port...

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #66 –
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #67 –
I'm pretty sure that this has to wait.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #68 –
Quote from: vhl on
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

it's complicated, difficult to get right, and non-portable.  better to spawn multiple processes for individual files and let the OS handle it.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #69 –
TAK's actual implementations are generally only limited by IO speed, in case of "turbo" mode.  I'm not sure that a multicore implementation would be that useful.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #70 –
Quote from: jcoalson on
Quote from: vhl on
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

it's complicated, difficult to get right, and non-portable.  better to spawn multiple processes for individual files and let the OS handle it.

What about WinRar? What about video codecs? It's true and it's present! Why i must use only one core in my multicore system? Why i must run multiple copies instead of put all files in one queu and just run it?

Quote
' date='Jan 30 2007, 13:09' post='468209']
TAK's actual implementations are generally only limited by IO speed, in case of "turbo" mode.  I'm not sure that a multicore implementation would be that useful.

Then it's possible improve speed in other modes!

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #71 –
Thanks Thomas, the coding/decoding-abilities of the new codec seems to be amazing *thumbs up* 
I am really astonished that you get it to achive better compression and speed than the other lossless-codecs which have been optimized over a long period - due to a better basic structure/concept or due to smartish coding?

Feinste Grüsse

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #72 –
Quote from: vhl on
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

Properly multi-threaded code is not trivial to do.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #73 –
Just wanted to say Thank You Tbeck!

I'm really happy to see new lossless codecs being developed and improved upon.  I'll probably have to wait until the SDK is out and some playback support is available to fully test it out, but I'm definately interested/excited about this project.

Keep up the good work!
JXL

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #74 –
Quote from: vhl on
Why i must use only one core in my multicore system? Why i must run multiple copies instead of put all files in one queu and just run it?

Would you please STFU and stop whining! Nobody is forcing you to use non-SMP enabled software in the first place and it doesn't make it better that you're whining at a freeware developer, where you haven't even paid a nickle for using his work!