Which is the best lossless codec?, Discussion thread Options

[kotrtim]

1. LOWER COMPRESSION BUT HIGHER CPU USAGE
2. NO COMPRESSION MODE TO SELECT

EDIT : But compared with Monkey's Audio, WMA still use more power.

WMA = 34.0MB = ~13% CPU Usage
Monkey's Audio - High = 33.7MB = ~7% CPU Usage

This post has been edited by kotrtim: Nov 26 2004, 06:17

[rjamorim]

I've encoded a sample 5:39
but when I playback with foobar2000
WMA = 932kbps
FLAC = 860kbps
?????is this a bug?

Guess so...

this is the first time i test REAL,no kidding, REAL Lossless encodes very fast, comparable to FLAC-5, deocoding use less than 2% CPU usage with real player (P4 1.4GHz)

That's interesting. Thanks for mentioning that.
I just added an entry for Real Audio.

besides pro and cons list, i think this topic
should also have a comparison list, so that the reader can compare
and pick their desired codec

this is my proporsal

1 = Excellent/Superb
2 = Very Good/Very Fast
3 = Medium
4 = Slow/Poor
5 = Very bad/Very Slow

A Codec
Encoding Speed = 2
Decoding Speed = 1

Average Compression ratio = 55%

Error Handling = 3
Seeking = 1
Tagging = 1

Hardware Support = 3
Software Support = 1

ID Tag = Vorbis Comment

Container = OGG

Recommended Usage = Playback/archieve

Hybrid = Yes
Streaming = No
Open Source = Yes
Multichannel = No
High Resolution = No
OS Support = Windows Only

Interesting idea. I'll try to come up with a table comparing them.

1. inefficient not unefficient

Oops. Thanks for correcting.

2. Neither FLAC nor Monkey (MAC) are error robust. A single bit error in a MAC file will render the file undecodeable. A broken FLAC file will be playable but probably cause error in player. FLAC and MAC have built-in error checking not tolerance. Error checking has nothing to do with "robustness" IMHO.

Well, I think I remember someone once reporting that new versions of Monkey's Audio would skip errors. Won't be able to find that post though...

And my idea was precisely to mention formats that would skip errors, opposed to formats that would break the playback from the error onward completely, like WavPack3, LPAC and so on.

Maybe I should change the wording?

3. Missing items on pro/cons list: Tagging system

Added, thanks.

Another lossless comparison (in french, but the table is clear enough whatever the reader's language):

Guruboolez tests

Nice, just added the URL.

Maybe add an item "Still in development/Not developed anymore" ?

Hrm... I think it's kinda hard to draw the line there. Where does a format stops being developed? Shorten, as a format, stopped being developed years ago. But given its popularity tools for the format and playback plugins are still being developed, so I wouldn't say the format is really dead.

I guess that would only really apply to RKau (which I probably won't even add to this list) and, maybe, LPAC.

Regards;

Roberto.

This post has been edited by rjamorim: Nov 26 2004, 13:14