The Wiki looks very pro FLAC, as it's not mentioning the bad sides of FLAC.
I also think it's time for an overhault. The Wiki looks very pro FLAC, as it's not mentioning the bad sides of FLAC.I think it's hard to add a compression rate, as it's depending on the music you encode. You'll need a test corpus with extreme stuff with a track that contain 5 minutes of silence, as well as a track that is white noise, and some steps between (classical, pop, folk, rock, trance, thrash metal, industrial noise, etc.).
The venerable and useful page Lossless comparison could use a little work. Not wanting to radically overhaul anything without seeking a constructive consensus, I'm wondering what you'd like to see on this page?A couple preliminary ideas:The page needs to feature two primary sections: a format comparison table, and a popular setting comparison table.The format comparison would include strictly information that's applicable to the format itself, like RIFF chunk support, tagging, and hardware support. Compression ratio would be displayed as a range of possible percentages, from the lowest to the highest.The other table would account for typical usage scenarios, by comparing the most popular settings for all included formats. For example, a FLAC settings poll in 2008 showed that 62.2% of voters use flac -8, 18.7% use flac -5, and 11.2% use flac -6, with the other settings having negligible usage; therefore this table would include flac -8 and flac -5, representing FLAC. We would need to determine (i.e. poll) the most popular settings for Wavpack, TAK, Monkey's, and OptimFROG; formats that only offer one option would obviously feature their default settings. Accompanying this table could be a graphic plot, showing encoding speed versus compression for all settings.Furthermore, the detailed per-format pro/con listing should be removed; most of the truly relevant data would be factored into the table, or into the articles of the formats themselves.
Please keep in mind though (...) that the page is extremely popular. Over 100,000 people have already viewed it! I wouldn't make any major changes to it first without consulting the community.
(...) I don't feel that results should be compared based upon a "poll" that seems fairly ridiculous in my opinion.
The focus should never be on compressing silence or white noise, rather, on typical usage scenarios. Lots of rock and pop music, with a little electronica, industrial, and classical thrown in for good measure. But definitely a large test corpus, something like what Synthetic Soul was doing with his lossless comparison.
What do you mean exactly? I was referring to how in the second table, the "popular settings comparison table", we should be including a specific format's most popular settings. So the second table would have entries like:flac -5flac -8wavpack [default]wavpack -hx3tak -p2tak -p4mWMA LosslessApple LosslessBut in order for us to figure out what "entries" to use, we should create some HA polls. Or is there a better way to do it?
Disclaimer: I am not saying I can do this, or that it makes sense.
QuoteDisclaimer: I am not saying I can do this, or that it makes sense. . I think you have contributed enough to the community with the great software you have written.
I have previously considered trying to organise a mass test of the most popular lossless codecs, which would collate compression ratios and relative speeds for a variety of music on a variety of systems. I am increasingly aware that my comparison uses music from a narrow range of genres, and one test system. Wouldn't it be great to have figures for 20 different systems and hundreds of files from a broad range of genres?Disclaimer: I am not saying I can do this, or that it makes sense.
Quote from: vpa on 29 January, 2009, 01:55:19 PMThe Wiki looks very pro FLAC, as it's not mentioning the bad sides of FLAC.which are...
... that will overemphasize weaknesses or strenght (what's the plural here?)
Thomas, thanks for your input. As I am going to have to find time to test all codecs again I will certainly consider adding some quieter, more dynamic, music to my corpus. I did some testing for FLAC when Josh was looking at different windows and used a different, smaller, corpus that I hope provided more variety. IIRC I had compression ratios varying from 30 -70%. I will try to build a larger corpus with a similar range. ngths and weaknesses".
Quote from: TBeck on 30 January, 2009, 11:20:47 AM... that will overemphasize weaknesses or strenght (what's the plural here?)"weaknesses or strengths" would be fine, although, curiously, I'd say we predominantly tend to use the phrase "strengths and weaknesses".