Quote from: ald on 2015-02-11 12:22:28

Hi, KTF! Why are you trying to remove TTA project? If you don't like it? Why?

Because there is next to no discussion about it here at HydrogenAudio, and because I haven't seen a TTA file it in the wild, ever.

Quote

Where did you get information about the popularity of codecs?

Here: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105188

Please compare codecs test results with similar compression ratio:
http://www.squeezechart.com/audio.html

Lower latency of the compressor is achieved by fully adaptive coding algorithm, without buffering stage, [...]

Ok. But.. as I know the HydrogenAudio and it's Knowledge Base has been made not only for it's users.. am I right?

Again, This is a local poll in one topic at one site. Can you use Google, download statistics from projects pages, Page Rank of the sites e.t.c.?

You can easily found TTA files on russian torrents, but there is no files in TAK or OptimFROG formats for example.

Quote from: ald on 2015-02-12 10:41:07

Please compare codecs test results with similar compression ratio:
http://www.squeezechart.com/audio.html

That compression chart takes one preset (the highest compression) per codec, which I don't think is fair. Please see the chart below: the TAK -p2 setting (that's the fourth point, starting with the leftmost one) is almost twice as fast as TTA, and it compresses about 1% better. TAK -p3, the seventh datapoint, is still faster but compresses almost 3% better! FLAC -6, is about as fast as TTA, and it's compression is only slightly worse. So, TTA is in no way the fastest codec around in any sane comparison, it only is when you test the slowest settings of any codec. That's comparing apples with oranges.
........
I hope this explains the rationale for this order sufficiently.

Google isn't really reliable if you compare apples to androids/oranges, as ".tta" "torrent" yields fewer than if you also require "lossless", but ... you get the picture. There is not much doubt which two rule the ground I think.

Thanks for your explanation. I understand you. I still not agree with your methods of comparisons, especially in case of popularity of the codecs, but as I wrote above it's just my opinion )

I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct.

Thus, only TAK is faster, am I right?

Sorry, I didn't found the comparisons of encoding speed in your test results. Can I show your results in a table form?

Codec, preset         , compr , enc , dec
flac, -8              , 56.663, 91.4,  512.0
flac, -7              , 56.716, 136.4, 509.2
flac, -6              , 56.852, 154.0, 558.4
flac, -5              , 57.057, 231.6, 556.1
flac, -4              , 57.216, 298.8, 552.7
flac, -3              , 59.380, 355.2, 589.2
flac, -2              , 60.184, 292.0, 614.4
flac, -1              , 60.389, 373.5, 604.0
flac, -0              , 62.384, 394.3, 629.3
tak , -p4m            , 54.320, 23.5,  284.9
tak , -p4e            , 54.355, 47.7,  285.3
tak , -p4             , 54.422, 56.2,  285.1
tak , -p3m            , 54.536, 37.6,  316.4
tak , -p3e            , 54.585, 72.2,  316.8
tak , -p3             , 54.664, 89.1,  316.9
tak , -p2m            , 54.878, 60.0,  338.6
tak , -p2e            , 54.977, 105.5, 339.5
tak , -p2             , 55.157, 189.4, 340.8
tak , -p1m            , 55.721, 113.6, 425.2
tak , -p1e            , 55.809, 170.4, 425.0
tak , -p1             , 55.966, 286.6, 424.0
tak , -p0m            , 56.511, 167.1, 423.6
tak , -p0e            , 56.610, 275.0, 422.2
tak , -p0             , 56.904, 407.0, 420.3
la  , -high           , 53.145, 6.9,   8.2
la  ,                 , 53.346, 9.2,   11.7
tta ,                 , 56.634, 151.5, 143.1
wv  , -hh -x          , 55.832, 45.7,  104.6
wv  , -hh             , 55.985, 87.4,  104.7
wv  , -h -x           , 56.145, 59.4,  130.0
wv  , -h              , 56.314, 107.5, 127.9
wv  ,                 , 57.079, 142.4, 162.9
wv  , -f              , 58.536, 167.1, 194.4
ape , -c5000          , 53.876, 15.9,  14.8
ape , -c4000          , 54.081, 41.0,  36.1
ape , -c3000          , 54.683, 70.8,  58.0
ape , -c2000          , 55.072, 81.9,  63.9
ape , -c1000          , 56.186, 111.6, 82.9
ofr , --mode bestnew  , 53.106, 2.5,   4.0
ofr , --mode highnew  , 53.416, 5.7,   8.3
ofr , --mode best     , 54.124, 7.5,   9.7
ofr , --mode high     , 54.391, 19.5,  25.1
ofr , --mode normal   , 54.627, 29.1,  36.9
ofr , --mode fast     , 55.305, 41.4,  52.0
refalac,              , 57.783, 93.8,  201.5
refalac, --fast       , 60.073, 150.3, 158.9
shn ,                 , 62.266, 149.9, 280.0
als ,                 , 56.475, 59.8,  157.3
wma ,                 , 58.427, 102.5, 122.7

results of google queries are somewhat strange...

Quote

I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct.

How is it correct that you conclude that TTA is the fastest on a chart that only shows the slowest setting?

Quote

Thus, only TAK is faster, am I right?

No, only TAK is encoding faster and has a better compression ratio at the same time. Other codecs are encoding faster by sacrificing compression. I think you should pick your words more selectively.

Quote from: ktf on 2015-02-12 17:26:03

Quote

I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct.

How is it correct that you conclude that TTA is the fastest on a chart that only shows the slowest setting?

It because his test seems to show the efficiency of the algorithms more accurately and his results generally coincide with mine.

Ok. I will. Yes, I know that the TAK has a little bit better compression ratio. I talk about comparison of encoding speed with same or higher compression rate. I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?
...
Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

It because his test seems to show the efficiency of the algorithms more accurately and his results generally coincide with mine.

Ok. I will. Yes, I know that the TAK has a little bit better compression ratio. I talk about comparison of encoding speed with same or higher compression rate. I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?

Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

Is Monkey's Audio still being accused of being intolerant of errors as a blanket statement?  I raised the issue many years ago and was treated like a pariah.  Turned out the codec was tested in Insane Mode, yet it doesn't break with less strong modes. It was bullshit ("Insane" mode??? hello?!?).  Then the goalposts got moved: you lose more samples with MAC then others, yeah, so how was *that* reflected in the chart that didn't bother to address test conditions?

Quote from: greynol on 2015-02-13 05:28:10

Is Monkey's Audio still being accused of being intolerant of errors as a blanket statement?  I raised the issue many years ago and was treated like a pariah.  Turned out the codec was tested in Insane Mode, yet it doesn't break with less strong modes. It was bullshit ("Insane" mode??? hello?!?).  Then the goalposts got moved: you lose more samples with MAC then others, yeah, so how was *that* reflected in the chart that didn't bother to address test conditions?

Have you ever checked this yourself? I just did: I changed three bytes at (to me) seemingly random places in the file, and it stopped decoding at the very first one. I did this again, changing only one bit at a random place somewhere halfway the file: it stopped decoding at about that place in the file. I tried a third time, with the same result. This was done with a -c2000 (normal mode) compression. So, I think saying that Monkey's audio is not error resistant is justified.

Yes and that's old news. I'm now fairly apathetic about the entire thing, I just raised the issue to make a point.

Quote from: greynol on 2015-02-13 08:23:49

Yes and that's old news. I'm now fairly apathetic about the entire thing, I just raised the issue to make a point.

It's a wiki right, why not change it yourself?

I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?

Quote from: ald on 2015-02-13 00:30:26

Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

Is this really necessary?

Could you first think a bit about this:
The test is from 2008. Why do you want to compare TTA with a more than 6 year old version of TAK. This must have been V 1.0.4. Now we have 2.3.0. And each version in between has improved on speed and some on compression.

Just to put in perspective what fast encoding is about.
NIN The Downward spiral CD1, i5-3570@4.4, GTX-970

453.066.564 Bytes ~3sec. flacCL (open source) -6
453.725.634 Bytes ~13sec. tta