Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Comparison of compression ratios between FLAC --best and TAK -p4 (Read 6438 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Comparison of compression ratios between FLAC --best and TAK -p4

This post made me wonder whether I had over-estimated TAK's compression capabilities, so I decided to run a benchmark on my entire music collection.

I used caudec to transcode my 5,074 FLACs (--best, version 1.2.1) to TAK (-p4, version 2.2.0), one album at a time. All songs are CD audio (16 bit / 44.1 kHz, stereo). I measured the size in bytes of all the files comprising the album, as WAV, FLAC and TAK files. I then calculated the compression ratio of the FLACs and the TAKs compared to the WAVs, as a percentage. Finally, I calculated the difference in ratios between FLAC and TAK: that value (also a percentage of the WAV file) is always negative, meaning TAK compressed better than FLAC in all cases. Here are the results, as a CSV file.

On average, TAK compressed 2.19% better than FLAC. Here's a list of the top 10 albums where the difference was the most significant:
  • Original Pirate Material by The Streets: -4.9%
  • Flat Beat (CD single) by Mr. Oizo: -4.6%
  • Tubular Bells 2003 by Mike Oldfield: -4.6%
  • Mothership Reconnection (CD single) by Scott Grooves: -4.5%
  • François by Desireless: -4.4%
  • The Man-Machine by Kraftwerk: -4.3%
  • Sublime by Sublime: -4.1%
  • Doggystyle by Snoop Dogg: -4.1%
  • Raising Hell by Run-D.M.C.: -4.1%
  • Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd: -4.1%


Note: I used -p4 with TAK simply because I forgot about the existence about -p4m. I later tried it on a couple albums though, and while TAK -p4 is faster than FLAC --best, TAK -p4m is slower. Improvement in compression is unlikely to be much larger than 0.2%, from what I can tell.

Comparison of compression ratios between FLAC --best and TAK -p4

Reply #1
I then calculated the compression ratio of the FLACs and the TAKs compared to the WAVs, as a percentage. Finally, I calculated the difference in ratios between FLAC and TAK: that value (also a percentage of the WAV file)


You've miscalculated a bit (see below). To correct this, calculate the ratio TAKbitrate/FLACbitrate, subtract 1 and then multiply by 100 %. You will probably get negative 3 point something.

Your figure measures an improvement of 2.19 percentage points, not 2.19 percents.
Percents: improvement over what-to-improve (i.e. the FLAC file).
Percentage points: difference between percents.
The most crucial point is that all comparisons use the same yardstick (and I suppose that most should, and most will, choose the percents).
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Comparison of compression ratios between FLAC --best and TAK -p4

Reply #2
TAKs are on average 96.48% the size of the FLACs, so that's a 3.52% improvement over FLAC. That figure looks better indeed.

Edit: I've never used a spreadsheet in my life, so if you have some Excel-fu, feel free to download the CSV and calculate correct individual values for the "compression improvement" column by using the bytesize columns.

Comparison of compression ratios between FLAC --best and TAK -p4

Reply #3
WAV bytes, sum: 227851632252
FLAC bytes, sum: 141786750976
TAK bytes, sum: 136796209152

(TAK/FLAC)-1 = -3.52%

{too slow again  }

Comparison of compression ratios between FLAC --best and TAK -p4

Reply #4
Revised CSV with the last column showing the compression improvement of TAK over FLAC, in %. My BASH-fu is stronger than my spreadsheet-fu