IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
FLAC 1.3.0 has been released, the most popular lossless audio codec
LRN
post Jun 19 2013, 12:42
Post #51





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-September 05
Member No.: 24291



QUOTE (lvqcl @ May 31 2013, 01:30) *
I tested these compiles on my Intel Core2. A CD image (44.1/16/stereo, 53min 50sec) was encoded with -8 setting.

Encoding time (smaller is better):

CODE
Case               76.2 s
ktf                77.0 s
john33 32bit       79.6 s
lamedude SSE 32bit 79.5 s

john33 64bit       77.6 s
lamedude SSE 64bit 76.6 s

Case: flac built by Case using MSVC 2012 (see post #12 in this thread)
john33: flac built by john33 using ICC 12.1 (see post #20 in this thread)
ktf: flac built by ktf using MinGW (see post #134)
lamedude: flac built by lamedude using MSVC 2012 (see post #132)

Can you try these (built with i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-4.8.1 and yasm)? Also these (same, but with -O3 optimizations) and these (same, but with -O3 optimizations and -march=core2)

This post has been edited by LRN: Jun 19 2013, 12:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Jun 20 2013, 09:36
Post #52





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (LRN @ Jun 19 2013, 13:42) *
Also these (same, but with -O3 optimizations) and these (same, but with -O3 optimizations and -march=core2)

These builds require a libogg-0.dll with an InterlockedCompareExchange@12 procedure, which I can't find.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LRN
post Jun 20 2013, 12:24
Post #53





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-September 05
Member No.: 24291



QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Jun 20 2013, 12:36) *
QUOTE (LRN @ Jun 19 2013, 13:42) *
Also these (same, but with -O3 optimizations) and these (same, but with -O3 optimizations and -march=core2)

These builds require a libogg-0.dll with an InterlockedCompareExchange@12 procedure, which I can't find.

Good catch! I've updated both tarballs, should be fine now.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Jun 20 2013, 14:18
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



Small test performed on a computer running XP Pro with an 'old' Core2Duo E6750 and encoding at both -8 and -6 compressions a pop/rock album rip of 453 MB WAV, 44min 53s:

CODE
Rarewares' ICL13 -8: 1:01.281
Rarewares' ICL13 -6: 0:16.484

KTF's -8: 1:00.918
KTF's -6: 0:18.562

LRN's generic -8: 0:57.875
LRN's generic -6: 0:17.500

LRN's Core2 -8: 0:57.688
LRN's Core2 -6: 0:17.672
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Walrusbonzo
post Jun 29 2013, 09:28
Post #55





Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 2-June 07
Member No.: 43967



Here are my results, they're very interesting indeed.

Phenom II X6 1055 running Windows 8 64 bit. Not currently overclocked, so rest of spec is insignificant.

I took a 3:22 long 24 bit 96kHz 5 channel file and encoded it with the ICL 13.0 32 bit and 64 bit binaries. I conducted 3 runs with each encoder.

  • 32 bit
    1. 11.38x realtime
    2. 11.36x realtime
    3. 11.34x realtime
  • 64 bit
    1. 15.49x realtime
    2. 15.53x realtime
    3. 15.40x realtime


  • It seems that, at least on my system with high res files, the 64 bit binary is much faster.
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    LordWarlock
    post Jun 29 2013, 14:07
    Post #56





    Group: Members
    Posts: 120
    Joined: 21-August 05
    Member No.: 24044



    Could people with AMD CPU try these patched* flac versions and compare them with vanila ICL13 from rare-wares? I wonder if Intel still plays dirty and slows down execution on AMD, but I no longer have an AMD CPU to check myself.
    flac-1.3-icl_patch.7z

    * removes the code dispatcher check for GenuineIntel
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    lvqcl
    post Jul 11 2013, 18:34
    Post #57





    Group: Developer
    Posts: 3212
    Joined: 2-December 07
    Member No.: 49183



    Is it possible to compile x86-64 version of FLAC with assembler optimizations?

    I tested 32-bit and 64-bit compiles from rarewares and 64-bit compile is slower for -3, -4, -5 and -6 encoding modes. I think that's because 64-bit version doesn't have ASM optimized functions...


    OTOH, it's relatively easy to rewrite FLAC__lpc_compute_autocorrelation_asm_ia32_sse_lag_N functions with intrinsics, and maybe this will be enough to restore encoding speed.
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    lvqcl
    post Jul 13 2013, 13:12
    Post #58





    Group: Developer
    Posts: 3212
    Joined: 2-December 07
    Member No.: 49183



    My (experimental) FLAC compile made with Intel Composer XE 2013; several asm functions were rewritten with intrinsics (SSE/SSE2/SSSE3/SSE4.1).
    Anyone wants to test it?

    [removed]

    This post has been edited by lvqcl: Jan 4 2014, 15:09
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    eahm
    post Aug 16 2013, 21:15
    Post #59





    Group: Members
    Posts: 884
    Joined: 11-February 12
    Member No.: 97076



    Why don't you guys add 1.3.0 binaries here http://sourceforge.net/projects/flac/files/flac-win/? Case's binaries perhaps (since they also are the ones in the foobar2000 Free Encoder Pack)?

    This post has been edited by eahm: Aug 16 2013, 21:24
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    ktf
    post Aug 17 2013, 20:28
    Post #60





    Group: Members
    Posts: 305
    Joined: 22-March 09
    Member No.: 68263



    See this post, it's about the binaries: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2...uly/004274.html

    Furthermore, FLAC is (slowly) being moved away from sourceforge.


    --------------------
    Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    eahm
    post Oct 13 2013, 04:51
    Post #61





    Group: Members
    Posts: 884
    Joined: 11-February 12
    Member No.: 97076



    QUOTE (ktf @ Aug 17 2013, 12:28) *
    See this post, it's about the binaries: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2...uly/004274.html

    Furthermore, FLAC is (slowly) being moved away from sourceforge.

    And it takes months to upload a binary to the website?
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    Makaki
    post Oct 13 2013, 05:00
    Post #62





    Group: Members
    Posts: 52
    Joined: 20-May 13
    Member No.: 108227



    Good observation

    I ended up using john33's compile from rarewares.org, and never looked at the subject again. But the official website still has the 1.2.1 windows binaries as the latest.

    http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.php

    This post has been edited by Makaki: Oct 13 2013, 05:03
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    eahm
    post Oct 13 2013, 07:21
    Post #63





    Group: Members
    Posts: 884
    Joined: 11-February 12
    Member No.: 97076



    I used Case's one since day one, that wasn't my point.

    Everything is so slow around open source projects, it takes months to do every little thing. IMO this is still one reason open source projects in general can't compete with big companies. If Apple changes iTunes albums to ALAC every other compressed lossless codec is done.

    This post has been edited by eahm: Oct 13 2013, 07:22
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    aztec_mystic
    post Oct 13 2013, 08:04
    Post #64





    Group: Members
    Posts: 93
    Joined: 28-March 13
    Member No.: 107425



    QUOTE (eahm @ Oct 13 2013, 08:21) *
    Everything is so slow around open source projects, it takes months to do every little thing.

    As you say "everything," one counterexample suffices to falsify your point: look at Firefox (an open source project) security updates. Several times, they released an update which fixed a zero-day exploit in less than a week's time.

    QUOTE
    IMO this is still one reason open source projects in general can't compete with big companies.

    Baseless claim. Many big company (e.g., Apple, Intel, IBM, Oracle) extensively rely on open-source projects. E.g., a shitload of major components of OS X are open source (including the kernel, apache, bash, man, perl, rsync, vim, ...)

    QUOTE
    If Apple changes iTunes albums to ALAC every other compressed lossless codec is done.

    This is just silly. First, it doesn't really belong in a thread with the topic FLAC 1.3.0. Second, what's the value of this claim without providing any rationale for it?

    ---

    EDIT: Moderation, please consider binning my post. Couldn't resist replying...

    This post has been edited by aztec_mystic: Oct 13 2013, 09:01
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    marc2003
    post Oct 13 2013, 08:08
    Post #65





    Group: Members
    Posts: 4327
    Joined: 27-January 05
    From: England
    Member No.: 19379



    the lack of official mp3 command line encoders doesn't seem to be doing the format much harm. tongue.gif
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    eahm
    post Oct 13 2013, 09:30
    Post #66





    Group: Members
    Posts: 884
    Joined: 11-February 12
    Member No.: 97076



    QUOTE (marc2003 @ Oct 13 2013, 00:08) *
    the lack of official mp3 command line encoders doesn't seem to be doing the format much harm. tongue.gif

    Right smile.gif I just hope for a brighter future of FLAC.
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    Nystagmus
    post Oct 13 2013, 16:31
    Post #67





    Group: Members
    Posts: 22
    Joined: 13-October 13
    Member No.: 110926



    I really love FLAC! I'm so glad it's still going strong now that it's had some increased direct hardware support from companies such as SanDisk Sansa (makers of the great sounding Clip, Clip+, and ClipZip media players with EQ). And with Linux support it's still going strong too. Thanks to everyone here for helping propel it forward!
    Eventually the hardware manufacturers will include 24-bit support as 24-bit becomes more Native to chips. Those are my predictions anyway. I read that it happened with some Desktop computer motherboards, so maybe with other hardware too!
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    Maurits
    post Oct 13 2013, 17:09
    Post #68





    Group: Members
    Posts: 353
    Joined: 30-September 05
    From: London, Europe
    Member No.: 24805



    QUOTE (eahm @ Oct 13 2013, 04:51) *
    QUOTE (ktf @ Aug 17 2013, 12:28) *
    See this post, it's about the binaries: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/2...uly/004274.html

    Furthermore, FLAC is (slowly) being moved away from sourceforge.

    And it takes months to upload a binary to the website?

    It's indeed a shame that the official FLAC download page still lists 1.2.1 as the most recent binary. Especially considering so much effort was put into 1.3.0

    There has been some discussion on the list about the binaries for the various platforms and that they want to compile them internally. That way they don't have to rely on externally compiled binaries where they can't really vouch for quality and security (There has been no shortage of volunteers to compile an official binary!).

    As considerable work has been done towards version 1.3.1 in the last few months (particularly a lot of code clean up and speed improvements) I wouldn't be surprised if they are waiting for that to go to release and launch official binaries at the same time.

    This post has been edited by Maurits: Oct 13 2013, 17:15
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    birdie
    post Oct 13 2013, 17:18
    Post #69





    Group: Members
    Posts: 107
    Joined: 3-March 06
    From: this planet
    Member No.: 28235



    QUOTE (eahm @ Oct 13 2013, 12:21) *
    I used Case's one since day one, that wasn't my point.

    Everything is so slow around open source projects, it takes months to do every little thing. IMO this is still one reason open source projects in general can't compete with big companies. If Apple changes iTunes albums to ALAC every other compressed lossless codec is done.


    Everything so slow around closed source projects which have reached perfection. IMO this is still one reason closed source projects can't compete with open source software on super computers and webservers. Strangely even though AAC is currently used by Apple, MP3 still hasn't died and used by all other digital music distribution companies. And LAME is still being actively developed. And then we have ... Opus which beats all other lossy audio codecs - each one of them.

    Sarcasm aside, do you have anything valuable to say other than your groundless opinion?
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    greynol
    post Oct 13 2013, 17:38
    Post #70





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



    QUOTE (birdie @ Oct 13 2013, 09:18) *
    Opus which beats all other lossy audio codecs - each one of them.

    Since you're on the subject, you may want to "ground" this opinion, too.

    This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 13 2013, 20:32


    --------------------
    Your eyes cannot hear.
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    saratoga
    post Oct 13 2013, 19:36
    Post #71





    Group: Members
    Posts: 4718
    Joined: 2-September 02
    Member No.: 3264



    Getting official binaries out is actually a pain in the ass, particularly if you have to support multiple platforms and want one trusted person to compile them all for security reasons. My guess the delay is them trying to find someone with a Mac and an up to date toolchain wink.gif
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    eahm
    post Oct 13 2013, 19:59
    Post #72





    Group: Members
    Posts: 884
    Joined: 11-February 12
    Member No.: 97076



    QUOTE (Maurits @ Oct 13 2013, 09:09) *
    As considerable work has been done towards version 1.3.1 in the last few months (particularly a lot of code clean up and speed improvements) I wouldn't be surprised if they are waiting for that to go to release and launch official binaries at the same time.

    Nice, I had no idea they are working on a new version.
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    Maurits
    post Oct 14 2013, 11:33
    Post #73





    Group: Members
    Posts: 353
    Joined: 30-September 05
    From: London, Europe
    Member No.: 24805



    QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 13 2013, 19:36) *
    Getting official binaries out is actually a pain in the ass, particularly if you have to support multiple platforms and want one trusted person to compile them all for security reasons. My guess the delay is them trying to find someone with a Mac and an up to date toolchain wink.gif

    Xiph has already confirmed they have a Mac and can compile the OS X build themselves. If they need input, tips or best practices in compiling using the OS X toolchain they can rely on the mailinglist where a number of people have been building FLAC binaries for OS X for years.

    I doubt technical reasons are to blame for the wait, I expect they are just waiting for 1.3.1 to kill two birds with one stone. A lot of changes for various build systems have landed after the release of 1.3.0 so they might as well wait until 1.3.1 is ready for release.

    This post has been edited by Maurits: Oct 14 2013, 11:34
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    TomasPin
    post Oct 14 2013, 18:55
    Post #74





    Group: Members
    Posts: 168
    Joined: 5-June 13
    From: Argentina
    Member No.: 108508



    I can only be thankful there's still active development of this great codec, no matter how long it takes to upload new binaries. So, thanks to everyone who contributes.


    --------------------
    A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post
    Werewolf6851
    post Oct 14 2013, 20:39
    Post #75





    Group: Members
    Posts: 10
    Joined: 27-September 09
    Member No.: 73521



    QUOTE (TomasPin @ Oct 14 2013, 18:55) *
    I can only be thankful there's still active development of this great codec, no matter how long it takes to upload new binaries. So, thanks to everyone who contributes.


    True.

    Now need a oggenc that read one of these big flac files.

    Wolf
    Go to the top of the page
    +Quote Post

    4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
    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: 20th April 2014 - 03:20