Skip to main content

Topic: Lossless Compression Test (Read 72343 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #50
Does flake -11 play in Rockbox?  Is there an example file I can try?

  • skamp
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #51
Flake -11 compresses my music collection only 0.2% better than FLAC -8…
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #52
and at cost of decoding speed.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #53
flake-svn-r114: -0 to -10 are subset compatible, -11 and -12 aren't. (For CUETools.Flake, -9 to -11 are not compatible).

My Samsung R0 can play non-subset files (with Rockbox and with original firmware as well).

  • C.R.Helmrich
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #54
Flake -11 compresses my music collection only 0.2% better than FLAC -8…

Thanks a lot, that answers a question I was about to ask.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

  • 2012
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #55
Does flake -11 play in Rockbox?  Is there an example file I can try?


flake -12 Sample:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=97370

rockbox failed to play this  for me on  an Android (2.3) device.
On a side note, native FLAC support in newer Androids plays this file with no issues.

Quote from: skamp link=msg=0 date=
Flake -11 compresses my music collection only 0.2% better than FLAC -8

What version?
I would expect 0.6%-1.2% with  SVN-r264.

Quote from: IgorC link=msg=0 date=
and at cost of decoding speed.

Not by a big margin AFAICT.
FLAC decoding is fast enough to the point where other factors (like I/O in bad storage devices) might be more relevant.

Decoding support and maybe streamability are real issues with non-subset files. Decoding speed(when the support is there) is not!
  • Last Edit: 08 October, 2012, 10:21:14 PM by 2012

Lossless Compression Test
Reply #56
I'm have already seen some weirdness with Flake v0.11, -5 compresses better than -6.

Where can i get a copy of Flake SVN-r264?

Should i be using Flake v0.11 or r264 for the test?
  • Last Edit: 09 October, 2012, 03:15:18 PM by A_Man_Eating_Duck
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

  • 2012
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #57
I'm have already seen some weirdness with Flake v0.11, -5 compresses better than -6.


Interesting.

Here is the full help for reference:
Code: [Select]
Flake: FLAC audio encoder
Version SVN-r264
(c) 2006-2009 Justin Ruggles

usage: flake [options] <input> [-o output.flac]
options:
       [-h]         Print out list of commandline options
       [-q]         Quiet mode: no console output
       [-p #]       Padding bytes to put in header (default: 8192)
       [-0 ... -12] Compression level (default: 5)
                        0 = -b 1152 -t 1 -l 2,2 -m 0 -r 3 -s 0
                        1 = -b 1152 -t 1 -l 2,4 -m 1 -r 3 -s 1
                        2 = -b 1152 -t 1 -l 4   -m 1 -r 3 -s 1
                        3 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 6   -m 1 -r 4 -s 0
                        4 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 8   -m 1 -r 4 -s 1
                        5 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 8   -m 1 -r 5 -s 1
                        6 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 8   -m 1 -r 6 -s 1
                        7 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 8   -m 3 -r 6 -s 1
                        8 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 12  -m 6 -r 6 -s 1
                        9 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 12  -m 6 -r 8 -s 1 -v 1
                       10 = -b 4096 -t 2 -l 12  -m 5 -r 8 -s 1 -v 1
                       11 = -b 8192 -t 2 -l 32  -m 6 -r 8 -s 1 -v 1
                       12 = -b 8192 -t 2 -l 32  -m 5 -r 8 -s 1 -v 1
       [-b #]       Block size [16 - 65535] (default: 4096)
       [-t #]       Prediction type
                        0 = no prediction / verbatim
                        1 = fixed prediction
                        2 = Levinson-Durbin recursion (default)
       [-l #[,#]]   Prediction order {max} or {min},{max} (default: 1,5)
       [-m #]       Prediction order selection method
                        0 = maximum
                        1 = estimate (default)
                        2 = 2-level
                        3 = 4-level
                        4 = 8-level
                        5 = full search
                        6 = log search
       [-r #[,#]]   Rice partition order {max} or {min},{max} (default: 0,5)
       [-s #]       Stereo decorrelation method
                        0 = independent L+R channels
                        1 = mid-side (default)
       [-v #]       Variable block size
                        0 = fixed (default)
                        1 = variable


Compression levels in flake 0.11 were configured slightly differently:
Code: [Select]
       [-0 ... -12] Compression level (default: 5)
                        0 = -b 1152 -t 1 -l 2,2 -m 0 -r 4,4 -s 0
                        1 = -b 1152 -t 1 -l 3,4 -m 1 -r 2,2 -s 1
                        2 = -b 1152 -t 1 -l 2,4 -m 1 -r 3   -s 1
                        3 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 6   -m 1 -r 3   -s 1
                        4 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 8   -m 1 -r 3   -s 1
                        5 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 8   -m 1 -r 6   -s 1
                        6 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 8   -m 2 -r 8   -s 1
                        7 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 8   -m 3 -r 8   -s 1
                        8 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 12  -m 3 -r 8   -s 1
                        9 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 12  -m 6 -r 8   -s 1
                       10 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 12  -m 5 -r 8   -s 1
                       11 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 32  -m 6 -r 8   -s 1
                       12 = -b 4608 -t 2 -l 32  -m 5 -r 8   -s 1


Quote
Where can i get a copy of Flake SVN-r264?


r264 is just the last revision that was pushed to the subversion repository:
http://sourceforge.net/scm/?type=svn&group_id=177048

I built it myself from source in GNU/Linux. I have no idea how to build windows binaries, sorry.

Quote
Should i be using Flake v0.11 or r264 for the test?


Here are the results for some random album:

Code: [Select]
libflac-1.2.1   -8      327.41MiB
flake-0.11      -12     324.69MiB
flake-r264      -12     323.96MiB


I remember flake 0.11 being not that close to r264 in experiments I conducted a long time ago. But It could be all in my imagination.

  • _m²_
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #58
and at cost of decoding speed.

No, they both play in real time, which is exactly the same either way. And I certainly don't want my music to play any faster.
  • Last Edit: 09 October, 2012, 05:25:07 PM by _m²_

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #59
Just a reminder to flake. It does much worse as regular flac or Chudovs CUEtools encoders on things that are lossywav´d or music that don´t use all bits.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #60
No, they both play in real time

So what?

And I certainly don't want my music to play any faster.

I do. (not to play but to decode much faster than realtime).
  • Last Edit: 09 October, 2012, 05:41:53 PM by lvqcl

Lossless Compression Test
Reply #61
Thanks 2012

Does anybody know of a Win32 build of Flake SVN-r264?
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

  • Porcus
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #62
What about bringing http://encode.ru/threads/1137-Sac-(State-o...dio-Compression into the lot?
Not because I think it is worth using, just because it is kinda boring to see the same rankings as last year over again. (And because I'm curious whether how big a mouthful he's trying to chew with that name.)

Lossless Compression Test
Reply #63
I have no problems adding that in, the Wavpack --hhx6 is going soo slow anyhow.

how crazy do i need to go on the switches?
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

  • lvqcl
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #64
Does anybody know of a Win32 build of Flake SVN-r264?

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=97389

Compiled with MSVS 2010 (so it requires at least WinXP)

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #65
I guess its the larger frame size that breaks flake -11 in rockbox.  If it fits in memory on most targets, I'll see about adding support for -11.  If not, well I guess its not a big deal since compression is almost no better and its an optional feature.

Lossless Compression Test
Reply #66
Thanks lvqcl for the binary

UPDATE:
OptimFrog has 3 more presets to go, Highnew, extranew and Bestnew
Flake v0.11 has 2 more left, 11 and 12 (I might as well let it finish and compare)
Wavpack -hhx6 has only just got to Faith No More
Sac is the possibly the slowest encoder i have ever seen (2:57 to encode a 4:04 track in fast mode). I'll do my best to put at least one mode in there but if i get a powercut I'll have to axe it.

I'll start the SVN-r264 Flake once Flake v0.11 is finished.
  • Last Edit: 10 October, 2012, 12:49:55 AM by A_Man_Eating_Duck
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #67
Try wavpack -hhx4 its twice as fast but compresses like x6 in nearly all situations.
wavpack -b350hhj0cc --use-dns

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #68
I confirm the above from my own results on subset of files (32bit float, mono and stereo)- over twice as fast encoding speed with only 0.10% - 0.30% file size increase. YMMV.

Similar to what I mentioned about TAK (-p4 vs. -p4m), the difference in ratio between WavPack -hhx4 and -hhx6 can be estimated fairly easily. Is worth the time? Maybe for testing the extreme limits of compression ratio and archival but not much for practical use.
  • Last Edit: 10 October, 2012, 09:58:29 PM by Destroid
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • IgorC
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #69
A_Man_Eating_Duck, 


Maybe it's obvious but what is a goal of your test?  The evaluation of compression of lossless formats mainly on rock music?

Most likely 8047 files is an overkill.  Just a give a number, ~10% of that  amount is already representative and You won't lose precision of the results.

Other thing is that compression varies per music style among other factors. Probably You already know that and I mention it to get it clear just in case.
  • Last Edit: 10 October, 2012, 10:38:28 PM by IgorC

Lossless Compression Test
Reply #70
@IgorC,
I just want to know how different lossless codecs compress my music, nothing more, nothing less.

My results won't change me from using FLAC -6, I'm just curious.

Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #71
PS: i just realized i can't even play .la files in my foobar2000!!!
Where should i take the right input .la component? 


This is a bit late but Peter released a generic command line decoder input for foobar2000. It allows you to use any codec for playback that has command line Windows binaries available. You can find the component and pre-made config for .LA files here. With this component the player won't crash.

  • nu774
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #72
BTW, I noticed that ALAC (at least Apple implementation) is ridiculously poor at compressing files with several bits at LSB side are all zero (such that created just by up-scaling the bit depth from 16 to 24 or something).

  • tuffy
  • [*][*][*]
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #73
BTW, I noticed that ALAC (at least Apple implementation) is ridiculously poor at compressing files with several bits at LSB side are all zero (such that created just by up-scaling the bit depth from 16 to 24 or something).

24 bit ALAC files store the bottom 8 bits uncompressed, which is as non-optimal as it gets for those cases.

  • nu774
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Lossless Compression Test
Reply #74
24 bit ALAC files store the bottom 8 bits uncompressed, which is as non-optimal as it gets for those cases.

Ah, thanks to let me know that.