Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead? (Read 8190 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Quote from: Neasden on
If you are paranoid bite the bullet and go TAK -p5m, that way you may save hundreds of megs on that 320GB drive (compared to FLAC).

Only a tiny portion of those "hundreds of megs" are going to be gained by using the slowest encoding method. 

I'd use -p3.

This is somewhat old, but it speaks volumes...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=489786
BTW, in that post disregard my comment about piping; I was totally wrong and the one who didn't "get it".

Sorry to the OP for being off-topic.  I just don't like it when people recommend extreme settings.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #1 –
Wow, must say I'm quite fond of TAK. Seems lossless isn't as much of a memory hog as I thought.
I have also gone for -p5m, as it is ~8% smaller than -p3, and space is kind of an issue at the moment.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #2 –
That's pretty extraordinary as Synthetic Soul's corpus  reveals only a 0.3% difference (that's three-tenths of one percent, in case you normally use a comma as a decimal separator).

Your music must be a lot different.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #4 –
I know -p5m is very extreme and around 9x realtime. But if you consider that encoding is an only one time thing you should be fine. What amazes me is that when you decompress a -p5m, it is as fast as decompressing a -p2. I am not sure that happens with FLAC, if you compress at level 8, it will take more time to decompress it.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #5 –
Difference in decoding speed from -0 to -8 using flac is less than the difference between -p0 and -p5m using TAK.

I question whether it is worth it to gain practically nothing in compression at the expense of adding heat to the planet.  It takes twice as long to encode at -p5e than it does to encode at -p5; only to gain 0.05%.  Utter madness!

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #6 –
Let me cite an example of how useful a -p5m can be: I am backing up a 4.7 GB DVD with 15 albums in FLAC level 8. With TAK -p5m I would be able to fit one more album, ending up with 16 albums. Maybe 17. That happened to me. Very useful.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Neasden on
Let me cite an example of how useful a -p5m can be: I am backing up a 4.7 GB DVD with 15 albums in FLAC level 8. With TAK -p5m I would be able to fit one more album, ending up with 16 albums. Maybe 17. That happened to me. Very useful.

...and at -p5, perhaps even -p2, you would have been able to get the same number of albums.

flac -8 is irrelevant here; let's compare apples to apples.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #8 –
Quote
even -p2, you would have been able to get the same number of albums.


I agree that that could be possible. But there is at least one situation where -p5m would definitely win:
If you are counting the bytes and if it's remaining 1 to 4 MB to fill up the media.
I would still have a short space for a CD Single. (p2 vs. p5m case)

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Neasden on
Not if you are counting the bytes! Not if it's remaining 1 to 4 MB to fill up the media. In that case it would even fit 18 albums.
18? it was 16 earlier.  Now I know you're just taking nonsense.

Why not shoot for 19 with OptimFrog?

EDIT: But to be fair, and noting your edit, I do see your point.  I also know that a blank DVD costs $0.50, and your energy would have probably been better spent beginning the process of populating a second disc with 16 more titles.

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #10 –
Optimturtle, no... I would believe its seektime is awful just like APE seeking is. One reason I don't use APE is because of seektime which is very very very slow. TAK does not have that problem. Yes, you could spend a day compressing your collection with TAK -p5m, but the seektime would be fast and the decoding speed would be also really fast. In a certain way you are right about -p2, it is the recommended setting. I think -p5m is for the crazy like me never satisfied with balanced settings. And I'd go with 34 albums for a DVD-9 media!

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Neasden on
Optimturtle, no... I would believe its seektime is awful just like APE seeking is. One reason I don't use APE is because of seektime which is very very very slow. TAK does not have that problem. Yes, you could spend a day compressing your collection with TAK -p5m, but the seektime would be fast and the decoding speed would be also really fast. In a certain way you are right about -p2, it is the recommended setting. I think -p5m is for the crazy like me never satisfied with balanced settings. And I'd go with 34 albums for a DVD-9 media!


Not to get too far away from the original topic, but you'd rather use a single DVD-9, which only stores an actual 8.5 GB and costs more than $1.25 USD and sometimes as much as $2.00 USD per disc, than two DVD-5, storing 4.3 GB each (8.6 GB total), which cost only about $0.40 USD each?

$1.25 USD minimum for a single DVD+R DL versus $0.80 USD for two DVD+R?

That's not very cost effective.  For the price of a single DVD-9 (DVD+R DL), I can get 3 DVD+R

Also, why are you completely filling a DVD with lossless files?  Why not fill it about 88% or 90% full and use the remaining space for error recovery data (like PAR2) ?  That way, if any files are corrupted or cannot be extracted when reading the DVD a few years later, you can reconstruct it from the error recovery information.


Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread topic....

Is TAK -p5e worth the overhead?

Reply #12 –
you are right, DVD-5 would be more benefitial at the financial side, but I would choose DVD-9 only for being practical - don't want many DVD's laying around. you got a point as well with the PAR2 thing, but I am PAR2 ignorant don't know how it exactly works! This is only for backup. Nothing can beat FLAC in the hardware area.