could we have a TAK forum dedicated to TAK discussion here?

TAK has got a long way to go before it becomes as popular as FLAC or WavPack... or even Monkey's Audio or OptimFROG.

Of course, I look forward to seeing a TAK forum in the future.

But, it already outperforms FLAC
Haven't benched against WP or MA yet though.

See my other post http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....id=473687&#

which I think you already have.

Not in a popularity contest, and it possibly never will.

damn. the winning argument

That's true. Despite its decent compression/speed ratio TAK would have to go a long way until it might seriously be able to compete with FLAC and WavPack. It needs some important features to be added in the near future, especially tagging support and ReplayGain compatibility. Both could be achieved by choosing an advanced format just like APEv2 or Vorbis Comments, though the latter is a native Xiph-thing. I remember having read elsewhere that Tom's actually planning to make APEv2 the default tagging format for TAK. Good choice!

Nice additional features, e.g. embedding of album arts or even encoding in hybrid mode, could wait until real support for the format was present, adding these would rather waste precious time instead of pushing TAK at the moment.

The most important reason for new codecs having a difficult start is, of course, software support. I wouldn't want to convert my current FLAC archive to another format until satisfying possibilities for playback, management, processing and transcoding of the files weren't available. Same goes for burning application plugins, having to decode all losslessly compressed files prior to burning a few of them to standard CD-Audio or maybe even DVD-Audio someday can be quite an annoying job.

A foobar 0.83 plugin would get it going faster.

By that logic, a foobar 0.9.4.2 plugin would skyrocket it!

It won't grow much in popularity until the sources are released. And before that happens, it would be wise to convert the code to ANSI C. Just too many people have this silly paranoia of "what if the developer dies tomorrow? That could render my whole collection useless as the format ages and development stagnates".

Indeed but a LOT of people are still using 0.83. Getting plugins for both would really help TAK right now as well, as was mentioned, getting the source released.

And until there are sources released, new features will be slow to be implemented.
After all, it's currently a one-man-hobby project, and no one but the author can do the programming.
I really congradulate TBeck for making it this far!

IMHO TAK's development is far more rapid than most at the moment.

I agree that many won't be happy until the source is released though.

Edit: Although I would say the lack of player plug-ins are more of a handicap than the lack of source code, certainly for the short term.

I don't think that the popularity of a format depends so much on the availability of the sources. After all I don’t think that Monkey’s Audio popularity was significantly affected by the release of the sources. Also look at Wavpack, it’s sources have been available from the beginning and despite it’s superiority compared to Flac, it still isn’t nearly as popular as Flac. Unless off course there’s something that I’m missing…

Strictly speaking, the release of Monkey's sources was as good as if Matt didn't release anything, because his license is incompatible with most Open Source licenses out there. Matter of factly, his license is downright pathetic.



Erm... no.

That is most certainly true. Kudos to Tom.


On a personal rant, this open source bulls... already got to the annoying point. I see a lot of people putting pressure for a source code release, but I doubt these people would do anything useful with it.
From what I could grasp in the discussions Tom will release it when he feels it's time.


Bull's eye. This is what makes the difference IMO.

Sourcecode is usefull if you want to use it another platform.

I don't care about sources being open or not either. I'm just pointing out that the usual suspects will moan and whine until the sources are released.



Use wine. If you use PowerPC or SPARC: your fault for being nonconformist :-P

Couldn't agree more!

Agreed. Hopefully the SDK will go some way to appeasing people.

Anyway, the exact time of source release is not the point. I don’t think that open sourcing a project warrants its popularity.

There are projects and projects, so making blanket statements won't help this discussion progress.

The points here are 1. there is already open source competition and 2. people tend to be particularly paranoid about closed, undocumented formats. And that is not limited to lossless audio.

Hum, if i may
(i've promised myself not to talk until the source code release, but hey, i can tcheat with myself )

Please don't mix up absence of trust with paranoïa...

MaB_fr

Then tell me what trust an open source software brings to a person that cannot read the code and make sense out of it?
By your logic I cannot trust any software since I am no developer and cannot read its source code. That is paranoia. Shame on those ignorants that don't know squat about programming.

Yeah, for non-programmers, you're totally right. Or may be not.
We enter the domain of belief and morality, so for me it is a question of personality.

To make it "real life", let's pretend this software is a car (you could make it a plane or whatever, it's just too scary with a plane). As usual, abstraction are leaky, don't hit me with it (cheers Joel ).
It brakes, it turns, it accelerates, it slows down. It's a car !!!!

The point is, someday, you want change your seatbelt for some reason, or the wheel is not working right anymore.

What if cars functioning was not widespridely acknowledge ?
What if it was some obfuscated technology with no publication of either the principle nor the way to dismount it.

Will you buy it ?
If you had no choice, maybe you will.
But you will know the implication : if it stopped working or if you want to change/customize any part, you're screwed.
And if you know there were just one person able to change/repair modify it on earth and that you can't predict the availability, will you buy it ?
Especially if there was documented cars with trained technician widely available for the same price (and maybe even at a superior price), will you buy this black box ?

Back to software >
Today (we both know it won't be true in the near future, so no troll please), Tak is a beautifull concept car. It is demoed. It works. But only one technician can change the tears or replace the windshield wiper : TBeck.

Windows and many closed source software are like actual cars. The car makers didn't give all the screwdriver details, and they keep most of the motorization or design tips for themselves but the principles are known and many educated technician are able to tweak, repair and even upgrade them.

Open source and/or Public domain software are sometimes cars given with all screwdrivers details and, sometimes, ARE screws and raw materials that you have to mount yourself to make a car (that's one of the problem with some OSS).
But in both case, the documentation is implied with the screws (leak of my abstraction).

Back to subject >
That's why i think i wouldn't be paranoid if i was an uneducated user and i don't trust "total black box" software.
What a documented closed-software and all OSS/Public domain variant software can bring me is the confidence that somewhere, someone is able to modify/correct/workaround it.

For me, the knowledge that mechanics exist change everything.
For me, the knowledge that plane-parts controllers, pilots, air controllers, takeoff track technicians exist change everything. It gives me trust when using it. Trust that it will not break badly, trust that if it does break, i or someone will be able to repair it (not during flight time please ). Trust that, in three years from now, i could safely take a plane made today.

Then in TAK, my trust is not in the software right now, it's in TBeck.

MaB_fr
P.S. : hum...and yes, shame on those ignorants that don't know squat about programming. BURN THEM !!! oups, ok maybe i'm exagerating

In speed and compression rate, it might have. But certainly not in software and hardware compatibility!
When TAK becomes available for non-Windows operating system, like GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, etc. then we might be talking. Until then it is totally useless for a lot of Hydrogenaudio members...

God, I hate analogies so much. What drives people's desire to "dumb down" concepts to the point of making them unrecognizable?

Reminds me of the brilliant thinker comparing AAC's patent situation with a boat full of holes.

Instead of all this psychobabble and analogies that don't make sense. Let's just say it is up to the admins to decide. sheesh

shouldn't the topic tittle have been "TAK dedicated forumt?" instead of "TAK"?

It doesn't really matter: it's been hijacked to bitch about source yet again anyway.

I quite agree with what you say. foobar .9x is not nice for useing and components.

maybe i'm going out on a limb, but i don't see the logic here. You refuse to upgrade foobar, and then ask for plugins for the obsolete version? I really fail to see what's so precious in 0.8.3 that you don't upgrade to 0.9.x

Playbacks fine under wine...

I'm sorry what you think the newer is better, but I feel a little difference of tone between them. I like to use 0.8.3 more.

Did someone say "Jehova"?

I said ZOMG... that should be a close approximation.

Has TAK got ReplayGain?


Thats a deal-breaker, I never knew I needed it but FLAC has shown me I couldn't live without it.
Like a spanking new foobar plugin which turns out to be as useful as a pair of jeans.

Yeah. It stores its metadata inside APEv2 tags, which can also hold ReplayGain values, of course.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm perennially suspicious of projects wholly bound to a single person. Open Source alleviates this suspicion partially by having the possibility of continued development (or at least continued legal distribution) once the creator cannot or will not maintain the software any longer. Likewise, sizable corporate backing reduces the odds that a project will die due to the absence of a single developer.

As it is, TAK is entering an arena where both areas are adequately covered with FLAC and WavPack for Open Source and Apple Lossless and WMA Lossless for corporate backed. Codecs that fall in between seem doomed to obscurity.

A wealth of playback methods certainly sweetens the deal more than mere open sourcing, but not many audio projects maintain all relevant and up-to-date plugins in house, whether open or closed source, and need at least well documented interfaces and a flexible binding license.

If that single person is BRILLIANT, that's no problem at all.

Check out the history, most of the changes was by a single person, such as AC electricity by Nicola Tesla, DC by Thomas Edison, gravity by Issac Newton, aeroplane by Wright brothers ... etc.

For my own interpretation, OpenSource is very good for gathering people to contribute, but the form should be a leader such as Thomas in this case to lead the project. Without a good organization of distributing workload OpenSource will be a mess.



For my own experience, the idea of GNU start from good, but actually license did not protect the author the way it should.

My friend release his code in GNU, but he lost control and people did not respect him and spread the buggy code everywhere, he fail to maintain the code by him only, this kind of action will greatly affect the author's mood to improve, and the other people have no such ability to maintain the code. Another case is "Mr. Question Man" and forked "Audio Identifier", I don't want to see this kind of things happen again.

I got a better idea for people around, why not spend more time in coding plugin's for other applications such as Foobar plugin (I see it's around already, good but not in standard package), Audition, Audacity ... etc.

And I think if John33 can make TAKdrop for easy conversion from WAV the popularity will increase a lot.

So that's why we never got open-source gravity....

- M.

Uh, the Wright brothers were two people. Nicola Tesla I'll agree with; he's a personal favorite of mine. Edison was more of a marketer and collector of researchers than a true inventor. He was late with the light bulb, and large scale DC power distribution was just a bad idea. However, I wouldn't fight you on history's true inventor, Leonardo Di Vinci. I like to say Newton was history's smartest man who was completely wrong--but how close he got was amazing given the information he had.

I don't see how any of the above relates to this thread, but it's fun to discuss anyway.

Sorry for my bad English.
I mean -- don't bug Thomas for opening the source, he already explain he will do this when he think appropriate. In this period, people around may help him to code something useful with the TAK SDK.

Hey, whatever he wants. It's his software, after all. I'm interested in it regardless of licensing.

I'm interested in converting a FLAC album into TAK. I use foobar v 0.9.3.2, the foo_input_tak.dll does not work.

Does TAK just not work on that foobar?

TAK should 'work' (play) with foobar - upgrade to the latest version of foobar.

However, that is irrelevant for your needs; you need foobar to work with FLAC, which thankfully it does also! You need to load the FLAC files into foobar, set up a TAK Converter profile and then convert.

I installed v0.9.4.3 and it wouldn't work with some of my older plugins.

Not to worry though, FLAC fits my needs. Just wanted to try TAK.



Ironic, that 'converter profile' screenshot is fom a MAC[unless its a style sheet...] and .exe files don't work on MACs.

In foobar 0.9x the encoding part (be it mp3 or flac or wv) is not done by the input plugin. you need to point foobar to the directory containing the required executable (lame.exe, flac.exe, wavpack.exe etc). That being said, just put takc.exe in your foobar directory and set it up according to the wiki.

BTW I recommend you read the wiki "thoroughly" atleast for the parts you're interested in... TAK, foobar etc before asking questions whose answers are right there in the wiki.

Any plugin worth its salt should have upgraded to the latest SDK.

I would assume the screenshot is of a Windows machine with some skinning app running.

Got EAC to convert and got my foobar to play TAKs, not changing.

A new Lossless codec would need the features of FLAC[RG, 'Comments' rather than ID3 tags] and compress, pretty unlikely a 400MB FLAC album to maybe 250MBs.
Otherwise its just bigger HDD time again.

TAK is
- a lossless codec
- under active development
- going to be open-sourced according to Tom

What is going to happen to your music collection if you use it??