Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossless Compression Test

Hydrogenaudio Forums > Lossless Audio Compression > Lossless / Other Codecs

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 6 2008, 03:31

I've have been running a few compression tests over the last few days to compare the difference between the vanilla switches of Flac, Wavpack and Takc.

Encoders used

Flac v1.2.1
Wavpack v4.41.0
Takc v1.03
MAC v4.01

For these results 332 full albums were encoded at each setting and then tallied up in excel.

Here are the graphs

IPB Image

Albums encoded

CODE

311 - 311
A - Hi-Fi Serious
A New Found Glory - Catalyst
A New Found Glory - Nothing Gold Can Stay
A Perfect Circle - Mer De Noms
A Perfect Circle - Thirteenth Step
AC-DC - Back In Black
AFI - Sing The Sorrow
Alice In Chains - Facelift
Alice In Chains - Unplugged
Amici Forever - Defined
Anthrax - Persistence Of Time
Anthrax - Sound Of White Noise
Anthrax - We've Come For You All
Arctic Monkeys - Favourite Worst Nightmare
Audioslave - Revelations
Autopilot Off - Make A Sound
Bad Religion - Against The Grain
Bad Religion - New Maps Of Hell
Bad Religion - No Control
Bad Religion - Stranger Than Fiction
Bad Religion - Tested
Bad Religion - The Gray Race
Beck - Odelay
Bee Gees - The Very Best Of The
Belle & Sebastian - The Boy With The Arab Strap
Belle & Sebastian - Tigermilk
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 - Across A Wire - MTV Live from the 10 Spot Disc 1
Counting Crows - Across A Wire - MTV Live from the 10 Spot Disc 2
Counting Crows - August And Everything After
Counting Crows - Recovering The Satellites
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
Dinosaur Jr - Beyond
Dire Straits - Sultans Of Swing - The Very Best Of
Elliott Smith - XO
Elton John - Greatest Hits 1970 - 2002 Disc 1
Elton John - Greatest Hits 1970 - 2002 Disc 2
Eminem - The Eminem Show
Eminem - The Slim Shady LP
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 - 100% Colombian
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Come Find Yourself
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Loco
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Mimosa
Funeral For A Friend - Casually Dressed & Deep In Conversat
Funeral For A Friend - Seven Ways To Scream Your Name
Funeral For A Friend - Tales Don't Tell Themselves
Gary Moore - Still Got The Blues
George Harrison - The Best Of George Harrison
Good Charlotte - Good Morning Revival
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
Guns N' Roses - Appetite For Destruction
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 - Rock In Rio
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 - Chase This Light
Jimmy Eat World - Jimmy Eat World
Joe Satriani - The Extremist
John Butler Trio - Grand National
John Farnham - Anthology 1
John Lennon - Imagine
John Mayer - Continuum
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
Linkin Park - Minutes To Midnight
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
Mad Caddies - Keep It Going
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 - Disco Volante
Mr. Bungle - Mr. Bungle
Muse - Absolution
Muse - Black Holes And Revelations
Muse - Hullabaloo Disc 1
Muse - Hullabaloo Disc 2
Muse - Origin Of Symmetry
Muse - Showbiz
My Chemical Romance - The Black Parade
Nirvana - Bleach
Nirvana - Incesticide
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 - Black Rain
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
Papa Roach - The Paramour Sessions
Paul Potts - One Chance
Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam
Pearl Jam - Rearviewmirror
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
Placebo - Without You I'm Nothing
Queen - Greatest Hits
Queens Of The Stone Age - Queens Of The Stone Age
Radiohead - OK Computer
Rage Against The Machine - Evil Empire
Rage Against The Machine - Rage Against The Machine
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
Reel Big Fish - Cheer Up
Reel Big Fish - Why Do They Rock So Hard
Regurgitator - Unit
Russell Watson - Reprise
Saliva - Survival Of The Sickest
Salmonella Dub - Inside The Dub Plates
Salmonella Dub - Killervision
Seether - Karma And Effect
Shihad - Killjoy
Shihad - Shihad
Shihad - The General Electric
Silverchair - Diorama
Silverchair - Freak Show
Silverchair - Frogstomp
Silverchair - Young Modern
Simon & Garfunkel - The Definitive Collection
Skid Row - Skid Row
Skunk Anansie - Paranoid & Sunburnt
Skunk Anansie - Post Orgasmic Chill
Skunk Anansie - Stoosh
Smashing Pumpkins - Adore
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
Stevie Wonder - Talking Book
Stevie Wonder - The Definitive Collection Disc 1
Stevie Wonder - The Definitive Collection Disc 2
Story Of The Year - In The Wake Of Determination
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
Tenacious D - Tenacious D
The Beatles - Help
The Beatles - Let It Be... Naked
The Beatles - Let It Be
The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour
The Beatles - One
The Beatles - Revolver
The Beatles - Rubber Soul
The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
The Beatles - Yellow Submarine
The Black Crowes - Shake Your Money Maker
The Darkness - Permission To Land
The Doobie Brothers - Best Of The Doobies
The Fratellis - Costello Music
The Killers - Hot Fuss
The Living End - Modern Artillery
The Living End - Roll On
The Living End - State Of Emergency
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
Tool - Salival
Travis - The Invisible Band
Unwritten Law - Elva
Unwritten Law - Unwritten Law
Van Morrison - The Best Of Van Morrison
Various Artists - Natural Born Killers Soundtrack
Various Artists - Simply The Best Singers
Various Artists - The Blues Brothers - Music From The Soundtrack
Vicious Hary Mary - Orchestra Phantasma
Weezer - Maladroit
Weezer - Pinkerton
Weezer - The Blue Album
Weezer - The Green Album
Whitesnake - Greatest Hits
Yellowcard - Ocean Avenue
Yellowcard - Paper Walls

EDIT: Fixed graph sizes
EDIT 2: added Monkey's audio, fixed graph colors.
EDIT 3: added Monkey's audio Insane

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 03:38

That's a lot of data!

You can even see the steady down-trend in the file sizes.

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 6 2008, 03:46

i know, my pc has been chugging away for 3 days solid. Thank god it didn't crash throughout the whole process.

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 03:54

I've been using TAK -p3 since it was introduced as TAK -p2 and have been very happy with the performance. Before that I was using Monkey's Audio -c3000. I wonder what the charts would have looked like with MAC in it.

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 6 2008, 03:59

i was going to add MAC as well but i couldn't for the life of me figure out how to batch it since it doesn't accept wildcards.

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 04:08

MAC can't accept wildcards? What are you using to do your encoding? The command line version over at rarewares works pretty well. Even does redirection to stdin or -out with some applications.

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 6 2008, 04:12

MAC won't accept *.* as input.

I just make a batch file and checks for a .wav file and if found encode it and then use sweep to run it through each directory.

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 04:18

In just a few lines you could probably create a batch that will recurse subdirectories for you, if that's what you need.

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 6 2008, 04:23

thats what i use Sweep for.

I'll use monkeys audio frontend and in a few days add MAC to the graphs.

It's going to take 4 hours for the first run on FAST mode.

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 05:00

Encoding speed between MAC -c1000 and flac -5 are comparable.
-c3000 is about the same as WavPack -hh.
-c4000 is about the same as TAK -p5.

-c5000 isn't worth your time.

Thanks for including them!

halb27

Feb 6 2008, 05:27

It would be great to see especially MAC -c4000 in comparison to TAK.

Synthetic Soul

Feb 6 2008, 05:42

Out of interest, my tests put those settings in exactly the same order (although I don't have FLAC -1 to -4).

Can I ask, was there a specific reason for your test? Are you currently looking to swap codecs? Are you surprised at all with any of the findings?

Even though I have pointed out that FLAC and TAK are incomparable at the same compression rate at least a few times before, it brings it home to me even more seeing them so separate in your chart. It also shows that WavPack has a good variety of settings.

trev

Feb 6 2008, 08:32

to me those graphs don't mean much at all without respective encoding times (and possibly decoding times).

it's always a balance of compression Vs speed. you can't judge on just compression alone.

jetpower

Feb 6 2008, 13:02

You're a winer trev. This is many albums tested so statistical error is minimal. Great stuff I'd say. And trev if you want to know encoding & decoding speed, check this on your CPU to have meaningful results. You shouldn't rely too much on results on different hardware.

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 6 2008, 13:10

QUOTE(Synthetic Soul @ Feb 7 2008, 00:42)

Can I ask, was there a specific reason for your test?

i just wanted to see the effect of each encoder on a large music collection. You always hear people saying that A compresses heaps better (they always exaggerate) than B so I thought I would do my own test.

QUOTE

Are you currently looking to swap codecs?

I was thinking about switching from my FLAC -6 to Wavpack, but now seeing the result i may switch to TAK -2

QUOTE

Are you surprised at all with any of the findings?

Actually yes i am with the FLAC -5 to FLAC -7, i can't believe how close the compression ratios are. There is only a 84.05MB savings going from -5 to -7. (which is a saving 0.25MB's per album)

QUOTE(trev @ Feb 7 2008, 03:32)

to me those graphs don't mean much at all without respective encoding times (and possibly decoding times).

it's always a balance of compression Vs speed. you can't judge on just compression alone.

I know, Synthetic Soul's website has all the info you need about that. I didn't want to reinvent the whole wheel just the spokes.

http://www.synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/

Nick.C

Feb 6 2008, 13:56

QUOTE(trev @ Feb 6 2008, 14:32)

to me those graphs don't mean much at all without respective encoding times (and possibly decoding times).

it's always a balance of compression Vs speed. you can't judge on just compression alone.

How many times do you encode the raw audio data? Most people do it once (then periodically when a new codec with better features / compression / etc. comes along

). Therefore, although coding time may be of incidental importance, it's not the main one.

Decoding time is paramount, if you equate time to decode processor effort required to battery life on a portable device of some sort.

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 14:08

How often you decode depends on why you're using lossless compression. For archival purposes, you may decode only once or twice; maybe never at all.

Nick.C

Feb 6 2008, 14:28

QUOTE(greynol @ Feb 6 2008, 20:08)

How often you decode depends on why you're using lossless compression. For archival purposes, you may decode only once or twice; maybe never at all.

By decode, I mean play...

greynol

Feb 6 2008, 14:38

They may never be played either.

Besides, there are environments where decode speed between the listed contenders will make no difference when it comes to playback.

trev

Feb 6 2008, 19:36

QUOTE(Nick.C @ Feb 7 2008, 06:56)

How many times do you encode the raw audio data? Most people do it once (then periodically when a new codec with better features / compression / etc. comes along

). Therefore, although coding time may be of incidental importance, it's not the main one.

well not for me. i encode 1 or 2 hours worth every week, sometimes more.

my point is that many of the results are similar, very similar, and if x takes 4 times as long as y then to some people it's not much point saving a few MB at the cost of a few hours.

i wasn't flaming or anything, just no-one had mentioned speed yet and i think it's very important.

TBeck

Feb 6 2008, 23:51

QUOTE(A_Man_Eating_Duck @ Feb 6 2008, 10:31)

I've have been running a few compression tests over the last few days to compare the difference between the vanilla switches of Flac, Wavpack and Takc.
...
For these results 332 full albums were encoded at each setting and then tallied up in excel.

Very interesting. Thank you!

QUOTE(jetpower @ Feb 6 2008, 20:02)

This is many albums tested so statistical error is minimal.

That's wrong...

You need a big N and a representative file set. If you don't know better (about relevant factors), you have to choose your samples randomly. A persons selection determined by his taste (systematic selection) is rarely representative.

Different genres of music will produce different results.

This sample set seems to have similar properties as the files used for Synthetic Souls's comparison.

For TAK this means:

The files don't benefit from the high predictor orders of the presets p3 to p5. The advantage of p5 over p2 is only about 0.5 percent.

It's different for Josh Coalson's FLAC comparison:

Here the advantage of p5 over p2 is about 1 percent.

QUOTE(greynol @ Feb 6 2008, 10:54)

:
I've been using TAK -p3 since it was introduced as TAK -p2 and have been very happy with the performance. Before that I was using Monkey's Audio -c3000. I wonder what the charts would have looked like with MAC in it.

I bet the result would be similar to Synthetic Souls's comparison: The Compression of TAK's strongest setting will be about on par with Monkey's High.

Again, this is different for the FLAC comparison: There TAK performs better than Money's Extra...

My advice: When choosing a lossless compressor, perform your own comparison with a representative selection of your files. Depending on your taste, the results may be quite different from other (public) comparisons.

TAK seems to perform best on classical music, jazz and speech but not so good (compared to Monkey's Audio "Extra" and "Insane") on files of high volume and/or affected by dynamic compression ("Loudness War").

jetpower

Feb 7 2008, 09:28

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 7 2008, 06:51)

QUOTE(jetpower @ Feb 6 2008, 20:02)

This is many albums tested so statistical error is minimal.

I agree. I should have written more. What I meant was that large number of albums minimizes weird results in e.g. one of them.
For me personally, Man's Eating Duck album selection is, I think, closer to what I'd compress than an all-round album pool (rock music > all:)), so it is more valuable this way.

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 7 2008, 06:51)

Different genres of music will produce different results.

For TAK this means:

The files don't benefit from the high predictor orders of the presets p3 to p5. The advantage of p5 over p2 is only about 0.5 percent.

It's different for Josh Coalson's FLAC comparison:

Here the advantage of p5 over p2 is about 1 percent.

Could this mean you are considering music genre presets (rock, metal, jazz, classical) in future versions of TAK for encoding albums?

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 7 2008, 23:09

here we go, MAC is now added.

I'm running an Insane encode now, just to see the results. it's going to take 30 hours to complete so i'll update the graph once done

buktore

Feb 9 2008, 02:12

I'm quite surprise to see MAC -High show better compression than TAK -5.

Then I look at your file and I think I understand now, most of it are rock. (guess)

With quieter music, TAK -5 have considerably higher compression than MAC -High according to my experience. But with nosier music + some jazz, MAC -High have a tiny bit better compression rate than TAK -5.

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 9 2008, 06:05

QUOTE(buktore @ Feb 9 2008, 21:12)

With quieter music, TAK -5 have considerably higher compression than MAC -High according to my experience. But with nosier music + some jazz, MAC -High have a tiny bit better compression rate than TAK -5.

How much does "considerably higher" mean?

buktore

Feb 9 2008, 08:27

I just convert some random "piano" album. length 33 min

Tak -5 = 94.2 Mb
Ape -High = 97.3 Mb

another one 72 min

Tak 262 Mb
Ape 266 Mb

I have tried a few soundtrack album and result is just like the above.

It depend, If I remember it will be around 2-7 Mb per album depend on how long and music type (quite one, I mean). Or simply, how "Clean" the signal is.

With noisier music and some music that have constant noise (like some jazz) MAC usally have better compression. but different usually just about 1-2 Mb per album. 2Mb is pretty rare actually.

Random pick for rock = White zombie Astro-creep: 2000 length 52 min

Tak -5 = 342 Mb (358 854 414 bytes)
Ape -High = 341 Mb (357 577 462 bytes)

Slipknot : subliminal verses (This one is loud as hell) length 60 min

Tak = 425 Mb
Ape = 423 Mb

But maybe I have a lot of somewhat quite music and I remember that when I convert my library from APE to TAK it usually get smaller most of the time. So I'm a bit surprise when I saw your result. That's all

A_Man_Eating_Duck

Feb 9 2008, 15:17

Mac Insane mode added to the graphs

@buktore
thats the perfect answer, thanks

TBeck

Feb 10 2008, 21:45

QUOTE(jetpower @ Feb 7 2008, 16:28)

QUOTE(TBeck @ Feb 7 2008, 06:51)

Could this mean you are considering music genre presets (rock, metal, jazz, classical) in future versions of TAK for encoding albums?

I have thought about it but am not sure if it is a good idea. While i could create specific settings for specific genres, which will work quite well on average, there will always be users with a file selection were it doesn't fit. Possibly it would be better to recommend genre specific settings and advise the users to try them on their file sets and to tell them how to tune them.

QUOTE(buktore @ Feb 9 2008, 15:27)

It depend, If I remember it will be around 2-7 Mb per album depend on how long and music type (quite one, I mean). Or simply, how "Clean" the signal is.
...
With noisier music and some music that have constant noise (like some jazz) MAC usally have better compression. but different usually just about 1-2 Mb per album. 2Mb is pretty rare actually.
...
But maybe I have a lot of somewhat quite music and I remember that when I convert my library from APE to TAK it usually get smaller most of the time. So I'm a bit surprise when I saw your result. That's all

This exactly reflects my own observations about TAK's efficiency in comparison with Monkey's audio. BTW: My own music collection behaves similar to yours.

Polar

Feb 15 2008, 06:19

A Man Eating Duck, could I egg you on to compressing your corpus with some OptimFROG and La settings?
I'm aware that it's a behemoth of a task, of course. Maybe that's the reason why Synthetic Soul is remarkably discreet about it

kanak

Feb 15 2008, 07:50

QUOTE(Polar @ Feb 15 2008, 07:19)

Back when i'd done a few tests of my one (very limited, not even 1/10 of the size or scope of what Synthetic Soul was doing), I found that testing OptimFrog/LA would be a serious chore because of the encoding times.

However, testing OptimFrog at default (which is reasonably fast) should give us a good indication of where the "strongest" codecs are at.

user

Feb 16 2008, 06:56

I want to write here something to give some food for thought:

Because the space for Loslsess archiving/storing music is nowadays available without problems and without much expenses (big HDs, DVD+-R), those few tenth of percent or few percent of space saving by some Lossless formats compared to flac, don#t count very much (imo?!).

For some reason FLAC is used by a big majority of persons world-wide, see eg. the HA poll, clearly above 60% for flac, rest distributed over the other Lossless formats.

The reasons for this outcome are surely the en- and maybe even more important, the decoding speeds of flac, which translates also to low cpu power needed, which leads to battery savings and longer playtime on portables.
When we are at portables, and industry support, we meet FLAC again.

Somehow i want to appeal to the Lossless crowd, to think about customers power.
If we want in sooner or later future more (cheap/priceworthy) standalone and portable devices, which play Lossless, we should maybe concentrate on 1 preferred and used Lossless format. And, that is somehow obviously FLAC with already good acceptance by commercial industry.
If the industry has an easy decision to take, which Loslsess format to implement, they will be easier to convince, to just do it.
If the Lossless format usage is way more distributed, let's say: flac, wavpack, apple Lossless, ape, tak all used in similar percentages by end-users, industry will have difficulties to decide themselves, to implement any of Lossless. Or they take the "wrong" format, maybe 'Orange'-Lossless, which we wouldn't really want ?!
So, let's make FLAC the most used format, as it is, so we will get more and even more hardware support. portables, stand-alone HiFi, car-HiFi.

shadowking

Feb 16 2008, 07:06

I like flac a lot but wavpack is more flexy, can run on modest hardware and has the BSD license which is better for business. The world needs a bridge between lossless and lossy and that is where the hybrid mode comes in.
In the end competition is good so bring on tak &co.. I have doubts about lossless becoming an encoding standard ala MP3 / AAC regardless of storage. It will stay as a transcoding platform and grow as an audiophile thing. Remember real world is not HA and the masses do not transcode they just want to play their songs and the more songs they can fit the better. To convince them otherwise, to adopt and default flac encoding into every common frontend and hardware device is a very difficult task - that is the only way to mass adopt lossless.

jcoalson

Feb 16 2008, 11:07

libFLAC is also BSD licensed.

if you go outside HA, the picture is different. flac support is wide enough that I think distribution is driving now and lossless music being sold is almost exclusively in flac, with a handful of wmal places. in legal trading it's flac and shn, and in usenet it's flac and ape. apple may start selling alac, but they'd be better off being the first bug guy with flac since their lock-in is due to itunes/ipod ease of use, not codec choice. unless something disruptive happens that seems to be where it's going.

skamp

Feb 23 2008, 09:59

QUOTE(user @ Feb 16 2008, 13:56)

Because the space for Loslsess archiving/storing music is nowadays available without problems and without much expenses (big HDs, DVD+-R), those few tenth of percent or few percent of space saving by some Lossless formats compared to flac, don#t count very much (imo?!).

Conversely, with processing power increasing, it could be considered that encoding (and decoding) time matters less and less. Also, you don't take into consideration that increased storage capabilities could be used for other types of content, such as high definition video: people used to archive 700 MiB XviD rips, now they're storing 4.7 GB or even 8.5 GB 720p/1080p rips.

I have divided encoding times by two on my €50 dual-core CPU (Ahtlon X2 4000+ EE). You could count on a ~400% increase in processing power with quad-core CPUs (by encoding 4 files at once). Now I can even encode audio CDs on my dual-core with wavpack -hhx6 (wavpack's highest setting) or even with Monkey's Audio (insane mode) faster than realtime.
An increased core count also changes usage patterns as well as the importance of other factors, such as decoding time. On a quad-core CPU, you could use two or three cores for encoding and not feel a thing, because you'd still have one or two more cores for whatever else you're doing. With that CPU, does it matter any longer if a highly-efficient codec has very slow decoding speeds, since you can now dedicate a whole core for that task? Would it matter that much if simple playback took 90% of processing power of a single core, since you'd have three more available? Mind you, I mentionned quad-core CPUs, but what about CPUs such as the UltraSPARC T2, which has 8 cores, each of which can run *8* threads concurrently? I know it's not a "desktop" product, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that we're headed for less GHz increases and more cores per CPU.

Take a typical situation: you just got back from the record store. You rip the CD, and while you're listening to the wav files, you're encoding them using the highest settings of a highly-efficient codec. By the time you're done listening to the album, your highly compressed files are ready for archival. From that point of view, is it so important to encode an entire album in 20 seconds instead of 20 minutes?

I'm all for improving encoding speeds, but that's mostly because it frustrates me to see that my CPU could run twice as fast if only applications were written with full support for all the relevant features (i.e. SIMD extensions) that make that CPU so great. It's so annoying to see that the lancer build of Ogg Vorbis runs roughly twice as fast as the stock encoder on my setup, yet no effort is being made to port it to GCC and thus make it run on anything other than Windows! Or take flake, for instance: on my setup, using only one core, it encodes Joni Mitchell's "Blue" in 15 seconds vs. 66 seconds for flac --best, yielding the same filesize, yet it is still being dismissed as a somewhat experimental encoder, not suitable for general use.

We keep disregarding newer, better software for reasons that are beyond my comprehension. Hardware is improving: let's make use of improved software with it.

user

Feb 23 2008, 10:48

@skamp: you miss the point, which is having a universal simple, but rock stable cross-platform format, with still excellent performance, at low cpu power, ie.: commercial stand-alone devices, HiFi-hardware made by companies, to buy at your local walmart, play your Lossless where you are at the moment, like you can do these days with mp3 in the lossy sector.
This means, in the Lossless area, squeezing space or speed out of Lossless, doesn't bring big progress. Of course, the nice thing in Lossless coding are the small differences between those different codecs, and used mathematics. Interesting from developers, scientists' points of views, but not for JoeAverage, exception: technical geeks, who are in higher concentration located at this music technilogy forum, of course. As User, I had to pin-point to the practical view, and that is working towards realization of Lossless decoding into company built hardware, portable or living-room HiFi.
Of course, competition between Loslsess formats is ok, as it might bring progress. Eg. flake and flac, but it shows also, many people want security from Lossless, not balancing on cutting edge. I am sure, the good things of flake or other codecs have been/are or will be implented to flac also, if there no other disadvantages. Many people might use flac, because they can already play it on their Kenwood, Phatbox, in their Volvo car radio system, on Rockboxed devices. And so they trust in "their" flac developer, that he knows, how important the decoding/play factor is, ie. gaining industry support

You see, I myself used at least 3 Lossless formats each some time in past, as I was convinced, that format is the best Lossless compromise. (heh, every Lossless format is a compromise, if you count in every technical detail, but if you set preferences, you will get your personal favourite winner format for sure). I started with ape, then flac, then wavpack, then flac again, and I will stay with flac, I think (so far

)

skamp

Feb 23 2008, 11:31

I hear you on the matter of ubiquity, but you're assuming that the sole availability of a given format with relatively unrestrictive licensing terms and good performance is enough to bring the industry to support that format. In real life, the major players in that industry gang up together to create proprietary "standards" that they can license for a fee and make big bucks with (cf. the format wars).

FLAC has been around for years, yet its adoption among hardware manufacturers, while honorable, is still somewhat anecdotal. Look at Apple: they didn't have any legacy compatibility issues to take into account when they decided to bring lossless audio to their products (among which, the oh-so-popular iPod). They had the luxury of being able to choose whatever tech they saw fit. Did they choose FLAC? Noooo. They engineered their own inferior codec.

The only support you can realistically hope for, is that coming from vendors who are starting to bet on cheap, open technology, that they can sell to masses and thus still make good money from. Asus, with its EeePC, comes to mind (then again, why would you use lossless codecs on slow hardware with very little storage?).

FLAC has benefited from pretty good adoption among an independant public (such as independent artists and online shops, but mostly illegal BitTorrent trackers); I'm not sure why. Maybe because it was among the first codecs, and had the most features early on?

Anyway, I question the importance of wide commercial support for any lossless codec, simply because of the very purpose of lossless encoding (bit-for-bit archival). It doesn't really matter if your iPod supports your lossless codec of choice, because lossy codecs are much more appropriate for that target (relatively fast decoding, very small filesizes, while providing transparent playback). It doesn't really matter if your standalone DVD player supports FLAC, because the industry will keep pushing their own technology onto you (DVD-Audio, SACD, Blu-ray, etc...). And it doesn't really matter if your online shop sells FLAC or WavPack files, either, because converting them into your favorite format is easy and fast enough.

CoyoteSmith

Feb 23 2008, 13:41

mp3 won the lossy war because consumers chose it, flac is the consumer choice for lossless so when drive size continues to rise there will be much more interest in it, i know people that say defensively "there's no way you can hear a difference between LAME mp3 and flac" but as drive size rise, they'll be answering themselves "well i have the drive room, so why not?"

simonh

Feb 23 2008, 14:32

I'm not so sure CoyoteSmith. Mp3 won the war because there was no real competition. Now there is competition, most consumers aren't interested. Quite right too. Thanks to Lame (no thanks to Franhofer), mp3 is still holding its own competing with the latest codecs.

There are some people on this forum who have abx'd enough samples to not trust a lossy codec, but they are a tiny minority. Consumers don't abx. Consumers don't know or care about lossless. I only know a couple of people who have even heard of lossless audio codecs. I don't know anyone who knows what replaygain is. Personally, I'd much prefer to see replaygain/gapless hardware support for mp3 than lossless support. Thats just me though.

Edit: I use wavpack for my archival requirements. Viewing the graph from the OP I'm still happy with my choice.

gaekwad2

Feb 23 2008, 16:09

QUOTE(simonh @ Feb 23 2008, 21:32)

Consumers don't abx. Consumers don't know or care about lossless.

Consumers don't know about transparency either. Most people are convinced that there has to be an audible difference between original and mp3.
So, if you can convince them (which isn't easy either) that lossless really really is lossless they might actually be more likely to use it than the HA crowd.

simonh

Feb 23 2008, 16:33

Gaekwad2: I disagree that most people think there will be a difference between lossy/lossless. They generally don't think about such matters. go out tomorrow and ask your neighbours which is their lossless codec of choice. watch their eyes glaze over before they shut the door.

skamp

Feb 24 2008, 03:12

QUOTE(simonh @ Feb 23 2008, 23:33)

go out tomorrow and ask your neighbours which is their lossless codec of choice. watch their eyes glaze over before they shut the door.

They'll probably remind their 10 year old daughter never to talk to strangers as well, especially the creep next door

smok3

Feb 24 2008, 03:59

QUOTE(skamp @ Feb 24 2008, 10:12)

QUOTE(simonh @ Feb 23 2008, 23:33)

go out tomorrow and ask your neighbours which is their lossless codec of choice. watch their eyes glaze over before they shut the door.

They'll probably remind their 10 year old daughter never to talk to strangers as well, especially the creep next door

well it just happens that with my line of work i do meet plenty of different DJ personas, mostly they don't have any clue about what transparency means (usually it's something to do with 192 kbps cbr mp3s), they don't know about replaygain, flac (and entire lossless compression) seems like sci-fi to them..., so how about expecting something like that from your neigbour?

timber

Feb 28 2008, 07:46

QUOTE(user @ Feb 16 2008, 13:56)

From what I've seen so far on the net I think that in the near future FLAC will become the standard for lossless audio in a similar way to MP3. Until recently, lossless file where only to be found on the user's collection of converted CDs, but now more and more files, concerto recordings, etc appear on the net, some portable devices start supporting them, ... and in each time it's FLAC.

Let's face it, it's probably not the most efficient encoder but the others are not much better, it's less unknown than the others, open source and free (a BSD license, so there are no royalties to pay).
MP3 started in the same way (i.e. free, in the beginning you had nothing to pay in order to develop your own software decoder, but after a few years and the growing success of the format, patent holders started to realize that they could make a lot of money and modified their policy).

The only restriction I see with FLAC, and most others lossless formats for that matter, is a tagging support far below what's available for .mp4 or what id3v2 tags provides for .mp3.

I must say thought that the current trend in CD converters adding separate .cue files gave me somewhat to think on the subject: why do these file formats need to support tags at all? If players can decode separate .cue files for titles and timing information, they could do the same for tags.

I dunno the exact capabilities of id3v2 or .mp4 containers but imagine that one can create independently from the audio files a file containing the album cover scans, title and lyrics for each track, etc. Codec developers could concentrate on the audio side while independently other developers concentrate on the tools (and source code libraries) for reading and editing such files or even downloading them from a freedb like central database.

André

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