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 tested recently with MAC 3.99 (artificial corruption through hex. editor): files are perfectly playable with foobar2000. A small part was missing, the console poped-up in order to inform me about a CRC error. No player crash, no abrupt sound or ending.
~Three years ago, I was able to do the same thing with Winamp MAC plug-in.

Hrm... the plot deepens

OK then, I put Monkey's as error robust again.

Some notes about RALF :

I made some quick tests with Helix Producer to see the behaviours of this lossless codec with some others...Why Helix Producer : because there are 3 encoding modes whereas in RealPlayer it's only one. So, according to my results I'll be much less enthousiast like kotrtim...

The method that I used is the same as Speek. For the Real Audio Lossless, I extracted my wave files with EAC and then encoding with Helix Producer. Decoding has made by RealPlayer 10.

I created some tables to observe different results (it's in French, but I think it's readable.) BTW, some Hints : vitesse d'encodage == Encoding Speed ; vitesse de décodage == Decoding Speed ; Ratio de Compression == Compression Ratio ; Taille == Size.
Tests made on Pentium 3 800 Mhz & 512 Mo RAM.  I hope that help somebody.

It will be very useful for me, thanks. And no worries about french, je peut comprendre un petit peu

I forgot: nice initiative Roberto.

Thanks

Two comments:
- LA is missing. Deliberate choice?

No. As I wrote near the end of the comparision:
"Formats I need help from forum members about pros and cons: TTA, LPAC, LA..."

I didn't add LA because of lack of information on it. But I guess i'll add it now with whatever I know about it, and count on users to help me fill the gaps.

- I suggest an additional line, with "extra-future" including all things "that is a popular enough feature to justify being mentioned" like:
high-resolution audio, md5 hash, self-extract module, various containers compatibility, etc...

Good idea. Maybe something that doesn't really justify as pros and cons, like container support, but still might be interesting to some people. I'll work on it.

according to the player itself (Itunes n Real)
Apple Lossless encode at ~18X
Real Lossless encode at ~12X

If Real is "VERY FAST" Apple shouldn't be "AVERAGE"

To be more accurate, someone has to use a stop watch? and encode the same uncompressed file to measure the speed........ That needs lot of time

Haha, dude, you said yourself Real is very fast

this is the first time i test REAL,no kidding, REAL Lossless encodes very fast

Since Hans never got around to testing Real on his comparision, I couldn't rely on him to provide speed values. So I relied on your data :B