- Probably not worth it
- --mode peakset --blocksize-list 576,1152,1728,2304,2880,3456,4032,4608 --analysis-comp 8p --output-comp 8ep --queue 8192 --tweak 1 --merge 0
@cid42 so I tried really really slow settings for fun on a 6 seconds file (I attached it).
Several times I get an "Error: Init failed" (this error is defined in common.c in flaccid) when using slow settings.
For example if I use this command:
flaccid --in 12_-_Napalm_Death_-_You_Suffer.flac --lax --out out.flac --preserve-flac-metadata --queue 8192 --workers 13 --tweak 1 --merge 0 --analysis-apod subdivide_tukey\(3\) --output-apod subdivide_tukey\(6\) --analysis-comp mepl32r15 --output-comp mepl32r15 --mode peakset --blocksize-list 256,512
Ideally I would use more blocksizes in the list (something like `seq -s, 256 256 5120`), but I shortened it to get the error faster (exact same output).
Here is the output:
(null)
Processed 1/3
Processed 3/3
Error: Init failed
With that same command, if I limit myself to fewer blocksizes (and bigger step) with `seq -s, 512 512 5120`, it works completely fine and output is created in 155 seconds (not too long if you want to test).
So I guessed flaccid could only work with blocksize >= 512, so I tried different settings (only removed `--queue` arg):
flaccid --in 12_-_Napalm_Death_-_You_Suffer.flac --lax --out out.flac --preserve-flac-metadata --workers 13 --tweak 1 --merge 0 --analysis-apod subdivide_tukey\(3\) --output-apod subdivide_tukey\(6\) --analysis-comp mepl32r15 --output-comp mepl32r15 --mode peakset --blocksize-list $(seq -s, 256 256 512)
Still has a blocksize of 256, and "Error: Init failed" but different output:
(null)
Processed 1/3
Processed 3/3
tweak(1) saved 20 bytes with 6 tweaks
# ~100 lines like this; then
Error: Init failed
Got this error after 73 seconds. Output FLAC file was almost done: 50ms shorter than input (only one frame is missing ?), MD5 not computed and 2 placeholders in the seektable.
You surely guessed it, I wrote this message in the hope that the error can be fixed.
I also have a question: why is it needed to have all the blocksizes (to bruteforce) multiples of the first one of the list ?
It is surely easier to implement and parallelize, but I find a waste of time when dealing with blocksize steps of 32, 64, 128 (since blocksize from 32 to ~1024 are completely useless to bruteforce).
Many thanks for your software and time.
Topic: Multithreading (Read 24735 times)
previous topic - next topic