FLAC 1.2.1 TAK 2.0 TAK 2.1 Advantage over -8 -p2m -p4m FLAC TAK 2.0-q0.0 20,61 19,07 17,25 3,36 1,82-q2.5 27,43 25,95 23,93 3,50 2,02-q5.0 33,26 31,78 29,62 3,64 2,16-q7.5 38,79 37,28 35,03 3,76 2,25
TAK 2.1 TAK 2.1 -cStd -cLW Loss-p0 58,74 58,99 -0,25-p1 57,84 57,73 0,11-p2 56,90 57,00 -0,10-p3 56,36 56,44 -0,08-p4 56,02 56,06 -0,04-p4m 55,88 55,97 -0,09
Any plans for a Linux version?
how about the planned flac merger?
n.b. It should be noted that these tests were carried out using an unreleased beta of lossyWAV which allows the duration of the codec-block to be changed from the default 10msec. This beta (or the one after it....) will be released in due course.
The OpenCL FLAC (previously CUDA FLAC) totally rules in compression speed. It was intimated that other lossless codecs could not become parallel by design. Is this true with TAK as well?Thanks (again) Thomas for making the holidays merrier!
...Only the SSSE3 instruction set yielded some notable improvement of about 10 percent. Since SSSE3 (note the three 'S') isn't supported by AMD, only intel users will benefit from those optimizations.
Does this affect decoding too?
(And thanks for thinking of us who don't use lossywav )
Quote from: alvaro84 on 03 December, 2010, 04:15:20 AMDoes this affect decoding too?No. From my experiences with the encoder tuning i don't think SSSE2/SSSE3/SSSE3 would help much, but maybe i will try it sometime.
No. From my experiences with the encoder tuning i don't think SSSE2/SSSE3/SSSE3 would help much, but maybe i will try it sometime.
I'm just afraid of lossywav, as usual (even though it's just another lossy thing and I actually listen lossy w/o any problem)
There was discussion a couple months back either here or on XMPlay's forums that using SSE/etc optimizations may actually add a lossy aspect to the decoding process (since it takes processor-specific "shortcuts"). Is there any truth to this?
Quote from: alvaro84 on 03 December, 2010, 11:23:56 AMI'm just afraid of lossywav, as usual (even though it's just another lossy thing and I actually listen lossy w/o any problem) .... could you please clarify that statement?