Yalac - Comparisons, How the evaluation release compares to other compressors Options

[TBeck]

Content

In this thread the testers should post comparisons of the preset modes of Yalac (Working name for "Yet another lossless audio compressor") with other lossless compressors.

The results for specific variations of individual encoder options should go into the thread " Yalac – Evaluation and optimization".

Guidelines

Please post the exact version number of the compressors. Compression ratio should be specified in percent of the uncompressed file size. Speed figures should be specified as multiple of real time (duration of the test files). A specification of your test system, especially the CPU, would be helpful.

Open end: Feel free to add more results later.

What happened

Bad timing of my introduction (April 1.) forced an early publication of an evaluation release of Yalac, to prove, that it really works. This are results of 8 forum members, who where so kind to test the experimental release for me.

Many thanks!

Goals

Yalac should finally achieve compression ratios on par with Monkey's Audio High. Decoding speed should be at least two times higher than Monkey and never be significantly lower than with FLAC (possibly Yalac will later be integrated into FLAC).

My next steps

The first results i have received from the testers show me some weaknesses of the encoder. That's a good thing, because that means, that there definitely is a chance to increase the compression efficiency! Same is true for the speed; especially the decoder is not fully optimized yet. But it will take some time, before i will come up with an optimized release.

Links to 24 bit files i have used

I think, they are hard to find.

CODE

44 KHz, 24 bit

mytek_8X96_24bit_web.wav
Mytek-stereo96adc_evans.wav
Mytek-stereo96adc_ravel.wav

Source: http://www.mytekdigital.com/compare/comparison1.htm

48 KHz, 24 bit

McDougalsMen24bit_48kHz.wav
sister24bit_48kHz.wav

Source: http://ff123.net/samples.html

Or make a better Google search. foosion shows you how: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=381702

This post has been edited by TBeck: Apr 12 2006, 20:23

[Synthetic Soul]

My results can be found at the following address:

http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/

Goals

Yalac should finally achieve compression ratios on par with Monkey's Audio High. Decoding speed should be at least two times higher than Monkey and never be significantly lower than with FLAC (possibly Yalac will later be integrated into FLAC).

My results seem to bear that out completely:

CODE

Encoder Setting       Comp. %    Enc. Rate  Dec. Rate
Monkey's Audio High   52.002%       36.14x     34.30x
YALAC High            52.241%        5.70x     68.50x
FLAC -8               65.369%        8.76x     68.30x

A little more info in the main testing thread.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Apr 12 2006, 09:40

[Destroid]

I had issues with the inability for Yalac to accept mono files and other files with RIFF header issues. I am most interested in default/normal settings.

CODE

29 files @ 16bit 44KHz   98,376,576 bytes   duration 9:03
=========================================================
name/mode         Ratio    EncTime    DecTime
--------------    ------    ------    ------
MAC 4.01 beta2    58.52%    48.70x    40.04x
normal
--------------    ------    ------    ------    
Yalac 0.02        59.78%    26.83x    132.87x
normal

edit: System = A64 3000+ 512MB Win2Ksp4

This post has been edited by Destroid: Apr 12 2006, 03:25

[onthejazz]

My results can be found at the following address:

http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/

Goals

Yalac should finally achieve compression ratios on par with Monkey's Audio High. Decoding speed should be at least two times higher than Monkey and never be significantly lower than with FLAC (possibly Yalac will later be integrated into FLAC).

My results seem to bear that out completely:

CODE

Encoder Setting       Comp. %    Enc. Rate  Dec. Rate
Monkey's Audio High   52.002%       36.14x     34.30x
YALAC High            52.241%        5.70x     68.50x
FLAC -8               65.369%        8.76x     68.30x

That is quite impressive how you have your site set up soul, so very easy to read and access the info within.

[Synthetic Soul]

Comparison now includes Yalac Fastest.

• Summary of encoders
• "Yalac Fastest" individual file stats

That is quite impressive how you have your site set up soul, so very easy to read and access the info within.

Thank you. It made sense to me to store the data in a relational database rather than a spreadsheet or other flat file.

That said, I do mean to add the abilty to download any view in CSV format, for viewing in Excel. Maybe tomorrow.

This post has been edited by Synthetic Soul: Apr 12 2006, 22:31

[Destroid]

These are benchmarks with Yalac 0.03 with two albums (EAC CDImage file). The first album is rock recording that was remastered and represents modern, heavily compressed albums. The second is an un-remasted pop/rock album.

Notice that the behavior of each codec on different types albums affect both compression ratio and processing time:

CODE

Slayer - South of Heaven (remaster) 390,702,524 bytes duration 36:54
=======================================================================
name/params Ratio EncTime DecTime
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 fastest 74.20% 44.92x 66.64x
Yalac 0.03 fast 73.61% 37.91x 66.06x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c1000 74.34% 63.26x 48.13x
FLAC 1.1.2 --fast 79.47% 65.12x 67.09x
WavPack 4.3 -f 76.73% 63.26x 60.81x
OFR 4.520 --mode fast 73.60% 23.55x 35.14x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 normal 73.33% 24.47x 66.90x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c2000 73.14% 48.13x 41.77x
FLAC 1.1.2 (default) 75.70% 51.49x 65.12x
WavPack 4.3 (default) 75.42% 58.26x 61.50x
OFR 4.520 (default) 73.00% 16.65x 24.60x
LA 0.4 normal 71.65% 5.93x 7.72x
TTA 3.3 (default) 74.78% 55.68x 55.52x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 high 73.14% 7.30x 67.62x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c3000 72.88% 41.93x 37.85x
FLAC 1.1.2 --best 75.49% 11.78x 67.09x
WavPack 4.3 -h 73.82% 44.61x 53.92x
OFR 4.520 --mode high 72.77% 11.41x 16.65x
LA 0.4 high 71.52% 4.44x 5.38x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------

CODE

The Police - Synchonicity (1983) 471,176,204 bytes duration 44:31
=====================================================================
name/params Ratio EncTime DecTime
------------------ ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 fastest 51.44% 49.25x 76.49x
Yalac 0.03 fast 50.73% 39.84x 82.54x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c1000 51.46% 66.94x 53.85x
FLAC 1.1.2 --fast 58.43% 74.19x 78.56x
WavPack 4.3 -f 53.29% 73.52x 76.86x
OFR 4.520 --mode fast 50.76% 23.43x 35.61x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 normal 50.34% 25.45x 71.72x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c2000 49.88% 50.01x 44.08x
FLAC 1.1.2 (default) 52.92% 56.83x 78.56x
WavPack 4.3 (default) 52.22% 67.95x 75.10x
OFR 4.520 (default) 49.73% 17.12x 25.44x
LA 0.4 (normal) 48.42% 6.04x 7.94x
TTA 3.3 (default) 51.05% 65.77x 57.87x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 high 50.12% 7.22x 79.10x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c3000 49.57% 42.80x 39.87x
FLAC 1.1.2 --best 52.63% 12.20x 78.56x
WavPack 4.3 -h 50.61% 48.44x 64.41x
OFR 4.520 --mode high 49.38% 11.77x 16.59x
LA 0.4 -high 48.23% 4.54x 5.48x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------

Yalac already has great performance and ratio. It would be interesting to see if the encoding time can be further optimized

edit: added LA scores, not interesting since it usually gets the best ratio, is extremely slow and it crashed
edit2: added TTA scores

This post has been edited by Destroid: Apr 24 2006, 17:52

[TBeck]

Yalac already has great performance and ratio. It would be interesting to see if the encoding time can be further optimized

Many thanks!

I will work on the speed of the HIGH preset later. I would like it to be only two times slower than NORMAL.

Thomas

[Destroid]

Test #3 - LP recorded to cassette, includes vinyl pops, tape hiss, distortion from the A/D conversion process, etc.:

CODE

Harry Nilsson - Son of Schmilsson (3rd gen copy) 434,970,156 bytes duration 41:05
=====================================================================================
name/params Ratio EncTime DecTime
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 fastest 61.92% 47.60x 70.00x
Yalac 0.03 fast 61.49% 38.79x 71.55x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c1000 62.42% 61.87x 52.00x
FLAC 1.1.2 --fast 67.98% 66.99x 69.90x
WavPack 4.3 -f 66.82% 65.30x 68.09x
OFR 4.520 --mode fast 61.31% 22.88x 35.48x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 normal 61.30% 24.35x 70.01x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c2000 61.22% 49.61x 41.86x
FLAC 1.1.2 (default) 63.24% 53.94x 70.84x
WavPack 4.3 (default) 60.93% 62.43x 67.68x
OFR 4.520 (default) 60.69% 16.70x 25.20x
LA 0.4 (normal) 59.84% 5.77x 7.88x
TTA 3.3 (default) 63.42% 60.31x 57.60x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.03 high 61.17% 7.09x 69.69x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c3000 60.94% 40.63x 38.48x
FLAC 1.1.2 --best 62.95% 11.86x 70.75x
WavPack 4.3 -h 62.47% 43.76x 57.96x
OFR 4.520 --mode high 60.54% 11.62x 16.56x
LA 0.4 -high 59.66% 4.51x 5.42x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------

Test #4 - spoken word, dialogue, mono, recorded directly to digital medium - no transfer

CODE

spoken word - mono - 16bit 44KHz 183,064,762 bytes duration 34:35
=====================================================================
name/params Ratio EncTime DecTime
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.04 fastest 26.52% 316.88x 237.72x
Yalac 0.04 fast 26.10% 205.96x 301.75x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c1000 27.84% 157.16x 120.84x
FLAC 1.1.2 --fast 30.30% 272.13x 349.50x
WavPack 4.3 -f 28.86% 232.99x 262.46x
OFR 4.520 --mode fast 25.52% 63.24x 81.27x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.04 normal 25.84% 103.70x 287.82x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c2000 26.36% 109.30x 94.39x
FLAC 1.1.2 (default) 28.41% 214.20x 332.85x
WavPack 4.3 (default) 28.07% 195.59x 225.86x
OFR 4.520 (default) 25.26% 44.70x 57.92x
LA 0.4 normal 25.39% 14.13x 18.66x
TTA 3.3 (default) 26.81% 202.44x 129.33x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------
Yalac 0.04 high 25.70% 17.22x 284.41x
MAC 4.01 beta2 -c3000 26.05% 95.47x 83.21x
FLAC 1.1.2 --best 28.18% 47.48x 327.90x
WavPack 4.3 -h 27.08% 94.31x 106.24x
OFR 4.520 --mode high 25.14% 29.05x 38.15x
LA 0.4 high 25.44% 9.23x 10.36x
--------------------- ------ ------ ------

edit: added TTA scores

This post has been edited by Destroid: Apr 24 2006, 17:56

[Shade[ST]]

Destroid's results prove that YALAC is the best asymetric lossless audio codec to date.

Congrats, Thomas!

Keep up the hard work. And tell us if your house is still in one piece.

[Destroid]

' date='Apr 18 2006, 12:21 AM' post='383537']
Destroid's results prove that YALAC is the best asymetric lossless audio codec to date.

Congrats, Thomas!

Keep up the hard work. And tell us if your house is still in one piece.

The most obvious thing I'm overlooking is testing with MPEG-4 ALS, which has many confusing parameters. I do not know the equivilent command line for fast/normal/high settings. And I'm not sure if either of the two existing MPEG-4 ALS binaries is representative of the codec at this time.

Otherwise, yes. Yalac delivers MA compression ratio with FLAC decompression speed.

[Synthetic Soul]

Garf posted some suggestions for "presets" here, and there are some other suggestions in that thread. Also, in the main Yalac thread, Joseph Pohm suggested a setting which I used here, and Thomas responded with some settings that he had used here.

When I tested there were three binaries: the reference software, the bug-fixed version, and Garf's optimised version. On checking the MP4ALS page now it seems a newer version will be released in the next few days.

As you say, whether testing against a reference encoder is relevant at all is another matter. I didn't put too much emphasis on MP4ALS as I am more interested in testing Yalac against current popular codecs.

[vinnie97]

I'm still waiting for something to beat LA's compression ratio...I guess it would take a pretty substantial breakthrough in lossless compression before that happens.

[Destroid]

Garf posted some suggestions for "presets" here, and there are some other suggestions in that thread. Also, in the main Yalac thread, Joseph Pohm suggested a setting which I used here, and Thomas responded with some settings that he had used here.

When I tested there were three binaries: the reference software, the bug-fixed version, and Garf's optimised version. On checking the MP4ALS page now it seems a newer version will be released in the next few days.

As you say, whether testing against a reference encoder is relevant at all is another matter. I didn't put too much emphasis on MP4ALS as I am more interested in testing Yalac against current popular codecs.

This is exactly what I approximated. I will look into MP4ALS benchmarks from these threads. It appears that MP4ALS is better at multichannel. Not all lossless encoders are outfitted for such applications.

[TBeck]

This is exactly what I approximated. I will look into MP4ALS benchmarks from these threads. It appears that MP4ALS is better at multichannel. Not all lossless encoders are outfitted for such applications.

I agree. And that's one reason, why i was very interested into the results of your test of mono files. They seem to comfirm my own findings: The difference between YALAC and other better performing compressors is smaller with mono than with stereo files. My channel decorrelation obviously needs some improvement.

Many thanks for your tests!

Thomas

[Firon]

I'm really impressed, the fast compression ratio is almost as good as MA on normal! If the encoding speed could be improved a little on high, then YALAC would even be more amazing.

Thanks for testing it Destroid, and thanks for working on this TBeck, this format might just rock the lossless world

[TBeck]

I'm really impressed, the fast compression ratio is almost as good as MA on normal! If the encoding speed could be improved a little on high, then YALAC would even be more amazing.

High will be improved! One simple way to achieve this would be the deactivation of one encoder options, which is most responsible for the speed decrease from Normal to high, but usually gives only a small improvement of compression ratio.

Another possibility would be the optimization of the slow encoder option. I allready have one prototype, which performs about 70 percent better speedwise.

Thomas

[Destroid]

I agree. And that's one reason, why i was very interested into the results of your test of mono files. They seem to comfirm my own findings: The difference between YALAC and other better performing compressors is smaller with mono than with stereo files. My channel decorrelation obviously needs some improvement.

Wow.

My first observations in monural audio is your codec is very competitive. And for your information, I was running binary comparisons of the output from Yalac to the original and the source file, and there were no differences.

Very well done.

[JB_]

Hello, its my 1st post here.
Have you guys know this audio lossless software? (http://www.true-audio.com/)
it compresses very good too, better than flac and also has a winamp plugin.
it would be interesting to test it and compare it with Yalac in these listings.

[Synthetic Soul]

Following my comparison using 16bit 44.1KHz stereo tracks I had started preparing for a comparison using the same tracks converted to mono, and also 48KHz and 24 bit.

Is it worth me continuing with this?

I am also wary that you, Thomas, are currently in the process of changing things around a fair bit. I wonder whether I might do better to hold off until you release these changes?

That said, I am, of course, happy to help if you would like more variety in your results. I just don't want to be wasting my time really, if you feel that you already have enough data for the current run.

[[proxima]]

Have you guys know this audio lossless software? (http://www.true-audio.com/)

Of course, the developer Alexander Djourik (ald) is a member of Hydrogen Audio.

it would be interesting to test it and compare it with Yalac in these listings.

TTA was considered in previous tests by guruboolez (http://guruboolez.free.fr/lossless/), speek (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm) and Hans Heijden (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm)

[pest]

My channel decorrelation obviously needs some improvement.

i think most stereo decorrelation is in the predictors. if you do something
simple as ms-decorrelation + predictors the results are always suboptimal.

[TBeck]

Following my comparison using 16bit 44.1KHz stereo tracks I had started preparing for a comparison using the same tracks converted to mono, and also 48KHz and 24 bit.

Is it worth me continuing with this?

I am also wary that you, Thomas, are currently in the process of changing things around a fair bit. I wonder whether I might do better to hold off until you release these changes?

That said, I am, of course, happy to help if you would like more variety in your results. I just don't want to be wasting my time really, if you feel that you already have enough data for the current run.

Very nice!

But good that you have asked:

1) More mono tests aren't necessary for my purposes. It's good that one tester has confirmed my own findings.

2) 48 Khz vs. 44 Khz shouldn't change much.

3) If i convert 16 to 24 bit files with Cooledit, it only does shift the original lower bits 8 bits up and fills the free space (the new lower 8 bits) with 0. If you try such files with YALAC, you will only find, that YALAC doesn't look for this special case (an option sometimes called 'Look for wasted bits') and will perform very bad compared to other compressors. The implementation of such a check is easy but not done yet.

Real 24 bit files would be far more interesting.

I surely will ask for more specific tests, if there are improvements, that are worth the effort.

This should not stop testing! Other files can always give surprising results, which give me hints for further improvements.

One important note:

I tend to write too much about my actual improvements. But they are only prototypes! It will take a considerable amount of time to optimize and debug them! There will be no considerably improved releases within the next weeks! Speedups are a different matter, they may come fast.

I tend to forget, how long it did take, to built the actual YALAC.

Thomas

This post has been edited by TBeck: Apr 18 2006, 14:20

[JB_]

TTA was considered in previous tests by guruboolez (http://guruboolez.free.fr/lossless/), speek (http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm) and Hans Heijden (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm)

is there a reason not to test it along with Yalac?

[Synthetic Soul]

Not especially. Is there a compelling reason to include it though?

Personally I chose to compare Yalac with the popular codecs, at relevant settings.

It doesn't seem that TTA offers anything spectacular to warrant it being included. It appears to be no real competition in compression or decoding speed.

I don't mind adding a run to my comparison, it would be little trouble.

[moozooh]

TBeck,

Your compressor is actually a BOMB. Right now, it offers the best possible compromise between compression ratio and decoding speed. Thank you for being so awesome.