Skip to main content

Topic: OptimFROG stability (Read 14196 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Soap
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #25
If not: Sure you can't get foobar2000 + TAK to work with FreeBSD+Wine? Considering how slow OptimFrog decoding is, you might even save CPU time.

WINE is a translation layer, not a classic emulator or virtual machine, it is just a set of libraries.  It costs almost nothing in CPU time.  If TAK is faster than OF when both are in Windows it almost assuredly will be when TAK is running through WINE and OF is native.
By the way, since you mention ZFS: Myself I tried WinXP + foobar2000 virtualized under OpenSolaris, without success. I also tried NexentaStor virtualized (with raw drive access) on a WinXP box. I couldn't get realtime music playback in either, though I didn't try very hard before I gave up. YMMV.

foobar2000 runs through WINE just fine in all my experience on *nix.  I don't know why one would bother to launch a VM for it...
Creature of habit.

  • jetpower
  • [*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #26
I am talking about compression ratio. And I don't need more drives, my current ones are well sufficient. I'm just a compression hobbyist and like when things are small.

then:
http://www.lossless-audio.com/
or if you're extreme/patient
http://encode.ru/threads/1137-Sac-(State-o...dio-Compression

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
OptimFROG stability
Reply #27
Thank you greynol.

You're welcome.

Hmm... checking seems the right thing to do. The only problem is that ofr decompression takes time and will push the slowness by anither notch.

This is precisely why I wrote:
This should give you a good idea about OptimFROG's performance.
You can't just pretend that decoding time isn't an issue.  I did that with Monkey's Audio a while back and despite getting warnings from people far and wide I pushed on, later only to regret my bull-headed decision; and I was only using the high preset.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #28
This should give you a good idea about OptimFROG's performance.
You can't just pretend that decoding time isn't an issue.  I did that with Monkey's Audio a while back and despite getting warnings from people far and wide I pushed on, later only to regret my bull-headed decision; and I was only using the high preset.
I concur, the problem with APE and OFR in their strongest compression modes have ultra-slow decoding (I think OFR slightly lessened) basically because of their "symmetric" designs (also true for that other ultra-compressor I can't remember the name of). For those who don't know, this symmetric design equates to relatively equal performance (time) for decoding as it took to encode. I think WAVPack is by default symmetrical but can be asymmetric with -hx or similar switches.

At any rate, I did not ever find any problems with OFR causing corruption, although I haven't tested for a while and don't know if anything gets mangled using different file systems (can't imagine why, but it would be disastrous for the codec).

@greynol: I think MAC got less efficient when the best-compression war got into high gear. At any rate, I am still primarily using a outdated version of APE at default -c2000 setting that I found was the most efficient, and- to this day- still pretty comparable to TAK in encoding speed, falling a bit short on compression ratio and slower at decompression, of course. Why keep using this old software? Because I want the library to be homogeneous  I guess I'm not paranoid enough to believe some of the FUD out there
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • _m²_
  • [*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #29
Are you sure that OptimFrog does out-compress TAK on your particular material?

I have a rather large collection that's not biased towards any genre, I could bet 100 to 1 it will be stronger.

If not: Sure you can't get foobar2000 + TAK to work with FreeBSD+Wine?

Yeah, I thought about it and I'm sure I could make it work. I'd fist start with XMMS because it claims compatibility with Winamp plugins, but somehow I'm sceptical...nontheless I would surely find some fairly good player that would work on Wine. But I don't want it, I prefer to use something supported natively.

By the way, since you mention ZFS: Myself I tried WinXP + foobar2000 virtualized under OpenSolaris, without success. I also tried NexentaStor virtualized (with raw drive access) on a WinXP box. I couldn't get realtime music playback in either, though I didn't try very hard before I gave up. YMMV.

I considered a similar, though reversed setup several months ago.
A Windows host, Solaris guest, communication via SMB or so. But I'm really dissatisfied with where Windows is heading and after a bit of using Linux / playing with BSD I'm sure they are viable choices. For me better ones than Windows.
I am talking about  compression ratio. And I don't need more drives, my current ones are  well sufficient. I'm just a compression hobbyist and like when things  are small.

then:
http://www.lossless-audio.com/
or if you're extreme/patient
http://encode.ru/threads/1137-Sac-(State-o...dio-Compression


Yeah I gave both a thought. With SAC it was a very short one, amount of work needed to make it useful is simply too large. With LA I needed a short research, but, like I said already, I decided against it because ID3v1 tags are insufficient for me.

Hmm... checking  seems the right thing to do. The only problem is that ofr decompression  takes time and will push the slowness by anither notch.

This is precisely why I wrote:
This should give  you a good idea about OptimFROG's performance.
You can't just  pretend that decoding time isn't an issue. I did that with Monkey's  Audio a while back and despite getting warnings from people far and  wide I pushed on, later only to regret my bull-headed decision; and I  was only using the high preset.

Judging by Synthetic Soul's benchmark I estimate that highnew would use 18-21% of one of my cores. I'm intend to use bestnew, possibly later backing off slightly with compression mode and/or seek length. Might be wrong, but I don't expect troubles with decompression speed. I don't think that converting my current collection will be a problem either, I will just leave a computer running for a weekend or a couple. I'm somewhat afraid about encoding new albums; I use image+cue setup, so I will have full slowness of ofr using only 1 core. But singlethreaded TAK -p4m is blazing fast for my on my 5 years old PC, so I think ofr will be OK on the new one.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
OptimFROG stability
Reply #30
Quote
I'm intend to use bestnew, possibly later backing off slightly with compression mode and/or seek length. Might be wrong, but I don't expect troubles with decompression speed.


According to my tests on Core2 2400 MHz, OFR bestnew mode has 2.2x realtime encoding speed and 3.7x realtime decoding speed. (highnew: 5.0x and 7.6x, respectively).

  • alvaro84
  • [*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #31
Quote
I'm intend to use bestnew, possibly later backing off slightly with compression mode and/or seek length. Might be wrong, but I don't expect troubles with decompression speed.


According to my tests on Core2 2400 MHz, OFR bestnew mode has 2.2x realtime encoding speed and 3.7x realtime decoding speed. (highnew: 5.0x and 7.6x, respectively).


Wow! Then it can be said that OFR has a very real energy consumption and carbon footprint...

  • WonderSlug
  • [*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #32
Quote
I'm intend to use bestnew, possibly later backing off slightly with compression mode and/or seek length. Might be wrong, but I don't expect troubles with decompression speed.


According to my tests on Core2 2400 MHz, OFR bestnew mode has 2.2x realtime encoding speed and 3.7x realtime decoding speed. (highnew: 5.0x and 7.6x, respectively).


Just for the sake of comparison, could you give the encoding and decoding speed of the most popular lossless codec FLAC, at say -6 or -8, on that Core2 2400 ?


  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
OptimFROG stability
Reply #33
IIRC I posted them somewhere but cannot find that post...
Results, again:

Code: [Select]
Codec           compression(%)    encoding/decoding(x realtime)
FLAC
0              74.256            254          376
1              72.973            236          360
2              72.716            201          366
3              71.228            205          358
4              69.569            170          339
5              69.342            131          337
6              69.339            127          339
7              69.307            53          341
8              69.162            36          325

TAK
p0              69.342            308          359
p0e            68.941            181          361
p0m            68.882            105          359
p1              68.368            239          350
p1e            68.207            141          350
p1m            68.119            80          351
p2              67.725            170          319
p2e            67.496            78          315
p2m            67.416            48          317
p3              67.381            83          286
p3e            67.289            56          284
p3m            67.249            31          285
p4              67.230            46          244
p4e            67.144            37          244
p4m            67.117            20          248

WavPack
fast            70.537            188          232
fast x1        70.338            126          233
fast x2        70.233            91          233
fast x3        70.172            54          233
fast x4        70.108            22          232
fast x5        70.095            18          232
fast x6        70.090            15          233
normal          69.280            155          186
normal x1      68.879            95          188
normal x2      68.811            62          188
normal x3      68.787            33          188
normal x4      68.635              8.4        188
normal x5      68.614              5.8        189
normal x6      68.565              2.9        188
high            68.443            117          140
high x1        68.274            68          142
high x2        68.230            41          142
high x3        68.206            21          142
high x4        68.054              5.2        143
high x5        68.030              3.9        142
high x6        68.014              2.7        143
ex.high        68.056            93          112
ex.high x1      67.974            51          111
ex.high x2      67.941            29          111
ex.high x3      67.932            14          111
ex.high x4      67.880              3.4        112
ex.high x5      67.859              2.2        112
ex.high x6      67.851              1.6        112

Monkey's Audio                                       
fast            68.471            112          84
normal          67.396            75          63
high            67.153            63          54
extra high      66.695            29          28
insane          66.443              8.8          8.3

ALAC            70.143            100          121

WMAL            68.079            43          50

TTA            68.928            141          149

LA                                       
normal          65.907              7.9          9.4
high            65.717              5.7          6.4

OptimFrog                                       
fast            67.552            37          49
normal          67.000            25          33
high            66.862            16          21
extra          66.814            10          14
best            66.785              6.1          8.0
highnew        66.246              5.0          7.6
extranew        66.170              3.9          6.1
bestnew        65.922              2.2          3.7
exp. fast      67.463            12          42
exp. normal    66.908            11          29
exp. high      66.770              8.7        20
exp. extra      66.722              6.7        13
exp. best      66.693              4.6          7.7
exp. highnew    66.162              4.0          7.4
exp. extranew  66.087              3.2          6.2
exp. bestnew    65.841              2.0          3.7

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
OptimFROG stability
Reply #34
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #35
IIRC I posted them somewhere but cannot find that post...
Results, again:
edit: nevermind, I should have read hyperlinked post above.
Code: [Select]
Codec           compression(%)    encoding/decoding(x realtime)
...
Monkey's Audio                                       
insane          66.443              8.8          8.3

LA                                       
normal          65.907              7.9          9.4
high            65.717              5.7          6.4

OptimFrog
...
best            66.785              6.1          8.0
highnew        66.246              5.0          7.6
extranew        66.170              3.9          6.1
bestnew        65.922              2.2          3.7
...
exp. best      66.693              4.6          7.7
exp. highnew    66.162              4.0          7.4
exp. extranew  66.087              3.2          6.2
exp. bestnew    65.841              2.0          3.7
Yikes! (Don't let California know if this is the lossless program you use.  /sarcasm)
  • Last Edit: 31 December, 2010, 05:50:04 PM by Destroid
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • WonderSlug
  • [*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #36
IIRC I posted them somewhere but cannot find that post...
Results, again:


I see.  So FLAC is about 7 times faster than OptimFROG in encoding speed, and about 50 times faster in decoding.

What's the advantage of OptimFROG again?

Oh, and as for this:

Quote
I am talking about compression ratio. And I don't need more drives, my current ones are well sufficient. I'm just a compression hobbyist and like when things are small.


I have a single external 2 TB hard drive that cost me $130 USD.  On it I have stored FLAC encodings of more than 2000 CDs.  That's two thousand audio CDs.  Along with those FLAC encodings are both MP3 and AAC transcodes of those FLACs.  The 3 most supported formats of 2000 CDs on one external drive.  I still have about 500 GB of space free.  The FLACs of those 2000 CDs took up only about 800 GB.  The MP3 and AAC transcodes took up about 250 GB each.

I purchased a duplicated drive, copied the contents of the first drive to it, and have it stored someplace else.


  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #37
foobar2000 runs through WINE just fine in all my experience on *nix.  I don't know why one would bother to launch a VM for it...


Limitations mentioned here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=689528

  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #38
FLAC encodings of more than 2000 CDs.


... i.e., about 2 months of music. Or one month of transcoding, with speeds like reported above. Add another couple of weeks for  decode+verify.

Compare FLAC -6 speeds from same table: Half a day for encoding. Plus 4 hrs for decode+verify.

  • Soap
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #39
foobar2000 runs through WINE just fine in all my experience on *nix.  I don't know why one would bother to launch a VM for it...


Limitations mentioned here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=689528

EDIT:
Don't see the problem.
  • Last Edit: 01 January, 2011, 07:20:05 AM by Soap
Creature of habit.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
OptimFROG stability
Reply #40

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
OptimFROG stability
Reply #41
A tad off topic and maybe silly too, but I've just realized how competitive The True Audio (TTA) codec is.
WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #42
Nah, you can't really go wrong with lossless, I think that message has always been clear. It's just the matter of being aware of the pros & cons of each program since the idea is to stick to one instead of re-encoding every few months. Decoding performance is a very important factor, unless one does not plan to frequently access the audio files. Compression is always highly regarded given that the trade-offs are not substantial. With OFR in high compression modes, there is a high price in decoding performance, and if the idea is to have a frequently accessed library I would recommend another codec. For archival to be put in the dungeon and accessed 3 times a year, OFR high compression is fine.
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
OptimFROG stability
Reply #43
For archival to be put in the dungeon and accessed 3 times a year, OFR high compression is fine.

...and if recovery time is not an issue...

  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
OptimFROG stability
Reply #44
Just how much space do you estimate OFR would save? Would it really be worth all that extra time? Dungeon or no, it seems a bit like you want  ‘maximal’ compression (clearly not really possible) for its own sake, forsaking a lot of practicality and compatibility.
  • Last Edit: 01 January, 2011, 06:32:23 PM by dv1989

  • _m²_
  • [*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #45
Just how much space do you estimate OFR would save? Would it really be worth all that extra time? Dungeon or no, it seems a bit like you want  ‘maximal’ compression (clearly not really possible) for its own sake, forsaking a lot of practicality and compatibility.


Got home, will be building the computer today. There are some hardware incompatibilities, I might need a new wifi card. I expect to have workable OS either tomorrow or later this week.
Then there will be a lot of testing, I have to ensure I can do everything I need to before I start converting...and I already noticed some troubles, after using foobar I assumed that it's usual for players to support media databases, replaygain, cue files, flexible tagging and Unicode...turns out I was wrong. So I have to test XMMS with several plugins, a couple of forks of it (some with own plugins) and Amarok claims compatibility with XMMS plugins. Though most mention visualisation which makes me wonder if playback ones work too. If neither does what I need I will have to rethink the whole deal.... :|
I may end up using foobar+ofr (--experimantal?). Of foobar+tak. Or some unix player with ape. One thing is sure, I'm not going to use anything weaker than what I have now and if good unix players don't support it, I won't use them.

As I got lvqcl data by hand, I did some *rough* estimations of how much time will it take and how much will be saved. As I mentioned earlier, I intend to use bestnew at first. And I didn't mention, but I want to use --optimize best.
Assumptions:
*My Athlon is as fast as lvqcl's Intel clock for clock.
*It doesn't run into new bottlenecks when using all 4 cores.
*Decompressing taks, script overhead and such are negligible
*I have 0.5 TB of music stored as TAK. It's not entirely true, I didn't make the tak transition fully because of Unicode related issues, so I have some flacs too. And I don't know how much music do I have because a good part of my collection is taken by artwork scans.
*lvqcl's test files are representative. I doubt it because LA scored too well compared to other tests that I've seen.

And I did the calculations yesterday, now I'm writing from memory, so they may be a bit off
ofr encode+decode is 1.39x realtime of lvqcl's CPU, ~7.2x realtime when using 4 cores of my CPU.
A week straight to compress whole library. I won't be running my computer 24x7 and I will be doing other stuff in the meantime, so it's likely to take 1 month. With --optimize best much more.
It saves almost exactly 2% over TAK. 2% of already compressed size, not original size.
10 GB saved over entire collection. 2 copies on ZFS + backup, so 30 GB in total. Total of 192 MB saved per hour of computations.

OptimFROG stability
Reply #46
A polite request for a mod to close this thread.

The OP's question has already been answered for all intents and purposes.  I can't see any reason to further discuss one random person's obsession with doing something completely pointless, impractical, and time/energy consuming.

  • Soap
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #47
A polite request for a mod to close this thread.

Thread wouldn't "need" closing if people stopped posting to it! 
Creature of habit.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
OptimFROG stability
Reply #48
I can't see any reason to further discuss one random person's obsession with doing something completely pointless, impractical, and time/energy consuming.

I don't see any rules of this forum being broken except possibly a very polite TOS #2 violation and other posts of a similar nature.
  • Last Edit: 02 January, 2011, 04:47:55 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • larryfine
  • [*][*]
OptimFROG stability
Reply #49
I'm considering converting my collection for OptimFROG, but seeing that the latest version is alpha...,

Good News,
Florin Ghido is back and released a new beta stable version (4.910b).
The speed of encoding/decoding at normal settings is good but very slow at high, extra and best compression modes.

www.losslessaudio.org
loquor mee menti: factus de materia, cinis elementi...