No doubt: looking at compression ratio and important decompression speed TAK is the best player in the lossless field. Congratulations!
a) TAK yields the best combination together with lossyWAV right now. Some months ago you announced specific development for use with lossyWAV to achieve further improvement. What's the current state here?
b) The impressive decompression speed makes TAK highly desirable for use with mobile DAPs (like FLAC, but with a better compression ratio). Has there been any contacts with DAP producers allowing them to implement TAK and giving them the necessary information? This would be great, especially as the time for lossless codecs on mobile DAPs is yet to come, but we may be close to it right now. It would be great to have TAK be a major player in this field.
@TBeck: Any plans to contact DAP manufacturers? (Time is tight: It will be few years only that we will see giant flash memory so that everybody can encode his collection the lossless [or lossyWAV] way. It would be great to have TAK then as a widespread codec in case the speed hope remains true).
Could I suggest that you also change the behaviour of TAKC so that if doesn't report an "invalid file extension" whenever you try to give an output filename an extension anything other than tak? FLAC will let you call the output file anything you want, with no extension added if not present in the output filename.
| 1.1.0b3 | 1.1.0b4 | Enc Dec | Enc Dec=====================================p0 | 130x 141x | 132x 142xp0e | 108x | 110xp0m | 61x | 61xp1 | 109x 140x | 109x 141xp1e | 90x | 91xp1m | 51x | 50xp2 | 66x 125x | 67x 125xp2e | 53x | 53xp2m | 33x | 33xp3 | 38x 111x | 38x 112xp3e | 31x | 31xp3m | 20x | 20xp4 | 24x 104x | 24x 104xp4e | 15x | 15xp4m | 14x | 14x
You are the best!
Code: [Select] | 1.1.0b3 | 1.1.0b4 | Enc Dec | Enc Dec=====================================p0 | 130x 141x | 132x 142x...
| 1.1.0b3 | 1.1.0b4 | Enc Dec | Enc Dec=====================================p0 | 130x 141x | 132x 142x...
Thank you, that was fast!
Quote from: TBeck on 03 January, 2009, 08:32:55 AMThank you, that was fast!No worries, the holiday season has given me a little more time to let tests run.
I know that you had said previously that -p0 was only required, but I didn't know whether that was still the case, and I was keen to perform yet another test to correlate my figures further. I was pleased to see very similar values. Where values are different I believe it is only with the faster speeds - where hundredths of a second may make a difference - and only a variance of one unit. Except -p0 and -p0m's encoding speed, which were out by two. Is this relevant to your changes do you think? Were you hoping to see a larger variation?