Skip to main content
Topic: another lossless performance comparison (Read 24241 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #25
Quote
• 7zip -> zip (I thought that 7z was open-source and cross-plateform)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=246679"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It is open source. But not cross platform. It won't even work at big endian machines at its current state.

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #26
La is still a compression leader, though I'm surprised at OptimFROG. It's really moved forward in leaps and bounds (pun intended )
<==== Hydrogen Audio Bomb

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #27
page updated.
I've also add alternative sorting (by decoding speed/encoding speed/format-preset):
http://foobar2000.net/lossless/encoding.htm and follow other links on bottom

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #28
Wavpack 4.2 decoding speed looks really impressing on this test, beating even FLAC (although by a very small margin). However, I just did the decoding test on a trumpet album (André Maurice, Mit Pauken und Trompeten) and I am consistently getting about ~18% lower speed with wavpack 4.2 -fast than with Flac 1.1 -6...
Could this be due to my much more limited sampling (just one album) or to processor differences (I'm using an Athlon 64)?

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #29
part of the decoding speed difference can be attributed to having to read less encoded data from disk if the compression is greater, but how much is hard to quantify.

Josh

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #30
I doubt that would have an impact, since guruboolez buffered the files into memory...

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #31
Yes, exact. I used foobar2000 with buffering up to 250000 kb. Difference in filesize is really too small (-1...2%) to explain such difference (5...10%).

another lossless performance comparison

Reply #32
Quote
Well, it seems FLAC is definitely not the best in terms of compression.
Assuming that's the only thing that matters to you.  It's like saying miles per gallon is the only thing that matters on your car ... that might be true for a few people, but not for most, there are several factors that go into the decision.  And even one person might use different approaches for different needs.  See the many other threads.

Quote
Quote
Personally I think -6 is a better option than -5 if the encoding speed turns you off.

I've long been partial to -4 as the best tradeoff between encoding time and compression. 
As always, it depends on the use.  Are you just doing the encode for yourself, or is it for wide sharing (a live music show, for example).  If lots of users are going to be sharing the file, you might spend a little more time getting the encode smaller, since it's encoded only once but shared (and decoded) lots of times.

Quote
I'm actually surprised at Shorten's performance here. Though it has the "worst" compression, the encode and decode times are insane.
People here have underestimated Shorten for years.  It's still probably the most widely used lossless format, because so much live music was encoded into shn.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019