Hydrogenaudio Forums > TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Help - Search - Members - Calendar

Full Version: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Hydrogenaudio Forum > Validated News

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

TBeck

Feb 2 2007, 05:46

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 11:36)

I've just tested TAK against the best codecs.
This is just a small sample which benefits clearly from high-orders,

While it's true, that TAK can not achieve the same compression as the strongest symmetrical codecs, drawing conclusions from small sample sets is always very dangerous! Even if this isn't a bad sample for TAK.

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 11:36)

but perhaps in the future you like to include a strong adaptive codec,
perhaps for archiving purposes only.

If we already can use such strong codecs like OptimFrog, why should i add another one?

I wanted to create a codec with good compression and very high speed. I doubt, that i could make symmetrical compression considerably faster.

Junon

Feb 2 2007, 06:25

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 12:46)

I'm pretty sure this is the appropriate motivation considering TAK's development for the codec to become successful in the future. Judging by the 2007 ripping/encoding general poll the majority of users is more interested in compression/decompression speed than in file sizes, otherwise FLAC and WavPack wouldn't be as successful as they actually are. Of course one major reason for using these two lossless codecs is also their software compatibility, with FLAC even enjoying native support by some hardware devices, WavPack works on a few ones which have the Rockbox firmware installed. TAK will need decent support by the developers of today's audio and CD burning applications in order to stand a chance against these two old bulls.

pest

Feb 2 2007, 07:17

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 12:46)

While it's true, that TAK can not achieve the same compression as the strongest symmetrical codecs, drawing conclusions from small sample sets is always very dangerous!

I did not draw any conclusions. It was just a small sample where the gap between
different codecs is larger than usual. Fast is relative. Why not use adaptive techniques
with an asymmetric codec? Sac for example has 10times faster decompression and
i liked the idea to have both worlds as in MP4ALS. Just a thought.

TBeck

Feb 2 2007, 07:50

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 14:17)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 12:46)

While it's true, that TAK can not achieve the same compression as the strongest symmetrical codecs, drawing conclusions from small sample sets is always very dangerous!

I did not draw any conclusions. It was just a small sample where the gap between
different codecs is larger than usual. Fast is relative. Why not use adaptive techniques

I hope you don't mind. I always have the feeling, it can not be said often enough.

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 14:17)

different codecs is larger than usual. Fast is relative. Why not use adaptive techniques
with an asymmetric codec? Sac for example has 10times faster decompression and
i liked the idea to have both worlds as in MP4ALS. Just a thought.

TAK usese adaption, but it is beeing performed in bigger intervals. If you want to reduce the interval, you have to go for symmetric approaches.

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 14:17)

... Fast is relative....

Yes. If TAK wasn't FASTER than other codecs, it would be quite useless. TAK's niche would vanish, if i made it slower.

Some other important topics:

1) The adaption methods used in symmetric codecs seem to be more likely to be covered by patents.

2) If i tried to build a symmetric codec, i wanted it to be better than the existing ones (otherwise it's no fun). While i doubt, that i would achieve this, the searching for new ideas and their evaluation would take much time. I can not spend another thousands of hours on building a new codec while simultaneously improving TAK's usability.

It's good to know my own limits...

pest

Feb 2 2007, 09:44

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 14:50)

1) The adaption methods used in symmetric codecs seem to be more likely to be covered by patents.

If I would tell how they work you would be surprised how easy it is.
You just need some understanding of linear algebra.

QUOTE

2) If i tried to build a symmetric codec, i wanted it to be better than the existing ones (otherwise it's no fun).

This is a hard one, and I think you're on the right way with TAK to gain popularity.
Look at MP4ALS, I made something similiar and improved the whole thing...and surprise too slow to be usable...
But as i mentioned before, if you change your mind, and need some advice i could be the one to help you

Good luck

TBeck

Feb 2 2007, 10:10

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 16:44)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 14:50)

1) The adaption methods used in symmetric codecs seem to be more likely to be covered by patents.

If I would tell how they work you would be surprised how easy it is.
You just need some understanding of linear algebra.

It's not, that i wouldn't know a bit about the way they are working. But when i started with asymmetric compression i immediately had some nice ideas for improvements. That's not the case for symmetric compression. Possibly because the authors of the existing symmetric compressors already have done such a good work...

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 16:44)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 14:50)

2) If i tried to build a symmetric codec, i wanted it to be better than the existing ones (otherwise it's no fun).

But as i mentioned before, if you change your mind, and need some advice i could be the one to help you

Thank you for your offer, but i really can't see this happen. If TAK should gain some significant popularity, there will be enough for me to do... And if i should begin another large-scale project, it will probably be something different...

Why don't you develop your own codec?

pest

Feb 2 2007, 10:18

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 2 2007, 17:10)

Why don't you develop your own codec?

Because no one even uses OptimFROG or the higher MAC modes.
Best adaption and real-time playback contradict each other, and i'm not a fan of compromises.

adlai

Feb 2 2007, 18:48

does it work in eac? foobar? that's all that I really care about...

Synthetic Soul

Feb 3 2007, 00:45

Off-topic discussion moved to the Recycle Bin. Please stay on-topic, and re-read TOS#5 if need be.

Muchos gracias.

foosion

Feb 3 2007, 04:40

QUOTE(adlai @ Feb 3 2007, 01:48)

does it work in eac?

Ripping to TAK in EAC shouldn't be a problem with the TAK commandline encoder.

QUOTE(adlai @ Feb 3 2007, 01:48)

foobar?

Converting (and ripping) to TAK works using the commandline encoder. Tagging works as well with my TAK decoder stub. Playback will have to wait until Thomas has finished the TAK SDK.

TBeck

Feb 3 2007, 09:20

QUOTE(adlai @ Feb 3 2007, 01:48)

does it work in eac? foobar? that's all that I really care about...

QUOTE(foosion @ Feb 3 2007, 11:40)

QUOTE(adlai @ Feb 3 2007, 01:48)

foobar?

Converting (and ripping) to TAK works using the commandline encoder. Tagging works as well with my TAK decoder stub. Playback will have to wait until Thomas has finished the TAK SDK.

Just some minutes ago i have run the first test of my decoding library. Seems to work well!

But there is some more work left: Test the abstract io layer, write header files and documentation and ask other developers for feedback and testing.

The SDK-decoder also contains some improvements over the decoder of TAK Final:

- It can decode files were head and tail have been cut off. Theoretically any file part containing at least 2 seconds of audio should now be decodable.
- Most of the time you will no longer have to disable the "Restore wave file meta data"-option to decode a damaged file.
- Playback of even heavily damaged files.

When the SDK has been tested, the new decoder will also be included in the TAK applications.

$char(9836)

Feb 3 2007, 11:04

Seems like it's not very long left now....can't wait

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 4 2007, 02:07

I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

Here is a list of the full albums i encoded (294 of them

)

CODE

311 - 311
A - Hi-Fi Serious
A Perfect Circle - Mer De Noms
AC-DC - Back In Black
AFI - Sing The Sorrow
Alice In Chains - Facelift
Anthrax - Persistence Of Time
Anthrax - Sound Of White Noise
Anthrax - We've Come For You All
Bad Religion - Stranger Than Fiction
Bad Religion - Tested
Bad Religion - The Gray Race
Beck - Odelay
Bee Gees - The Very Best Of The
Ben Folds - Ben Folds Live
Ben Folds - Rockin' The Suburbs
Ben Folds Five - The Unauthorized Biography Of Reinhold Messner
Ben Folds Five - Whatever And Ever Amen
Bic Runga - Beautiful Collision
Bic Runga - Birds
Billy Joel - Greatest Hits Disc 1
Billy Joel - Greatest Hits Disc 2
Billy Talent - II
Blink-182 - Dude Ranch
Blink-182 - Take Off Your Pants And Jacket
Bob Mould - Bob Mould
Bodyjar - How It Works
Bodyjar - No Touch Red
Breaking Benjamin - We Are Not Alone
Bush - Sixteen Stone
Cake - Comfort Eagle
Cake - Fashion Nugget
Cake - Motorcade Of Generosity
Cake - Prolonging The Magic
Cat Stevens - The Very Best Of Cat Stevens
Chicago - Heart Of Chicago 1967 - 1997
Coldplay - Parachutes
Counting Crows - August And Everything After
Crowded House - Recurring Dream The Very Best Of
Dave Dobbyn - Lament For The Numb
Dave Dobbyn - Loyal
Dave Dobbyn - The Islander
Dave Dobbyn - Twist
Def Leppard - Hysteria
Elliott Smith - XO
Elton John - Greatest Hits 1970 - 2002 Disc 1
Elton John - Greatest Hits 1970 - 2002 Disc 2
Eminem - The Eminem Show
Eric Clapton - One More Car, One More Rider - Disc 1
Eric Clapton - One More Car, One More Rider - Disc 2
Eric Clapton - Unplugged
Evanescence - Fallen
Extreme - Pornograffitti
Faith No More - Album Of The Year
Faith No More - Angel Dust
Faith No More - Free Concert In The Park
Faith No More - King For A Day, Fool For A Lifetime
Faith No More - Live At The Brixton Academy
Faith No More - The Real Thing
Fat Freddys Drop - Based On A True Story
Fatboy Slim - You've Come A Long Way, Baby
Fear Factory - Digimortal
Fear Factory - Obsolete
Fear Factory - Remanufacture
Finger Eleven - Finger Eleven
Finley Quaye - Maverick A Strike
Finley Quaye - Much More Than Much Love
Foo Fighters - Foo Fighters
Foo Fighters - The Colour And The Shape
Foo Fighters - There Is Nothing Left To Lose
Frank Zappa - Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch
Fun Lovin' Criminals - 100 Percent Colombian
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Come Find Yourself
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Loco
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Mimosa
Funeral For A Friend - Casually Dressed & Deep In Conversation
Funeral For A Friend - Seven Ways To Scream Your Name
Gary Moore - Still Got The Blues
George Harrison - The Best Of George Harrison
Green Day - American Idiot
Green Day - Dookie
Green Day - Insomniac
Green Day - Nimrod
Green Day - Shenanigans
Green Day - Warning
Grinspoon - Thrills, Kills + Sunday Pills
Groove Armada - Lovebox
Head Like A Hole - Double Your Strength Improve Your Health And Lengthen Your Life
Hoobastank - The Reason
Hootie & The Blowfish - Cracked Rear View
Husker Du - The Living End
Incubus - Make Yourself
Incubus - Morning View
Iron Maiden - A Real Live One
Iron Maiden - Brave New World
Iron Maiden - Fear Of The Dark
Iron Maiden - Piece Of Mind
Iron Maiden - Rock In Rio Disc 1
Iron Maiden - Rock In Rio Disc 2
Iron Maiden - Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son
Jack Johnson - In Between Dreams
Jeff Wayne - The War Of The Worlds Disc 1
Jeff Wayne - The War Of The Worlds Disc 2
Jimmy Eat World - Jimmy Eat World
Joe Satriani - The Extremist
John Farnham - Anthology 1
John Lennon - Imagine
John Mayer - Heavier Things
John Mayer - Room For Squares
Lagwagon - Blaze
Lagwagon - Double Plaidinum
Lagwagon - Duh
Lagwagon - Hoss
Lagwagon - Let's Talk About Feelings
Lagwagon - Let's Talk About Leftovers
Lagwagon - Trashed
Less Than Jake - Hello Rockview
Less Than Jake - Losing Streak
Less Than Jake - Pezcore
Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory
Linkin Park - Meteora
Live - Mental Jewelry
Live - The Distance To Here
Living Colour - Time's Up
Living Colour - Vivid
Long Beach Dub Allstars - Right Back
Lostprophets - Liberation Transmission
Lostprophets - Start Something
Me First And The Gimme Gimmes - Have A Ball
Michael Jackson - Off The Wall
Michael Jackson - Thriller
Millencolin - For Monkeys
Millencolin - Home From Home
Millencolin - Life On A Plate
Millencolin - Pennybridge Pioneers
Millencolin - The Melancholy Collection
Misfits - American Psycho
Misfits - Famous Monsters
Moby - Play
Mr. Bungle - Mr. Bungle
My Chemical Romance - The Black Parade
New Found Glory - Catalyst
Nirvana - Unplugged In New York
No Fun At All - No Straight Angles
No Fun At All - Out Of Bounds
No Fun At All - State Of Flow
No Fun At All - The Big Knockover
No Fun At All - Throw It In
No Use For A Name - Hard Rock Bottom
No Use For A Name - Leche Con Carne
No Use For A Name - Making Friends
Nofx - 45 Or 46 Songs That Weren't Good Enough To Go On Our Other Records Disc 1
Nofx - 45 Or 46 Songs That Weren't Good Enough To Go On Our Other Records Disc 2 Catching Zzz's
Nofx - Heavy Petting Zoo
Nofx - I Heard They Suck Live
Nofx - Liberal Animation
Nofx - Pump Up The Valuum
Nofx - Punk In Drublic
Nofx - Ribbed
Nofx - S&M Airlines
Nofx - So Long And Thanks For All The Shoes
Nofx - The Decline
Nofx - The Longest Line
Nofx - The War On Errorism
Nofx - White Trash, Two Heebs, And A Bean
One Dollar Short - Eight Days Away
Ozzy Osbourne - Bark At The Moon
Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz
Ozzy Osbourne - No More Tears
Ozzy Osbourne - Ozzmosis
Ozzy Osbourne - The Ozzman Cometh Disc 1
Ozzy Osbourne - The Ozzman Cometh Disc 2
Pacifier - Pacifier
Pacifier - Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Papa Roach - Getting Away With Murder
Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam
Pennywise - A Word From The Wise
Pennywise - About Time
Pennywise - From The Ashes
Pennywise - Full Circle
Pennywise - Land Of The Free
Pennywise - Straight Ahead
Pennywise - Unknown Road
Phil Collins - ...But Seriously
Phil Collins - ...Hits
Pink Floyd - Live 8
Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon
Pink Floyd - The Wall Disc 1
Pink Floyd - The Wall Disc 2
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here
Queen - Greatest Hits
Queens Of The Stone Age - Queens Of The Stone Age
Rage Against The Machine - Evil Empire
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Reel Big Fish - Cheer Up
Reel Big Fish - Why Do They Rock So Hard
Regurgitator - Unit
Salmonella Dub - Inside The Dub Plates
Salmonella Dub - Killervision
Shihad - Killjoy
Shihad - Shihad
Shihad - The General Electric
Silverchair - Diorama
Silverchair - Freak Show
Silverchair - Frogstomp
Simon & Garfunkel - The Definitive Collection
Skunk Anansie - Paranoid & Sunburnt
Skunk Anansie - Post Orgasmic Chill
Skunk Anansie - Stoosh
Smashing Pumpkins - Adore
Smashing Pumpkins - Machina The Machines Of God
Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness - Dawn To Dusk Disc 1
Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness - Twilight To Starlight Disc 2
Smashing Pumpkins - Pisces Iscariot
Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream
Soundgarden - Superunknown
Spiderbait - Grand Slam
Spiderbait - Ivy And The Big Apples
Staind - 14 Shades Of Grey
Stellar - Magic Line
Stevie Wonder - Talking Book
Stevie Wonder - The Definitive Collection Disc 1
Stevie Wonder - The Definitive Collection Disc 2
Stone Temple Pilots - Core
Stone Temple Pilots - Purple
Story Of The Year - In The Wake Of Determination
Strung Out - An American Paradox
Strung Out - Another Day In Paradise
Strung Out - Exile In Oblivion
Strung Out - Live In A Dive
Strung Out - Suburban Teenage Wasteland Blues
Strung Out - The Element Of Sonic Defiance
Strung Out - Twisted By Design
Sublime - Sublime
Sugar - Beaster
Sugar - Copper Blue
Sugar - File Under Easy Listening
Sugar Ray - Floored
Sum 41 - All Killer No Filler
Sum 41 - Chuck
Sum 41 - Does This Look Infected
Supergrass - Supergrass
Supergroove - Backspacer
Supergroove - Traction
Switchfoot - Nothing Is Sound
System Of A Down - Toxicity
The Beatles - Help
The Beatles - Let It Be
The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour
The Beatles - One
The Beatles - Revolver
The Beatles - Yellow Submarine
The Darkness - Permission To Land
The Doobie Brothers - Best Of The Doobies
The Killers - Hot Fuss
The Living End - Modern Artillery
The Living End - Roll On
The Living End - The Living End
The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Lets Face It
The Offspring - Americana
The Offspring - Ignition
The Offspring - Ixnay On The Hombre
The Offspring - Smash
The Police - Greatest Hits
The Reverend Horton Heat - It's Martini Time
The Rolling Stones - Forty Licks Disc 1
The Rolling Stones - Forty Licks Disc 2
The Strokes - Is This It
The Vandals - Hitler Bad, Vandals Good
The Vandals - Look What I Almost Stepped In
The Vandals - Oi! To The World
The Verve - This Is Music (The Singles 92-98)
The Verve - Urban Hymns
Tool - Aenima
Travis - The Invisible Band
U2 - Rattle And Hum
U2 - The Joshua Tree
Unwritten Law - Elva
Unwritten Law - Unwritten Law
Various Artists - Fat Music Vol. IV - Life In The Fat Lane
Various Artists - Floyd ...And Out Come The Teeth
Various Artists - Forrest Gump The Soundtrack Disc 1
Various Artists - Forrest Gump The Soundtrack Disc 2
Various Artists - Good Morning, Vietnam
Various Artists - Natural Born Killers Soundtrack
Various Artists - Physical Fatness Fat Music Vol. III
Various Artists - Punk O Rama Vol. 2.1
Vicious Hary Mary - Orchestra Phantasma
Weezer - Maladroit
Weezer - Pinkerton
Weezer - The Blue Album
Weezer - The Green Album
Yellowcard - Lights and Sounds
Yellowcard - Ocean Avenue

Brydenn33

Feb 4 2007, 04:19

Hehehe,

You're killin' us Thomas

. I can't wait for you to release the decoder. I'm excited about TAK!

gaekwad2

Feb 4 2007, 08:46

In case people aren't tired of them yet, I also made a comparison (using more settings but only a handful of albums).

CODE

Encoder			size	enc time	dec time
TAK Extra Max		55,58%	13,29%		1,23%
TAK Extra		55,67%	 5,11%		1,23%
TAK High Max		55,75%	 6,70%		1,14%
TAK High		55,87%	 3,28%		1,14%
TAK Normal Max		56,06%	 4,10%		0,99%
TAK Normal		56,16%	 2,05%		1,00%
TAK Fast Max		56,23%	 3,42%		0,98%
TAK Fast		56,54%	 1,33%		0,97%
TAK Turbo Max		57,51%	 2,66%		0,93%
TAK Turbo		57,84%	 0,99%		0,94%
Wavpack hhx3		57,03%	20,43%		1,96%
Wavpack hh		57,39%	 3,16%		1,99%
Wavpack hx3		57,35%	13,69%		1,52%
Wavpack h		57,74%	 2,37%		1,62%
Wavpack x3		58,04%	 8,14%		1,13%
Wavpack			59,12%	 1,56%		1,13%
Wavpack fx3		59,41%	 4,49%		0,88%
Wavpack f		60,60%	 1,16%		0,90%
OptimFrog Extra		55,39%	12,62%		9,24%
OptimFrog High		55,52%	 8,53%		6,26%
OptimFrog Normal	55,74%	 5,88%		4,30%
OptimFrog Fast		56,31%	 4,26%		3,09%
Monkey Extra High	55,39%	 6,36%		6,53%
Monkey High		56,11%	 3,18%		3,58%
Monkey Normal		56,52%	 2,67%		3,06%
Monkey Fast		57,57%	 1,80%		2,31%
FLAC 8			59,19%	 9,74%		1,02%
FLAC 6			59,40%	 2,26%		0,99%
FLAC 5			59,48%	 2,06%		1,00%
FLAC 4			59,68%	 1,65%		1,02%
FLAC 3			61,77%	 1,22%		0,99%
FLAC 2			61,70%	 1,20%		1,02%
FLAC 1			62,09%	 0,93%		1,04%
FLAC 0			63,75%	 0,91%		1,02%

enc/dec time: process time in percent of the album's length, measured by timer.exe, Pentium 4 2.6GHz

Albums used:
Björk - Homogenic
Frank Black - Teenager of the Year
Kraftwerk - Die Mensch-Maschine
Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf
Roni Size/Reprazent - New Forms (CD2)
Steely Dan - Gaucho
Stereolab - Margerine Eclipse
Erik Satie - Piano Works

Nothing surprising compared to others' results I think, but I also made a pretty graph:

dem

Feb 4 2007, 11:19

QUOTE(A_Man_Eating_Duck @ Feb 4 2007, 03:07)

I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

Wow. Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!

gib

Feb 4 2007, 13:41

QUOTE(dem @ Feb 4 2007, 07:19)

Wow. Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!

Only saved a dollar? Well done, dem. You just blew the lid off the whole audio compression fraud. What a sham.

rjamorim

Feb 4 2007, 18:31

QUOTE(A_Man_Eating_Duck @ Feb 4 2007, 05:07)

I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

Whoa, that must be one of the most misleading out-of-scale graphs I have ever seen. It makes TAK look like it compresses at 1/3 the size of FLAC.

Do you work on political statistics, sir?

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 4 2007, 18:52

ok ok, i ballsed up the first graph, this is a better non political statistics version

rjamorim

Feb 4 2007, 19:38

MO BETTAH!

Steve56

Feb 4 2007, 20:04

QUOTE(pest @ Feb 2 2007, 11:36)

I've just tested TAK against the best codecs.
This is just a small sample which benefits clearly from high-orders,
but perhaps in the future you like to include a strong adaptive codec,
perhaps for archiving purposes only.

original (nothingelse.wav) 11.250.652 EncTime
Sac --best 3.907.383 41:00 34.73%

Never heard of "Sac". Is this a lossless codec or just some options of another codec?

TIA

Steve56

pest

Feb 5 2007, 04:05

QUOTE(Steve56 @ Feb 5 2007, 03:04)

Never heard of "Sac". Is this a lossless codec or just some options of another codec?

It's a lossless codec written by myself.

TBeck

Feb 5 2007, 09:52

QUOTE(A_Man_Eating_Duck @ Feb 4 2007, 09:07)

I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

Here is a list of the full albums i encoded (294 of them

)

Many thanks for your little comparison! Nice to see, that TAK survives such a stress...

QUOTE(gaekwad2 @ Feb 4 2007, 15:46)

In case people aren't tired of them yet, I also made a comparison (using more settings but only a handful of albums).

I myself can't get enough... Thank you!

QUOTE(gaekwad2 @ Feb 4 2007, 15:46)

Nothing surprising compared to others' results I think, but I also made a pretty graph:
...

It's a really useful presentation! It makes comparisons of different aspects (speed/compression) of the codecs very easy.

QUOTE(dem @ Feb 4 2007, 18:19)

QUOTE(A_Man_Eating_Duck @ Feb 4 2007, 03:07)

I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6
...

Wow. Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!

Well, this might be the truth about any improvements of lossless audio compression in the last years. Therefore i assume,

- that we still could be happy with Shorten's compression efficiency and
- that FLAC does not need any mode stronger than maybe -3 and
- that the development of Optimfrog and LA was a total waste of time...

It's probably a matter of personal taste.

Lyx

Feb 5 2007, 10:56

QUOTE

Wow. Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!

There is a difference between "current gain" and "longterm gain".

To make it quick and brutal: *currently*, we could still be happy with mp3 and shorten (exception: narrowband). All "modern" codecs do not offer a *significant* advantage regarding speed/compression.

However, you dont arrive at a "significant advantage" just overnight. Sure, in some rare cases a technological revolution happens overnight, but thats not how it works most of the time. Thus, the work you put into your codec, as well as all other "modern" audio codecs, is a "longterm-investment" which will someday lead to a result which indeed offers a significant advantage over mp3/shorten. But for now, the masses dont benefit much from it.

- Lyx

Synthetic Soul

Feb 5 2007, 11:21

I think you only need to see the excitement that TAK has generated, or even the improvements in FLAC 1.1.3 over 1.1.2, to know that users are very keen to squeeze just a few more MB out of a file (if there is no speed penalty).

It may not be logical, but it is tangible.

Why not have those extra few MB, or extra few minutes, if it doesn't cost me anything? Why use something inferior?

Thomas and I had a similar discussion regarding speed. There is a point where the hard drive becomes a major factor in encoding and decoding speed, but users just want to know that their encoder is the theoretical best that it can be, irrespective of how those speeds translate when applied to a 5400rpm hard drive.

TBeck

Feb 5 2007, 11:31

QUOTE(Lyx @ Feb 5 2007, 17:56)

To make it quick and brutal: *currently*, we could still be happy with mp3 and shorten (exception: narrowband). All "modern" codecs do not offer a *significant* advantage regarding speed/compression.

This isn't 'brutal'. I am aware of the (limited) practical relevance of the compression improvements achieved since Shorten.

But regarding the speed, i have to contradict. For instance TAK is encoding much faster than FLAC. Ok, if you say FLAC -0 is enough, than speed differences are irrelevant.

QUOTE(Lyx @ Feb 5 2007, 17:56)

However, you dont arrive at a "significant advantage" just overnight. Sure, in some rare cases a technological revolution happens overnight, but thats not how it works most of the time. Thus, the work you put into your codec, as well as all other "modern" audio codecs, is a "longterm-investment" which will someday lead to a result which indeed offers a significant advantage over mp3/shorten. But for now, the masses dont benefit much from it.

I doubt, that we can expect a significant improvement as a cumulation of many small future improvements. I am convinced, that it would need some 'revolution' to get considerably futher.

But this is only based upon my intuition, i am not able to prove it...

Fortunately some people are already happy with the insignificant improvements achieved, otherwise there would be little motivation to release new codecs (I have been working for many years on TAK, without any publication in mind. Without the motivation resulting from the feedback of potential future users, i never would have started the work on a release.)

Thomas

Lyx

Feb 5 2007, 18:14

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 5 2007, 18:21)

Yes, i'm aware about that. I wasn't questioning that there is an interest in it. I was just questioning the actual benefit from a rational point of view. I know that most people either simply do what they're told, or tend to become obsessive about single aspects of things while ignoring the rest (which possibly on the global scale legitimates the questional path which technological development is following currently). I'm aware that most people dont care about this or disagree with it - the opinions of others however are secondary to me. I'm primarily interested about objectivity - so, whats really the case, not necessarily what everyone else likes.

QUOTE

I doubt, that we can expect a significant improvement as a cumulation of many small future improvements. I am convinced, that it would need some 'revolution' to get considerably futher.

I'm not certain if i possibly worded myself a bit ambigious in my prev post, so i thought maybe i should make a bit more clear what i meant. I wasn't suggesting that FLAC or TAK or whatever will someday offer a significant compression gain (at reasonable speed). Technological projects aren t islands. They are built on previous knowledge. Others in turn will learn from those again, and so on. This partially is even the case for breakthroughs - contrary to popular belief, many breakthroughs dont just come out of nowhere out of pure chance. More often it is the case that the various puzzle-pieces are already there and it just needed someone to connect them or do the next step.

So, no matter if TAK will become and important player or not. For certain you will have learned something from it and did therefore progress. And possibly it will also contribute ideas and information to other developers which will then in turn do the next step. Thus, regardless of if TAK as an "implementation" suceeds or not, its ideas contribute to a longterm-gain. Or to put it simply: TAK is a small part of technological evolution.

- Lyx

TBeck

Feb 5 2007, 19:09

QUOTE(Lyx @ Feb 6 2007, 01:14)

QUOTE

I doubt, that we can expect a significant improvement as a cumulation of many small future improvements. I am convinced, that it would need some 'revolution' to get considerably futher.

No contradiction from my side. Not regarding your description of technological evolution...

But there will always be limits, which can not be overcome. The question is, how close lossless audio compression has come to those limits. Nobody knows, but my intuition tells me: quite close. Therefore i possibly preferred the term 'revolution', because i would regard any considerable improvement as a miracle...

Mr Bungle

Feb 5 2007, 21:10

QUOTE(Lyx @ Feb 6 2007, 11:14)

Yes, i'm aware about that. I wasn't questioning that there is an interest in it. I was just questioning the actual benefit from a rational point of view.

I think it's entirely rational to want to use to best technology available. You can look at just about any technology (mature or otherwise) and find efforts to make it as good as it can be. Lossless audio technology is no different.

QUOTE

So, no matter if TAK will become and important player or not. For certain you will have learned something from it and did therefore progress. And possibly it will also contribute ideas and information to other developers which will then in turn do the next step. Thus, regardless of if TAK as an "implementation" suceeds or not, its ideas contribute to a longterm-gain. Or to put it simply: TAK is a small part of technological evolution.

- Lyx

I find this to be pretty meaningless. Whether TAK plays a small role or becomes a/the codec of choice is pure speculation.

Shade[ST]

Feb 6 2007, 01:02

QUOTE(Mr Bungle @ Feb 5 2007, 22:10)

I find this to be pretty meaningless. Whether TAK plays a small role or becomes a/the codec of choice is pure speculation.

Guess why he said "regardless whether..." ?
He wasn't implying that TAK was going to have a small influence.

Though this still is OT.

Mr Bungle

Feb 6 2007, 02:56

Yeah he was...

'TAK is a small part of technological evolution'

is what he said.

OK that's enough from me on this off-topic.

sn0wman

Feb 6 2007, 04:42

hello !
i am not using lossless compressors at all, but anyway i am impressed of your work man !
thats really something big !
i have also some questions to you

QUOTE(TBeck @ Jan 26 2007, 11:00)

- Piping support.

you mean, it can read from stdin and output to stdout ? i havent found any info in documentation about it.
if you didnt mean that, is it in plans ?

QUOTE

- MD5 audio checksums for verification and identification.

to make more use out of it, let user get the stored fingerprint by some command like getmd5 etc...

QUOTE

- Unicode support.

does it accept unicode filenames ?

/edit: fixed quote tags

Synthetic Soul

Feb 6 2007, 05:31

Your quotes are from the to-do list. I think this may answer some of your questions.

Yes, piping is reading from STDIN or writing to STDOUT.

sn0wman

Feb 6 2007, 05:38

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 6 2007, 12:31)

Your quotes are from the to-do list. I think this may answer some of your questions.

ouch, indeed, sorry

TBeck

Feb 8 2007, 00:45

Current progress

Back with my progress reports!

What i am working on:

WinAmp playback plugin

Done.

SDK

The Software development kit will consist of a DLL and header files for Delphi Pascal and C. Most probably it will provide not only decoding but also encoding functionality. Hopefully other developers will use it to write plugins for audio applications not supported by myself.

Currently i am in contact with one experienced developer to discuss my interface. After the finalization of the interface and some testing performed by myself, i probably will sent the SDK to some interested developers for external testing.

Decoder improvements

Even more error tolerance for damaged files.

Encoder

The additional evaluation level EXTRA is back (last found in YALAC 0.11). Main reason: I can not make any single encoder option (of the options dialog) available to the developers, because those options will change in the future, if i improve the encoder. Those internal changes have to be hidden, otherwise i would have to update the encoder interface on every change. As a compensation i reintroduced the evaluation level EXTRA.

Then we have the 5 presets TURBO, FAST, NORMAL, HIGH and EXTRA which can be combined with evaluation levels STANDARD, EXTRA and MAX (Should be regarded as 'Insane'). This should be enough options.

Probably i will also remove access to the internal options from the TAK applications...

That's all for now.

Thomas

pepoluan

Feb 9 2007, 22:16

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 8 2007, 13:45)

Then we have the 5 presets TURBO, FAST, NORMAL, HIGH and EXTRA which can be combined with evaluation levels STANDARD, EXTRA and MAX (Should be regarded as 'Insane'). This should be enough options.

Probably i will also remove access to the internal options from the TAK applications...

I agree. The huge options I had with OptimFROG always give me a headache. Too many things to fine tune. Give users some (hoepfully) tuned presets and do not expose everything.

BUT

I still recommend you give something like "custom parameters" where expert users can just type in their parameter preferences, perhaps maybe to tune the compression for their particular case. You don't have to provide a radio-button interface. A textbox should suffice.

TBeck

Feb 9 2007, 23:04

QUOTE(pepoluan @ Feb 10 2007, 05:16)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 8 2007, 13:45)

I agree. The huge options I had with OptimFROG always give me a headache. Too many things to fine tune.

Well, the user doesn't have to use all the options. But nevertheless you are right,

- because first impression is "Puh, so many options..." and
- because even less experienced (and less technically interested) users may be tempted to try the advanced options, just to make sure that they really are using the optimum settings...

QUOTE(pepoluan @ Feb 10 2007, 05:16)

Give users some (hoepfully) tuned presets and do not expose everything.

The current presets are the result of many months of evaluation, performed by me and the hard working early (YALAC-) testers. They should be very well tuned.

QUOTE(pepoluan @ Feb 10 2007, 05:16)

BUT

I still recommend you give something like "custom parameters" where expert users can just type in their parameter preferences, perhaps maybe to tune the compression for their particular case. You don't have to provide a radio-button interface. A textbox should suffice.

Yes, this would be nice to satisfy technically interested users. But i doubt, that this will be possible...

After i have done my homework (player support and SDK) i will continue the work, that is most fun for me: Optimization of speed and compression efficiency. I may tune the current all-in-one codec by adding new options and also add new codecs specialised for maximum speed or compression efficiency.

I already wrote about my new dedicated TURBO codec, which will hopefully decode significantly faster and also provide even better compression than the current TURBO preset...

All those optimizations will affect the individual encoder options: some will be removed, some added and some modified. If i wanted to expose all those options, every new optimized version would be likely to be incompatible (detailed options wise) to the previous one.

But technically interested users may join the "evaluation and optimization" club, when i ask for testers which help me to tune the new codecs or options.

kwanbis

Feb 10 2007, 11:32

I'm getting:

C:\Encoders>takc puede.wav
Command line error: invalid mode

C:\Encoders>takc puede
Command line error: invalid mode

C:\Encoders>takc -mode -e -pN puede.wav
ommand line error: invalid mode

Any ideas?

TBeck

Feb 10 2007, 11:36

QUOTE(kwanbis @ Feb 10 2007, 18:32)

This is the right syntax:

CODE

takc -e -pN puede.wav

Hope it works.

kwanbis

Feb 10 2007, 11:44

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 10 2007, 17:36)

Hope it works.

(it works)

spockep

Feb 11 2007, 20:55

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 5 2007, 21:09)

But there will always be limits, which can not be overcome. The question is, how close lossless audio compression has come to those limits. Nobody knows, but my intuition tells me: quite close. Therefore i possibly preferred the term 'revolution', because i would regard any considerable improvement as a miracle...

I disagree somewhat with this statement. There have been many times in technological development that people have said "its not possible." Even though it may be a ways off, we will all see lossless files the size of lossy files.

Digisurfer

Feb 11 2007, 21:16

I knew of TAK in passing, but didn't really pay much attention to it, in large part because I've been cutting back on my foruming a lot over the past year (takes up too much of my free time). I came across this post yesterday, read all the old posts regarding it's development, and today did some testing of my own using foobar2000 v0.9.4.2 to transcode and tag. Let me say that I am incredibly impressed by the work you've done, and all for free no less. I've been using Monkey's Audio since 2003 or thereabouts, and just recently switched to FLAC for it's high level software and hardware support (have never been happy with it's compression level and speed at -8). What I would really love to see is TAK reach or exceed that same level of support some day because it is perfect for the role, giving the best of both worlds between APE and FLAC. High compression, fast decode, and depending on compression level fast encoding too. Hopefully playback support will come to foobar2000 soon. Thanks for all your hard work, perserverance, and a really great codec! Take care!

TBeck

Feb 11 2007, 22:21

QUOTE(spockep @ Feb 12 2007, 03:55)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 5 2007, 21:09)

Did i say "its not possible."? It would be a wonder for me, but wonders seem to happen now and then...

QUOTE(Digisurfer @ Feb 12 2007, 04:16)

Hopefully playback support will come to foobar2000 soon.

Probably you will not have to wait very long...

QUOTE(Digisurfer @ Feb 12 2007, 04:16)

Thanks for all your hard work, perserverance, and a really great codec! Take care!

Thank you very much!

Thomas

fairway

Feb 12 2007, 03:19

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 12 2007, 05:21)

QUOTE(spockep @ Feb 12 2007, 03:55)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 5 2007, 21:09)

Did i say "its not possible."? It would be a wonder for me, but wonders seem to happen now and then...

QUOTE(Digisurfer @ Feb 12 2007, 04:16)

Hopefully playback support will come to foobar2000 soon.

Probably you will not have to wait very long...

foobar2000 + TAK will be the sweetest thing.

TBeck

Feb 14 2007, 15:13

Current progess

While waiting for feedback for my SDK, i spent some time on something different:

As i wrote earlier, the individual encoder options will be removed from the Compression options dialog of the public TAK releases (They will still be accessible in special evaluation versions for some selected testers).

Unfortunately the options dialog looked quite empty after this... But fortunately i've got a hopefully good idea to use the new space.

Now there is a comparison table with 15 rows, each containing data of one combination of preset and evaluation level:

Turbo + Standard
Turbo + Extra
Turbo + Max
...
Extra + Standard
Extra + Extra
Extra + Max

Each row contains 3 columns: Compression, Encoding speed and Decoding speed.

If you select a Preset+Evaluation combination (either by cklicking into the table or by using the preset and evaluation buttons), the corresponding row will be selected and it's data will be used as reference.

Example:

After selceting Normal + Standard you will see this:

CODE

                    Compression   Encoding speed  Decoding speed

Turbo  + Standard     - 1.26 %      * 2.46          * 1.14
...
Normal + Standard       0.00 %      * 1.00          * 1.00
...
Extra  + Max          + 0.75 %      * 0.12          * 0.75

Normal + Standard now is the reference. How to interpret the data:

- By using Turbo + Standard you would loose 1.26 percent compression. Selecting Extra + Max would increase the compression by 0.75 percent.
- Turbo + Standard would encode 2.46 times faster.
- Extra + Max woud achieve ony 0.75 of the decoding speed.

Important: This comparison is based upon the data from my primary test file set! Other files and systems (different cpus) can give quite different results.

But nevertheless i think it's a helpful feature, especially for new users. It can help to choose the optimal preset for your application.

What do you think?

Synthetic Soul

Feb 14 2007, 16:36

I think the idea is quite sound, but I would be concerned about putting specific figures to the table.

Is it possible that you could do something similar with a rating-type system? maybe even coloured indicators (like a litmus-type scale)?

Another option: ask for volunteers to provide data, so that you can at least say that the figures were calculated using a huge corpus involving a tremendous variety of files.

I dunno. If you are happy that your current corpus is quite indicative of expected results (I guess you must have quite a good idea by now, comparing it to the alpha and beta tester's results) then I guess it would be fine.

I just wonder whether giving users specific figures may give you tech support headaches.

As I say though, I think a table is a nice touch.

TBeck

Feb 14 2007, 16:56

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 14 2007, 23:36)

Hm, possibly a good idea. I will think about it...

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 14 2007, 23:36)

I dunno. If you are happy that your current corpus is quite indicative of expected results (I guess you must have quite a good idea by now, comparing it to the alpha and beta tester's results) then I guess it would be fine.

My primary file corpus is quite representative but...

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 14 2007, 23:36)

I just wonder whether giving users specific figures may give you tech support headaches.

... very good point! This has also been my most important concern...

I am really not sure. I suppose, this table could be very useful for new users, but especially new users will be most irritated, if their results don't match the table data...

PabUK

Feb 14 2007, 17:15

I think the comparison table is a good idea. While accuracy is something of an issue, I think as long as you include a disclaimer saying where the figures are derived from then you'll be fine. It would certainly be helpful to many users who are trying to decide which preset to use.

TBeck

Feb 14 2007, 18:06

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 14 2007, 23:56)

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 14 2007, 23:36)

Hm, possibly a good idea. I will think about it...

Okay. Now no more absolute values:

CODE

                    Efficiency   Relative      Encoding speed  Decoding speed

Turbo  + Standard      0 %         - 63 %        * 2.46          * 1.14
...
Normal + Standard     63 %            0 %        * 1.00          * 1.00
...
Extra  + Max         100 %         + 37 %        * 0.12          * 0.75

'Efficiency' is the portion of the range defined as the difference of the weakest and the strongest preset. Not exact, but my english is too limited...

An example:

Weakest preset: 55.00 % (absolute)
Strongest preset: 53.00 % (absolute)
Range: 55.00 - 53.00 = 2.00 % (absolute)

If Normal + Standard achieves an absolute compression of 53.74 % then it's efficiency is:

(55 - 53.74) / 2.00 * 100 = 63 %

'Relative' is similar but relative to the selected (reference) preset.

Possibly i should replace speed values less than 1 (slower) with the reciprocal: Instead of '* 0.75 write '/ 1.33'. This means 'is 1.33 times slower'.

QUOTE(PabUK @ Feb 15 2007, 00:15)

Fine. Unfortunately not many people are reading a disclaimer (me too...).

With the new approach, users have to read the documentation to know, what efficiency means... That's probably a bit annoying but more safe...

gaekwad2

Feb 14 2007, 18:42

If you want to avoid all possible misunderstandings a scale from 0 to 10 (or similar) might be better than percentages though. It may seem unlikely that anyone could mistake numbers from 0% to 100% for the actual compression strength, but...

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.