IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LAME using GPU technologies, LAME, FAAC, CUDA, GPU
zuxlar
post Oct 11 2013, 21:39
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-October 11
Member No.: 94520



Hi,

Are there any chance to use GPU-optimized comandline encoders of LAME and FAAC?

I just start using nVidia GT320 videocard and have tested FLACCL in foobar2000... it's encoding so fast, but LAME shows on my Intel Core Quad only 30x speed. FAAC is about 20x.

Google didn't brought me any usefull info. May be I have missed some discussion on this forum (sorry about this).

Thanks in advance,
Alexander.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 11 2013, 21:51
Post #2





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



QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 16:39) *
Are there any chance to use GPU-optimized comandline encoders of LAME and FAAC?


Probably not. The workload is not well suited to what GPUs do.

By the way, FAAC is an extremely simple and low quality encoder. You probably do not want to use it at all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zuxlar
post Oct 11 2013, 21:59
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-October 11
Member No.: 94520



Strange, the latest videocards provide very good math...
But I'm still asking because I can't find anything GPU-related...

QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 11 2013, 23:51) *
By the way, FAAC is an extremely simple and low quality encoder. You probably do not want to use it at all.

No, it's not. Just compare with LAME - you'll be suprtized.

FAAC provides very good frequency spectrum and the sound on the same bitrate of MP3s. You can test it in latest iTunes if you don't want to configure foobar2000.
or download comandline encoder here: http://www.rarewares.org/files/aac/faac-1.28-mod.zip
CODE
-q 500 - -o %d


Anyway, thanks for discussion smile.gif

This post has been edited by zuxlar: Oct 11 2013, 22:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 11 2013, 22:13
Post #4





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



QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 16:59) *
Strange, the latest videocards provide very good math...


GPUs do massively parallel computation. Single threaded or few threaded operations are quite slow. MP3 in particular is quite difficult to make parallel.

QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 16:59) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 11 2013, 23:51) *
By the way, FAAC is an extremely simple and low quality encoder. You probably do not want to use it at all.

No, it's not. Just compare with LAME - you'll be suprtized.


As I understand it FAAC is just an example of how to make a basic AAC encoder. Its not really meant to be used for applications where quality matters. You can see why here:

http://listening-tests.freetzi.com/html/AA...est_results.htm

QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 16:59) *
FAAC provides very good frequency spectrum and the sound on the same bitrate of MP3s.


Remember, frequency spectrum has nothing to do with quality, so just because the spectrum looks a certain way says nothing about how a file sounds. This is why poor quality files often have a full spectrum.

If you want to evaluate a AAC encoders, you should not waste your time with the spectrum. Instead you should use double blind tests such as ABX or ABC/HR . Take a look at the listening test I linked above.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zuxlar
post Oct 11 2013, 22:23
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-October 11
Member No.: 94520



QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 11 2013, 23:51) *
As I understand it FAAC is just an example of how to make a basic AAC encoder.

Yes, something like. I just want to encode AAC using CUDA in foobar2000 if this is possible.

But I don't ever knew, that iTunes and FAAC codecs are so different. Anyway, it's not easy to hear the differences in electronic music. Thanks for the info.

This post has been edited by zuxlar: Oct 11 2013, 22:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 11 2013, 22:27
Post #6





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



QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 17:23) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 11 2013, 23:51) *
As I understand it FAAC is just an example of how to make a basic AAC encoder.

Yes, something like. I just want to comress in AAC using CUDA in foobar2000 if this is possible.


GPUs are actually able to perform general purpose computation, so its probably possible to write an ok quality encoder that does this. However, its less clear that it will be faster than your CPU. I suspect that porting FAAC to CUDA will result in an encoder that is quite slow. Most likely you could make the FFT quite a bit faster, and much of the rest quite a lot slower.

QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 17:23) *
But I don't ever knew, that iTunes and FAAC codes is so different. Anyway, it's not easy to hear the differences in electronic music. Thanks for the info.


If you don't need good quality, you can probably encode much faster by using faster settings. Quality may be decreased, but perhaps it will still be higher than FAAC. Worth experimenting with anyway.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zuxlar
post Oct 11 2013, 22:41
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18-October 11
Member No.: 94520



Ah, I partially understand what you mean about compute and threads. I'm an absolute noob in Fourier series and programming... LOL But it seems like the only and true reason why these codecs still not exists.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kamedo2
post Oct 12 2013, 03:41
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 16-November 12
From: Kyoto, Japan
Member No.: 104567



QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 12 2013, 05:59) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 11 2013, 23:51) *
By the way, FAAC is an extremely simple and low quality encoder. You probably do not want to use it at all.

No, it's not. Just compare with LAME - you'll be suprtized.

My personal listening test of LAME vs FAAC two years ago.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=102876


If you're looking for the speed, I'd recommend the Helix MP3 encoder. 150x speed on my Core i7 870 and still the quality is on par with LAME.
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=100896
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 12 2013, 07:51
Post #9





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5155
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (zuxlar @ Oct 11 2013, 21:59) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 11 2013, 23:51) *
By the way, FAAC is an extremely simple and low quality encoder. You probably do not want to use it at all.
No, it's not. Just compare with LAME - you'll be suprtized.
Given that this is the first time I have seen anyone assert FAAC as being superior to anything else, I think you need to provide the results of your ABX tests in support of this assertion.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eadmaster
post Oct 15 2013, 20:41
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 14-February 07
Member No.: 40625



there was a CUDA Coding Contest some years ago for LAME.
Anyone still got some submissions to try?

This post has been edited by eadmaster: Oct 15 2013, 20:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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 - 00:47