IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec, offers superior performance
wildnewt
post Feb 21 2007, 13:48
Post #176





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14-February 07
Member No.: 40627



TAK shows some interesting results - some data I thought I'd share smile.gif

Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK @ 0 compression beats FLAC @ -8 compression.

Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like the following?


Tones are usually hard for lossless codecs. Optimal settings seem to be 'high' preset.


biggrin.gif

Moderation: Amended inline images to linked thumbs

This post has been edited by wildnewt: Feb 21 2007, 14:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 21 2007, 14:01
Post #177





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (wildnewt @ Feb 21 2007, 12:48) *
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8. Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused. Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wildnewt
post Feb 21 2007, 14:10
Post #178





Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 14-February 07
Member No.: 40627



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Feb 21 2007, 22:01) *
QUOTE (wildnewt @ Feb 21 2007, 12:48) *
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8. Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused. Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?


yup smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 21 2007, 14:21
Post #179





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (wildnewt @ Feb 21 2007, 13:10) *
QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Feb 21 2007, 22:01) *
Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?
yup smile.gif
I wouldn't call it an irregularity, as I think everyone saw similar results. smile.gif

In my comparison TAK Turbo easily beats FLAC -8 using two apodisation switches as well. I'm not sure that any number of apodisation switches could provide the same compression as TAK Turbo.

There is a lot of talk about the speed comparison between TAK and FLAC, but if you take compression into account there is no comparison - FLAC simply cannot compete in the same arena.

Of course, I still find the speed comparisons interesting, especially given the swift release of FLAC 1.1.4 following 1.1.3, and FLAC's resurgence as the faster decoder. I look forward to further streamlining from both quarters (hmm... 'both'... 'quarters'... ermm...).


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sthayashi
post Feb 21 2007, 16:28
Post #180





Group: Members
Posts: 494
Joined: 16-April 03
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Member No.: 5997



QUOTE (Synthetic Soul @ Feb 21 2007, 08:01) *
QUOTE (wildnewt @ Feb 21 2007, 12:48) *
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8. Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused. Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like the irregularities he's talking about are the fact that increasing the compression level did not always result in a smaller file. In the pure tones, Tak High compressed better than Tak Extra, which is certainly unexpected.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post Feb 21 2007, 16:59
Post #181





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4887
Joined: 12-August 04
From: Exeter, UK
Member No.: 16217



QUOTE (sthayashi @ Feb 21 2007, 15:28) *
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like the irregularities he's talking about are the fact that increasing the compression level did not always result in a smaller file. In the pure tones, Tak High compressed better than Tak Extra, which is certainly unexpected.
Yes, that's why I checked before answering, because that really is an irregularity. However, wildnewt has already answered contrary to that.

I remember seeing a similar thing with FLAC in one of the tests I've been involved in, where (for sake of argument) -5 and -6 compressed worse that -4. I guess it just depends on the individual sample and the settings the presets are using... and whether the sample finds a 'loophole' in the normal situation.


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dhry
post Mar 10 2007, 17:41
Post #182





Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26-March 03
From: Phoenix, AZ
Member No.: 5688



QUOTE (Raiden @ Feb 19 2007, 06:33) *
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?
Absolutely yes.


--------------------
Dean-Ryan Stone
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TBeck
post Mar 20 2007, 05:29
Post #183


TAK Developer


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



TAK 1.0 has been tested by Ultimate Command Line Compressors: Comparison
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
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 - 20:25