HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Validated News => Topic started by: TBeck on 2007-01-26 10:00:53

Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-26 10:00:53
TAK 1.0 - Final release

It's been a long time...

About

TAK is a lossless audio compressor, similar to FLAC, WavPack and Monkey's Audio. On average, lossless compression reduces the file size to about 50 percent of the original size; however the compression can vary between approximately 30 and 70 percent, depending on the file. Decompression restores a bit identical copy of the original audio data (that's why we call it lossless).

My goal was to develop a compressor which combines good compression with optimal decoding speeds. On average, the current implementation should match the compression efficiency of Monkey's Audio High, while achieving decompression speeds similar to FLAC.

Features

- Good compression. The strongest mode (Extra) is on par with Monkey's Audio High and OptimFrog Normal. TAK's fastest mode (Turbo) easily outperforms FLAC's strongest mode. This classification is based upon the evaluation of hundreds of files of different genres; it may not be the case for every file that you compress.
- Fast compression speed. Currently I know of no other compressor which compresses faster than TAK's Turbo and Fast modes, while providing similar compression ratios.
- Very fast decompression speed. The decoding speeds achieved are similar to, and often surpassing, those achieved by FLAC.
- Support for any common audio format (not fully implemented).
- Streaming support. An info frame, which contains all the information required to decompress a file, is inserted into the compressed audio data every 2 seconds.
- Error tolerance. A single bit error will never affect more than 250 ms of the audio data, as the compressed data is being stored in independent frames no more than that duration. The decoder is able to decompress even badly damaged files, by removing corrupt frames or replacing them with silence.
- Error detection. Each single frame is protected by a 24-bit checksum (CRC).
- Fast and sample accurate seeking. The file header contains a seektable with seekpoints (at 1 second intervals). In the absence of the seektable seeking can still be achieved by using the sync codes of the frame headers and the (optional) relative offset values contained in each info frame, which are pointing to the previous and next info frame.
- Meta data. A flexible and extensible structure in which to embed non audio data.

Changes

Improved:

- Synthetic Soul was so kind to correct my bad english in the ReadMe.

Fixed:

- Decoding with the command line version: if you specified wildcards for the file selection and the source directory contained only 1 TAK file, the decoder always threw the message 'File already exists'. Even worse: using the overwrite option in this situation led to deletion of the compressed source file!

- Usually the decoder ignores any data appended to the file end of the compressed file (for instance APEv2 tags). But it failed, if the file size was an integer multiple of the frame size (in samples).

Both bugs affected only the decoder, therefore there is no need to re-encode TAK files created with beta 2. Files created with earlier versions than beta 2 should be replaced.

Thank you

Thank you to all the members who have supported the development of TAK!

Firstly, you have provided encouragement to build yet another lossless audio compressor. Otherwise I would have dropped the whole project!

You helped to evaluate and optimize TAK. There have been 13 releases over a period of 8 months before the alpha version, and all of them have been evaluated by you!

Special thanks to the following members (in alphabetical order):

Destroid
Josef Pohm
Synthetic Soul

Download

The final can be downloaded from rarewares.org (Thanks to  rjamorim!):

TAK 1.0 (Final) (http://www.rarewares.org/files/lossless/Tak1.0.zip)

Future

Some important features are missing in this release. Please find below my current to-do list:

- Plugins for other applications, such as Winamp or foobar2000 (a Winamp plugin is already close to completion).
- An SDK for other developers.
- Internal tagging.
- Unicode support.
- Piping support.
- MD5 audio checksums for verification and identification.
- A german version.
- Embedded cue sheets.
- Embedded cover art.
- Multi channel audio.
- Even more speed and better compression.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gib on 2007-01-26 10:19:57
I just wanted to say congratulations.  It's been exciting following the development of TAK from your very first post on this messageboard all the way up to this v1.0 release.

I also want to say thank you.  TAK looks very impressive and I plan to migrate my lossless archive over to TAK in the near future.  Specifically, whenever a foobar plugin is made.  No hurry, though.  I'm a patient fellow. 
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: askoff on 2007-01-26 11:26:00
What is TAK?

What are the advantages over rivals?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: PoisonDan on 2007-01-26 12:02:28
askoff, you're kidding, right?

Did you really miss all these threads? (and all the buzz generated by this new codec?)

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=43179&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43179&hl=)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=43289&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43289&hl=)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=43493&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43493&hl=)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=43494&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43494&hl=)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=50958&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=50958&hl=)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=51565&hl= (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51565&hl=)

The main advantage of TAK is the fact that it offers compression ratios comparable to Monkey's Audio with decoding speeds comparable to FLAC. In a way, the best of both worlds. Like many other HA members, I'm very excited with this codec.

TBeck, congratulations on this release!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Sunhillow on 2007-01-26 12:05:55
What is TAK?

Just read a bit here at the forum 

Thomas, congratulations to you. TAK gained much interest here and sure looks very promising incredibly good!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-26 12:14:09
I can't believe that it's been almost ten months since you first mentioned your new codec... time sure does fly!

Congratulations on getting to this point, and good luck for the future.  Oh, and thank you!  Thanks for sharing with the community, and for keeping me occupied with the alpha and beta testing - it's been enjoyable. 

Edit: perhaps askoff knows Tak by it's "codename", Yalac?

Edit 2: It may be worth pointing new users to these posts:
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-26 13:48:33
I can't believe that it's been almost ten months since you first mentioned your new codec... time sure does fly!

Congratulations on getting to this point, and good luck for the future.  Oh, and thank you!  Thanks for sharing with the community, and for keeping me occupied with the alpha and beta testing - it's been enjoyable.

Fine!

This release is definitely a break for me, something has changed. Surely i will work further much on TAK, but this exciting creation phase is over, the baby is there!

Edit: perhaps askoff knows Tak by it's "codename", Yalac?

BTW: I forgot to write you, that i have deceided for 'TAK' instead of 'Tak'. Probably a bit surprising but when i read the title of the readme, 'Tak' looked a bit lost. Well, some insight into my very elaborated deceision making process...

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: askoff on 2007-01-26 14:01:09
I'm sorry if I hurt someones feelings for asking so simple question, but I guess I'm not onlyone who doesn't know what it is. And if I have managed so far without it I'm quite reluctant to use lots of time to search what it is.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-26 14:08:41
I'm sorry if I hurt someones feelings for asking so simple question...

Not mine.

... but I guess I'm not onlyone who doesn't know what it is. And if I have managed so far without it I'm quite reluctant to use lots of time to search what it is.

I thought it was ok to post it into 'Lossless / Other Codecs' without a description, because here are so many posts regarding Tak. If i had posted it in the news section, i would have added a description. One reason why i haven't is my bad english...

  Thomas

Edit: I will copy the feature list from the ReadMe into the initial post.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: skamp on 2007-01-26 14:32:32
Uh, what about unix users?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-26 15:12:21
And if I  have managed so far without it I'm quite reluctant to use lots of time  to search what it is.
I'm glad Marie Curie didn't have the same  attitude...

Those  of us with a more amenable disposition are clearly quite enthused though. 

Uh, what about unix users?
In my understanding the intention is that TAK will be ported from Delphi to C at a later date, during which time an SDK, source, and no doubt *nix release will become available.  This is no doubt simplifying things and perhaps totally inaccurate, I'm sure Thomas will correct me when he is back on.  In essence though, you have no option at this time, but have not been forgotten.  It is still early days (currently no method for playback for any OS!).

Edit: A relevant topic (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51511), although not answering your question directly.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kwanbis on 2007-01-26 15:19:30
In my understanding the intention is that TAK will be ported from Pascal to C at a later date...

freepascal supports Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X/Darwin, Mac OS classic, DOS, Win32, OS/2, Netware (libc and classic) and MorphOS ...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Gow on 2007-01-26 16:04:13
Do we have a media player that can play Tak?  Hopefully, foobar2000 will have one soon.

Good job on the release and I look forward to testing it out.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-26 16:28:30
Glad to see that people read my posts.

No, no playback!  Thomas is working on a Winamp plugin at the moment.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: spockep on 2007-01-27 00:03:13
Just like to add my congratulations!!  TAK is a big step forward for lossless compression.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Sunhillow on 2007-01-27 01:00:59
freepascal supports Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X/Darwin, Mac OS classic, DOS, Win32, OS/2, Netware (libc and classic) and MorphOS ...

Very good kwanbis, that's the point! And FreePascal was intended to be sourcecode compatible with Borland's Turbo Pascal and Delphi V7. Maybe TAK can be compiled with it?

btw, Pascal is a very nice language. Learning to write human readable code with Pascal is much easier than with C++
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: keytotime on 2007-01-27 01:47:52
Excellent release. I hope the source will be released soon also.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-01-27 04:27:22
I also agree with kwanbis and Sunhillow.

Kinda offtopic but... in fact I'm trying to make a Pascal wrapper for foobar2000's API. Then from there I am planning to make 2 foobar2000 plugins, one a visualization plugin, and the other a gapless UI plugin.

I hate C/C++
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-27 06:50:11
I was going to leave this for Thomas to answer, as he is the only one who can properly answer this, but I 'm bored, and this thread seems to be going down a singular path.

It is my understanding that the key point here is that Thomas wants to redevelop the code structure before doing anything else.  This possibly includes even a foobar component.

If TAK is compiled for *nix as is then users will also expect a method to play back the files. Then Mac users will feel left, then Solaris users...  All this detracts from the idea of getting the source into a form that makes it easier for the majority of third parties to utilise (SDK, libraries), and that can be released to the public.

In essence, by spending time porting and developing player components now Thomas would not be spending his time developing the source to be released for others to do with as they please (differing OS'es and various media player components).  It is a long-term gain, not a short-term.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-27 07:51:07
I was going to leave this for Thomas to answer, as he is the only one who can properly answer this, but I 'm bored, and this thread seems to be going down a singular path.

It is my understanding that the key point here is that Thomas wants to redevelop the code structure before doing anything else.  This possibly includes even a foobar component.

If TAK is compiled for *nix as is then users will also expect a method to play back the files. Then Mac users will feel left, then Solaris users...  All this detracts from the idea of getting the source into a form that makes it easier for the majority of third parties to utilise (SDK, libraries), and that can be released to the public.

In essence, by spending time porting and developing player components now Thomas would not be spending his time developing the source to be released for others to do with as they please (differing OS'es and various media player components).  It is a long-term gain, not a short-term.

Thank you Neil. This is nearly correct. My plan for the further development wasn't too clear before the final release, because i was too involved into the preparation of the release. I needed a bit of mental distance to feature and optimization issues.

To understand my current plans it is important to be aware of TAK's situation after the final release:

1) TAK is out, it has some nice features (especially the speed/compression proportion) which may attract a fair amout of people. But they will soon find out, that some important features are missing: Player support and internal tagging. Because i want to avoid that people are loosing interest because of those limitation, it's very important for me to add those features as soon as possible.

2) If the source code was available, other developers could work on support for other applications. But it isn't and it will take a long time to bring it into an adequate form. TAK development can not be suspended until a source code release.

It's also important, that the preparation of a source code release is definitely no fun for me, it's very much of mostly boaring work. I will not spend the next 2 or 3 months on this work.

BTW: I don't want to discuss what 'adequate form' means, i definitely will not release any source code i am not feeling comfortable with! While i appreciate earlier offers to help me with the source code, i am convinced, that i have to do it by myself (but i will ask for help on specific issues).  If other developers would perform the source clean up and conversion from Delphi to C, i would have to check, if they did it right. Given TAK's complexity, this would also be very time consuming and boaring.

My current plan:

1) The missing features have to be added by me.

2) I just started the work on a SDK. It will consist of a binary library, which other developers may use to write plugins for other applications. It will grow step by step. The first release will only provide decoding funktions for (seekable) Tak streams. I will use my existing Delphi code for this.

3) Source code conversion will be performed in small (bearable) portions, when i have time. Absolutely no promises about a release date!

Like Neil said, a WinAmp plugin is in the work. Possibly it's already good enough for an alpha release. But i want to use the plugin as a test platform for my first SDK version. Therefore i want to wait with a release until the SDK is ready. Urgent user demand may change this...

I hope, it's a bit clearer now. I really wish i would be better in writing english!

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: krmathis on 2007-01-27 08:13:29
Great to see that TAK have reach version 1.0, as there is a market for more lossless codecs.
But I am really sad to see that your current to-do list don't mention releasing binaries for non-Windows OS'.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-27 08:25:30

If TAK is compiled for *nix as is then users will also expect a method to play back the files. Then Mac users will feel left, then Solaris users...  All this detracts from the idea of getting the source into a form that makes it easier for the majority of third parties to utilise (SDK, libraries), and that can be released to the public.

Thank you Neil. This is nearly correct. My plan for the further development wasn't too clear before the final

This part of Neil's post is absolutely correct! While i myself will work on a binary SDK for windows users, support for other OS' probably will have to wait until the source code release!

Exception: If i have time and should find out, that it's easy to compile TAK with Free Pascal, i may provide a command line version for other OS'.

Great to see that TAK have reach version 1.0, as there is a market for more lossless codecs.
But I am really sad to see that your current to-do list don't mention releasing binaries for non-Windows OS'.

Please see above.

Sorry. I should work faster...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mr Bungle on 2007-01-27 10:07:09
Thomas,

Congratulations and thanks for your efforts.  I have been following your efforts since the start but never posted.  I think you have pushed the boundaries of lossless audio technology and for that you should be commended.  I can't wait to start using TAK in foobar and my hopefully-soon-to-exist HTPC!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: krmathis on 2007-01-27 10:09:55

Great to see that TAK have reach version 1.0, as there is a market for more lossless codecs.
But I am really sad to see that your current to-do list don't mention releasing binaries for non-Windows OS'.

Please see above.

Sorry. I should work faster...
Ok, I understand. Support for non-Windows OS will have to wait until you release the source code.
I just got the impression from kwanbis' post that the current source code could be compile for most OS, using freepascal.

I know that this is not you highest priority, but hope it will at least make it into your to-do list.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: fairway on 2007-01-27 10:23:40
Since TAK is really interesting for all those people who want to archive their CDs my high-priority-list would be:
- Internal tagging.
- Embedded cue sheets.
- Embedded cover art.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: leokennis on 2007-01-27 10:32:45
Wow great codec...I like FLAC but hates how it takes forever to encode it if you want decent compression...if this gains some more support (like: plugins, being used by more than just HA users etc.) this will become my (and many others) lossless codec of choice
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Gecko on 2007-01-27 10:53:47
Congratulations Thomas on the final release. I've been silently following the development of this codec and I must say it is one of the most exciting things that emerged on HA lately. Very impressive work and thank you for sharing it. I think it was on April Fool's Day that TAK was first mentioned and most people took it for a joke. That fact alone should make it clear how impressive TAK is.

Regards
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gib on 2007-01-27 13:08:40
Upon further reflection it occured to me that, due to my non-fancy way of archives my CDs, I can really start using TAK right now.  I don't really need a foobar plugin (though it would be nice), and I don't care about any embedded stuff or the like. 

I bought a few CDs yesterday.  When I get around to ripping them this weekend I'll be archiving them in TAK format.  I don't know if anyone else has begun using TAK for true archiving rather than merely testing, but if I happen to be the first, I'll be proud. 
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mangix on 2007-01-27 18:37:51
hmmm. i can't use TAK due to its buggy WAV handling. everytime i create a .wav file from foobar2000, TAK complains that it can't read the file...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-27 19:04:51
Strange, all the WAVEs that I have used for testing were created by foobar (from WavPack archives).

Can you elaborate?

Bear in mind, as detailed in the readme, that the current implementation can only process "Sample rates  from 8000 to 96000 Hz. Bit depths of 8, 16 or 24. Channels: Mono or Stereo.".
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mangix on 2007-01-27 19:26:38
the wav file that i made came from an mp3(wanted to test out TAK's prefilter). but for some reason, TAK doesn't like it.

what's also weird is that if i use LAME to decode the mp3, the wav file will play nicely with TAK.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-27 20:16:49
Perhaps you could take a look at the WAVE file in foobar ("Properties" > "Properties" tab) and report the details.  You can highlight all the info using Ctrl+A, and copy all info including names using Ctrl+Shift+C, e.g.:

File Name : 06.wav
File Path : D:\FLAC Corpus\source\06.wav
Subsong Index : 0
File Size : 98 031 404 bytes
Last Modified : 2006-05-03 19:19:14
Duration : 9:15.733 (24507840 samples)
Sample Rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 2
Bits Per Sample : 16
Bitrate : 1411 kbps
Codec : PCM
Encoding : lossless

I wonder whether you are creating 32 bit WAVE files from foobar.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-27 21:44:24
hmmm. i can't use TAK due to its buggy WAV handling. everytime i create a .wav file from foobar2000, TAK complains that it can't read the file...

the wav file that i made came from an mp3(wanted to test out TAK's prefilter). but for some reason, TAK doesn't like it.

what's also weird is that if i use LAME to decode the mp3, the wav file will play nicely with TAK.

As you probably can imagine, i am absolutelyl interested to clear this up!

I am a bit surprised because of the huge count of files (from the tests i know it has to be far more than 1000, one secret tester compressed and verified more than 60 GB without any trouble!) that have been tested without problems.

The only problem i can remember was the 2 GB file size issue and this has been fixed.

There must be something very special with this file. I really would appreciate, if you could provide the information Synthetic Soul asked for. This could be helpful.

And what exactly is the error message?


  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-27 21:59:37
I am a bit surprised because of the huge count of files (from the tests i know it has to be far more than 1000, one secret tester compressed and verified more than 60 GB without any trouble!) that have been tested without problems.

I only know of two conditions, which possibly have not been tested often:

1) 8-bit Mono files.

2) Wave files with non audio meta data appended to the end.

Is it possible, that Foobar writes additional meta data to the file? Possibly the content of the ID3 tag?

Could someone please answer this question?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: guruboolez on 2007-01-27 22:36:29
foobar2000 did it (optional writing of APEv2 tags at the end of the file) in the past, but this feature was removed since 0.9
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-27 22:44:24
foobar2000 did it (optional writing of APEv2 tags at the end of the file) in the past, but this feature was removed since 0.9

For good reasons i asume...

Thank you!

Then this is one possible reason for the failure, although TAK'a ability to read trailing meta data has been tested (a bit)...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mangix on 2007-01-27 23:02:02
I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accident...

Quote
Perhaps you could take a look at the WAVE file in foobar ("Properties" > "Properties" tab) and report the details.  You can highlight all the info using Ctrl+A, and copy all info including names using Ctrl+Shift+C, e.g.:
the wav file is
Code: [Select]
File Name : 07-Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche.wav
File Path : C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\07-Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche.wav
Subsong Index : 0
File Size : 68 212 644 bytes
Last Modified : 2007-01-27 14:56:47
Duration : 3:13.346 (8526575 samples)
Sample Rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 2
Bits Per Sample : 32
Bitrate : 2822 kbps
Codec : PCM (floating-point)
Encoding : lossless

and the original mp3 file is

Code: [Select]
File Name : 07 - Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche-vbr.mp3
File Path : C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\My Music\Rock\Nile\Amongst The Catacombs Of Nephren-Ka\07 - Die Rache Krieg Lied Der Assyriche-vbr.mp3
Subsong Index : 0
File Size : 7 535 120 bytes
Last Modified : 2006-12-26 23:40:43
Duration : 3:13.346 (8526575 samples)
Sample Rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 2
Bitrate : 312 kbps
Codec : MP3
Codec Profile : MP3 VBR
Encoding : lossy
Tag Type : id3v2|id3v1
Track Gain : -6.73 dB
Track Peak : 1.038791
Album Gain : -9.13 dB
Album Peak : 1.070377
<MP3_ACCURATE_LENGTH> : yes
<MP3_STEREO_MODE> : stereo

i think the only thing which causes that is mp3packer since i used it on the mp3 file.

also as i said, LAME makes a good wav file so no worries about that.

also, just so i'm clear, i'm using the latest version of foobar2000.

edit:also, the original mp3 file is not 32-bit. it's a 16-bit file with 2-channels
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-27 23:08:52
I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accident...
...
i think the only thing which causes that is mp3packer since i used it on the mp3 file.

also as i said, LAME makes a good wav file so no worries about that.

Thank you very much for the fast reply!

This lightens me enormously!

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: [JAZ] on 2007-01-27 23:22:57
As Sintetic Soul suggested, you are creating a 32bit floating point wave, not an 8/6/24bit integer wave. In other words, it is not mp3packer, nor a bug in foobar2000.

Simply change the "preferred bit depth" in foobar preferences ( tools- converter , and then at the bottom ).


"Also", mp3 has no bitdepth. only PCM (wave) does.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-28 19:26:56

I think i just found a bug in foobar2000 by accident...
...
i think the only thing which causes that is mp3packer since i used it on the mp3 file.

also as i said, LAME makes a good wav file so no worries about that.

Thank you very much for the fast reply!

This lightens me enormously!

  Thomas

To make it clear: Mangix' problems had not been caused by a bug in TAK, but by his Foobar configuration. Foobar created a 32-bit floating point wave file instead of the standard 16-bit integer format.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Shade[ST] on 2007-01-29 06:29:56
Rock on Thomas!  This is really a revolution in lossless audio.  I'm glad all the testing is done and the format is finally public.  Though when such breakthroughs happen, you should always have a copy of your code with someone you trust (IMO), in case something bad happens to your computer, yourself, etc. (Not that I wish to worry you, of course)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-29 07:07:32
Quote
' date='Jan 29 2007, 07:29' post='467819']
Rock on Thomas!  This is really a revolution in lossless audio.  I'm glad all the testing is done and the format is finally public.  Though when such breakthroughs happen, you should always have a copy of your code with someone you trust (IMO), in case something bad happens to your computer, yourself, etc. (Not that I wish to worry you, of course)

Should i take care for this before visting my dentist in about 3 hours?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-29 07:51:34
Should i take care for this before visting my dentist in about 3 hours?
Only if he has criminal friends who know where you live...

Shade[ST] (welcome back!) raises an interesting point.  Do any of the zip programs have strong encryption?  I think WinZip may.  You could always zip everything up, encrypt it, and store it online somewhere.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: boombaard on 2007-01-29 07:53:37
Quote
' date='Jan 29 2007, 07:29' post='467819']
Rock on Thomas!  This is really a revolution in lossless audio.  I'm glad all the testing is done and the format is finally public.  Though when such breakthroughs happen, you should always have a copy of your code with someone you trust (IMO), in case something bad happens to your computer, yourself, etc. (Not that I wish to worry you, of course)

Should i take care for this before visting my dentist in about 3 hours?


yes

edit: Good Morning Synthetic
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: cabbagerat on 2007-01-29 08:33:50
Shade[ST] (welcome back!) raises an interesting point.  Do any of the zip programs have strong encryption?  I think WinZip may.  You could always zip everything up, encrypt it, and store it online somewhere.
Zip the file, then encrypt the archive with a passphrase using GPG. WinZip does supports good (AES based, afaik) encryption, but the format is non-standard and may change in the future, rendering the backup useless. The OpenPGP standard is open, meaning finding a program to open your backup in the future should be trivial.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: MaB_fr on 2007-01-29 09:17:14

Shade[ST] (welcome back!) raises an interesting point.  Do any of the zip programs have strong encryption?  I think WinZip may.  You could always zip everything up, encrypt it, and store it online somewhere.
Zip the file, then encrypt the archive with a passphrase using GPG. WinZip does supports good (AES based, afaik) encryption, but the format is non-standard and may change in the future, rendering the backup useless. The OpenPGP standard is open, meaning finding a program to open your backup in the future should be trivial.


I'm sorry, i did not consult the old TAK/Yalac forum thread, so some point may be inacurate...

As a developper, my advice would be : open the source now with an explicit "not documented" sign on it.
Forbid anyone to modify, copy partially or fork it (by adding these specific order in each file near the copyright and the date).

In my opinion, keeping it closed at the time of release is a bad move. For many reasons.
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...
Also, you take the risk of fading from your own velocity (are you able to keep the pace with your users needs (in the codec department the needs are wide)...they will grow exponentially as you release the features...will you ?).
And last, are you accepting to shrink the range of users you want to target. Some of the developpers out there will very kindly port your soft in any language/plateform they see fit. It only depends of your willing, and you can adopt any politic you see as the good one (elect your own developpers on merit, choose some skilled friend, do a loterie, make a three month release cycle, plan "on-going" port, choose your birthday as the Java port release date, etc...).

I think, the important thing here is to make choice and communicate on it. A codec is an important piece of software. In our "media age", i may be the root of many uses. HydrogenAudio present some of the cutting-edge users in our current "audio world". Messing up with them is not something you should overlook, i would say...

I'm sorry to be the bad guy here, it may be a great advance in audio codec, but nowadays, we can't take anything for granted before reversing it (at least in software).

If you prefer to go closed, say it now. It's your choice, but you must be clear with all of your users.
If you go on radar now, you will endure the damage for a long time...

Sorry for the bad vibes

May the byte be with you...

MaB_fr
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gib on 2007-01-29 11:11:49
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...

Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here.  But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)?  I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Enig123 on 2007-01-29 11:20:18
He came from nowhere at the fool's day last year and announced that he's intend to create a new lossless codec that have almost all virtues of current ones. I guess a lot of people here thought it's just a joke. Now here it is, a mature product.

Thanks TBeck for all your effort. I'll try it when some of the major players support the playback.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Squeller on 2007-01-29 12:29:21
Danke, Anke!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-29 12:30:46
I'm sorry, i did not consult the old TAK/Yalac forum thread, so some point may be inacurate...

A bit of reading would have saved you and me time. I am really boared from having to answer the same questions over and over again. Earlier i thought, a faq could help, but it wouldn't: if someone isn't willing to look into some recent posts, how should he find a faq?


At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...

Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here.  But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)?  I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.

I couldn't say it better!

If you prefer to go closed, say it now. It's your choice, but you must be clear with all of your users.

Thank you for telling me what to do. I hope, it was ok to answer this question in the previous page of this thread, or was this too late?

Sorry for the bad vibes

It's perfectly ok to have a different opinion, but please don't waste my time!

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-01-29 12:34:19
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...
Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here.  But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)?  I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.
I agree. Even looking at the source code is no way to determine if a complex algorithm (which I believe TAK is) works. The only way to know if it works or not is to test.

Thomas has provided the binaries. All you need to "... be sure that the benefits claimed are true ..." is to compress a WAV file using the binaries, and time it with whatever means you have. Then decompress it, again timing it. Then compare the result of the decompression with the original.

I am very sorry to say that some open source advocates in some way resemble audiophooles.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: boombaard on 2007-01-29 12:39:39

At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...

Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here.  But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)?  I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.


Some people perhaps don't understand the notion 'bit identical before and after compression & at the stated compression level when compressed'?

I suppose it is logically conceivable that the TAK encoder was actually a rootkit that made any files with the extension .tak have an arbitrary cool-looking %age compared to encodes with other lossless codecs of the same input data, but it seems more likely the individual in question here has been effectively conditioned by the (imo sometimes somewhat idiotically zealous F/OSS crowd that is commanded by the FSF).

It's really odd how think about how his question would have sounded lots more reasonable if he had said he was "just curious to see how and what algorithms were implemented", in order to understand why FLAC(wavpack too¿?) was so much slower and compressed so much worse (no offense josh ), rather than this rather idiotically skeptical sounding question "just because the source isn't available YET" (mind you, it's not as if it hasn't already been pretty much guaranteed it will at some time in the reasonably near future be released).

yes, the FSF has its uses.. but the crusading it inspires seems almost medievally unreasonable
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: PabUK on 2007-01-29 13:23:54
Congratulations Thomas on the first final release of your incredible new lossless codec. I'm yet another person who has been silently watching the development of TAK since your first post on April Fool's day (and at that time was sure you were just joking). It's been really enjoyable to watch it grow from there to this point, and I look forward to seeing what comes next.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: MaB_fr on 2007-01-29 13:32:10
That's a lot to answer and many misunderstanding to correct.
[beside, calling me idiotic and stupid will in no way affect me...so you can go on ]

First, i'm in no way related to any work and/or people involved in ANY activity in the FSF or ANY OpenSource movement (apart from the fact that i've a computer with Ubuntu installed...one on so many, and that i've released WMPTSE under a "public domain" license).

Anyway, my point wasn't about "i dont believe your codec isn't doing what your are claiming".
My point was, if you choose to not release the source SAY it right now.
Everybody can endure a closed source codec, and as the developper of WMPTSE, i'm totally open to this.

We just want to know without having to browse all Hydrogen Audio Thread about your codec.

For the "rootkit part", it is true that i believe a piece of closed source software is a security danger in ANY operating system and especially under Windows. There's ways to ensure a program is not doing anything wrong (anti virus and such) to a certain extend.

I DO NOT say that's what your program is doing, i'm just saying that you will endure SUSPICION (mostly from paranoid people like me) as soon as some user have any kind of strange configuration problem with it.

Now, if you are already bored of answering stupid question, i'm sorry to predict nightmarish days when you widely release it (outside HA). 

Last, i don't need the source code to compare a file bit-to-bit, thank you for the tips... 
I need the source code to have confidence. I can trust a program to behave as deeply as i am permitted to understand its inner working...
You don't give source, i don't give full thrust...That was my point.

Again, i can live with it. But i NEED TO KNOW your politics... in the related thread, you give no answers TAK & License (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51511&pid=465931&st=0&#entry465931). First you say no to "publish code on release", then you say yes to "publishing code someday", and you conclude by "i've no time to spend on deciding"...

In a way, i was trying to put pressure on you to decide.
To me, it seems Release is the time to make these choices.

Maybe you don't agree...

At least, let's discuss it.


MaB_fr
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-29 13:55:05
Again, i can live with it. But i NEED TO KNOW your politics... in the related thread, you give no answers TAK & License (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51511&pid=465931&st=0&#entry465931)

Well, i should be more service oriented... It wasn't sufficient to guide you to the previous page of this thread. I better had copied the post from page 1 for you:
Quote
My current plan:
...
3) Source code conversion will be performed in small (bearable) portions, when i have time. Absolutely no promises about a release date!


In a way, i was trying to put pressure on you to decide.

Your "Pressure" has been the reason for me to react less reserved than usual. Probably it on it's own would not have been sufficient, but trying to put pressure on me while putting absolutely no effort into own (easy) evaluation of this question simply is too much!

Now, if you are already bored of answering stupid question, i'm sorry to predict nightmarish days when you widely release it (outside HA).

Thanks for beeing so careful! But 'already' seems a bit misplaced here, if you take into account that i am answering thoses questions since about 9 months. Usually no problem. There must be something special with your post. But i told you above.

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: MaB_fr on 2007-01-29 14:25:42
I'm about to make a volcano of yourself 

But i'm sorry, you didn't answer the question just yet...

What will it be (i simplify to make all things crystal clear) :
- Totally close (ok, you say no to this one, so we just pass it) ?
- Closed source (other will not be able to modify it [even if you publish the code]) ?
- Open source (other will be able to modify it under certain condition) ?
- Public domain (you let your code in the wild without condition) ?

Are you exploding yet ?

MaB_fr
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-29 14:35:43
For someone who wants to look at the source code of every application they use you seem incredibly bad at reading posts.  You said that you'd looked at the TAK - Source code release and conversion thread (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51511), in which is written (on whatever it is they write on up there):

When i  release the source code i want it to be used by others. I will choose a  license which makes this easy. Probably GNU. But i have to admit, that  i don't know too much about the differences of open source licenses. I  will deal with this when the source code is ready.

Now, this may not be a definitive or conclusive answer, but if you bothered to read the single page in that thread, and the first in this, you would have all the answers you are going to get at this time.  If you don't have faith in Thomas' word then please, move on.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Martin H on 2007-01-29 14:38:10
TBeck has said numerous times that the sources will be opened when he has ported them from Delphi to C/C++, but that this project will take some time, so no release date is promised(for the sources, i mean).

Sorry, Synthetic Soul was faster than me
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-29 14:38:18
I'm about to make a volcano of yourself 

Any indication for this happening?

But i'm sorry, you didn't answer the question just yet...

What will it be (i simplify to make all things crystal clear) :
- Totally close (ok, you say no to this one, so we just pass it) ?

And this already answers your earlier question:

Quote
I need the source code to have confidence. I can trust a program to behave as deeply as i am permitted to understand its inner working...
You don't give source, i don't give full thrust...That was my point.


- Closed source (other will not be able to modify it [even if you publish the code]) ?
- Open source (other will be able to modify it under certain condition) ?
- Public domain (you let your code in the wild without condition) ?

Why raise new questions?

I will not answer them now, simply because i am not sure about the details. I am prefering to write (hopefully useful) code instead of dealing with open source bureaucracy.


Are you exploding yet ?

Continue dreaming...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: MaB_fr on 2007-01-29 14:43:22
Then, sorry for your users and the willing developer...

I will not bother you anymore...just enjoy the release

Good luck anyway, keep containing the fumes


MaB_fr
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Shade[ST] on 2007-01-29 16:16:21
I'm making a FAQ for you, Thomas.  I'll link it here when I'm done.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-29 16:32:07
Quote
' date='Jan 29 2007, 17:16' post='467940']
I'm making a FAQ for you, Thomas.  I'll link it here when I'm done.

Thank you!

Put please let me read it first, before publishig it.

Nice to see(read) you again

  Thomas

edit1: You have been faster! It's perfectly ok!

edit2: Now i have been too fast.

Two corrections:

1) My name is Thomas Becker, not Thomas Beck.

2) "it is most likely to be very easy to decode on hardware, even in its most compressing modes"

"even in its most compressing modes" is questionable.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Shade[ST] on 2007-01-29 16:37:58
Yeah, sorry. I edited it again. I do need a description for forward prediction.

Here's the link. Keep it in your sig?

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=52276 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=52276)

I updated to your 11:40 edit.
I was wondering... what's the take on 32-bit floating point files?  Can you compress 'em?  Should I read the readme? Probably, eh?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Eli on 2007-01-29 17:14:04
Sounds pretty good. Well will it be added to the lossless comparison chart? It will need alot more support before I could consider migrating. To bad its not OS, or the support may be able to be added faster.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: rjamorim on 2007-01-30 02:36:43
http://www.rarewares.org/ (http://www.rarewares.org/)

http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.html (http://www.rarewares.org/lossless.html)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: jido on 2007-01-30 11:13:31
Glad that version 1.0 is out. Congratulations!
               


Looking forward to see someone experiment with a freepascal port...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: vhl on 2007-01-30 18:01:54
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Fandango on 2007-01-30 18:14:20
I'm pretty sure that this has to wait.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: jcoalson on 2007-01-30 18:55:54
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

it's complicated, difficult to get right, and non-portable.  better to spawn multiple processes for individual files and let the OS handle it.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Shade[ST] on 2007-01-30 19:09:23
TAK's actual implementations are generally only limited by IO speed, in case of "turbo" mode.  I'm not sure that a multicore implementation would be that useful.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: vhl on 2007-01-30 19:26:59
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

it's complicated, difficult to get right, and non-portable.  better to spawn multiple processes for individual files and let the OS handle it.

What about WinRar? What about video codecs? It's true and it's present! Why i must use only one core in my multicore system? Why i must run multiple copies instead of put all files in one queu and just run it?

Quote
' date='Jan 30 2007, 13:09' post='468209']
TAK's actual implementations are generally only limited by IO speed, in case of "turbo" mode.  I'm not sure that a multicore implementation would be that useful.

Then it's possible improve speed in other modes!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: sPeziFisH on 2007-01-30 20:35:45
Thanks Thomas, the coding/decoding-abilities of the new codec seems to be amazing *thumbs up* 
I am really astonished that you get it to achive better compression and speed than the other lossless-codecs which have been optimized over a long period - due to a better basic structure/concept or due to smartish coding?

Feinste Grüsse
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Firon on 2007-01-30 20:59:56
Is it possible to make version with multicore support? Almost all new processors is multicore, why developers do not use this advantages?

Properly multi-threaded code is not trivial to do.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: JunkieXL on 2007-01-30 21:12:51
Just wanted to say Thank You Tbeck!

I'm really happy to see new lossless codecs being developed and improved upon.  I'll probably have to wait until the SDK is out and some playback support is available to fully test it out, but I'm definately interested/excited about this project.

Keep up the good work!
JXL
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Martin H on 2007-01-30 23:54:16
Why i must use only one core in my multicore system? Why i must run multiple copies instead of put all files in one queu and just run it?

Would you please STFU and stop whining! Nobody is forcing you to use non-SMP enabled software in the first place and it doesn't make it better that you're whining at a freeware developer, where you haven't even paid a nickle for using his work!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-31 00:44:24
Thanks Thomas, the coding/decoding-abilities of the new codec seems to be amazing *thumbs up* 

Thank you!

I am really astonished that you get it to achive better compression and speed than the other lossless-codecs which have been optimized over a long period - due to a better basic structure/concept or due to smartish coding?

I have been working on this (not with any public release in mind) since about 1997. I have tried anything i could think of to improve the performance. It's the result of some new ideas and very much hard work. Maybe from the things i tried, only 1 out of 10 was working well...

The good performance is based upon some new ideas and a speed oriented design. Some examples:

1) The codec is using 16-bit arithmetics (14-bits to be exact) with a 32 bit accumulator. This can be very efficiently implemented in MMX-assember. But even without using MMX this concept is advantegeous. For instance the cpu requirements are quite independent from the sample bit depth. Even with 24-bit samples any signal processing will still be performed in 16-bit arithmetic and therefore be very fast.  No need to switch to slow 64-bit arithmetic as some other codecs have to.

2) Each frame has to be partitioned into subframes with individual prediction parameters, if the signal characteristics within a frame are changing. While any other asymmetric codec i know is performing this partition selection by some slow (brute force kind) try out approach, TAK is using a new very fast estimation method.

3) The prediction residuals have to be packed into some bit code. FLAC is using the very fast rice code, MPEG4Als -7 some very efficient but slower arithmetic code. TAK is using a very fast variation of the golomb code (works without divisions) and some additional codes specifically designed for low amplitudes. Those codes are nearly as fast as rice codes while providing significantly better compression. I am quite sure, that they are responsible for a good part of the compression advantage over FLAC when compressing low amplitude (for example classical music) files.

4) TAK adds a a very fast and efficient channel decorrelation method to the common mid-side methods.

5) While the features above are most important for the compression efficiency, i have optimized many other common methods. Here the advantage of each single optimization is usually small, but cumulated significant.


I'm really happy to see new lossless codecs being developed and improved upon.  I'll probably have to wait until the SDK is out and some playback support is available to fully test it out, but I'm definately interested/excited about this project.

My WinAmp input plugin is already working. But i want to use it as test platform for my first sdk version, therefore the release has to wait until the sdk is done. Maybe 1 to 2 months.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Funkdude on 2007-01-31 02:59:08
Wow, I've only recently started following what's happening on HA, and I this codec looks very promising! I say promising because, to me, to be useful this codec still needs tagging support as well as foobar2000 playback ability. As soon as this is implemented, most chances are my FLAC archive is getting transcoded.

Congratulations for your excellent work, and I look forward to further development very eagerly.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: spockep on 2007-01-31 03:15:24
My WinAmp input plugin is already working. But i want to use it as test platform for my first sdk version, therefore the release has to wait until the sdk is done. Maybe 1 to 2 months.


Thats a real bummer.  I think a working winamp plugin would be a great way to promote TAK.  My advice, from a marketing standpoint, would be to make the masses happy and release the plugin now.  No reason you couldn't also use it with your first SDK version.  It would get alot of people excited about TAK.  As TAK stands now, as nice as it is, with no playback option its just a fun tool.  To actually hear a TAK file would be great.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: GeSomeone on 2007-01-31 18:15:15
To actually hear a TAK file would be great.

If you heard one lossless codec, you heard them all 
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: ...Just Elliott on 2007-01-31 18:19:31
At first, you end up with scepticism from people like me, who'd like to just take a peek at the code, just to be sure that the benefits claim are true and to be able to see the perks...
Now I'm not a programmer, so I might be way off base here.  But why do you need to look at the source code to alleviate your skepticism when TAK has been heavily tested by many people and, more importantly, has been publically available for anyone to try for the last 3 iterations (2 betas and the final)?  I can certainly understand preferring open source software, and this post is in no way a comment on whether TAK should be open or closed, but the notion that you need to look at the source code "to be sure that the benefits claim are true" strikes me as nonsensical.
I agree. Even looking at the source code is no way to determine if a complex algorithm (which I believe TAK is) works. The only way to know if it works or not is to test.

Thomas has provided the binaries. All you need to "... be sure that the benefits claimed are true ..." is to compress a WAV file using the binaries, and time it with whatever means you have. Then decompress it, again timing it. Then compare the result of the decompression with the original.

I am very sorry to say that some open source advocates in some way resemble audiophooles.

For a codec, source code is a very important matter.

Now, if you made a convrter or player - fine, that doesn't matter.

If you're making a codec which people may rely on, you need to guarantee that:

- they will be able to use it on any platform with interest, or make it work themselves
- they will be able to verify the algorithm will always be 100% flawlessly lossless
- etc

Right now, it's a windows only closed source codec. This offers none of those benefits, and at least one person (me) is unable to use it or listen to TAK files at all.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-01-31 18:47:40
You will be pleased to know that the intention is to release the source in the future, and port to other platforms.

At that time you may chose to evaluate TAK or not.  It is all about freedom of choice, which is good news.

Edit: you may find the thread "TAK - Source code release and conversion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=51511)" of interest.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-01-31 18:51:37
If you're making a codec which people may rely on, you need to guarantee that:

- they will be able to use it on any platform with interest, or make it work themselves
- they will be able to verify the algorithm will always be 100% flawlessly lossless
- etc

Right now, it's a windows only closed source codec. This offers none of those benefits, and at least one person (me) is unable to use it or listen to TAK files at all.

I am aware of this point of view, but repetition will not change anything.

I am already spending all (more than i should) of my free time for TAK developement. There simply aren't any resources left. The neccessary source code conversion can start, when TAK's feature set is quite complete and i have time again.

While i respect, that some people insist on the source code, i can not agree to all of their arguments.

"windows only" sounds very limiting, but given it's huge user base i don't have to be worried about lack of potential users before the source code release.

Quote
- they will be able to verify the algorithm will always be 100% flawlessly lossless

Only in theory.

The source code is quite complex. Someone would have to be very knowledgeable and spend very much time to find errors. Would you guarantee that this will happen? If the source code has been released, will you wait until some expert has checked it before using the codec? How do you know, if a trustable expert has checked it?

There are open source codecs available since years, and the developers are still finding bugs. Obviously source code availability can not provide you any guarantee, that the code is bug free.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: rjamorim on 2007-01-31 19:19:52
"windows only" sounds very limiting, but given it's huge user base i don't have to be worried about lack of potential users before the source code release.


Besides, linux whiners can use wine.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Fandango on 2007-01-31 20:04:02
I don't understand all the fuss about this source code issue or lack of playback plugins. Thomas and others made it clear dozens of times that TAK will be open source and that playback will become available after the SDK was released. All you guys need is patience.

<sarcasm>I suggest you use one of those other lossless codecs in the meantime...</sarcasm>

PS: Ok, maybe the version numbering was confusing. Many people expect a full-blown software kit when a major release number is used. But then again the "1.0" refers to the core of the codec itself and everything else will have to wait for the next major release, I guess.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: krmathis on 2007-01-31 20:13:06
"windows only" sounds very limiting, but given it's huge user base i don't have to be worried about lack of potential users before the source code release.

Besides, linux whiners can use wine.
...only if they run Linux on x86.
What about those of us running Linux or Mac OS X on PowerPC?

I appreciate the work TBeck have put into this TAK codec, even if I have no chance to actually try it out.
He reach the largest user base by putting out a MS Windows binary, while at the same time excluding lots of potential TAK users/testers. Can't blame him for taking that road, especially since he provide the applicaation for free.
But I hope he will satisfy us non-Windows users sometimes in the, not too far away, future!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: SebastianG on 2007-01-31 21:44:16
Besides, linux whiners can use wine.

wine is nice but I've yet to figure out how to pass PCM data via a pipe or fifo to a "wine"-ed encoder. I'd like to avoid intermediate .WAV files for transcoding. Doesn't seem to work with wine. (I only tried it with Nero's aac encoder)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Psyphre on 2007-01-31 21:55:15
This sounds really interesting, however im curious about one thing. The 2 biggest advantages, from what I gather, is taht it can compress the track better than monkeys audio and it can decompress (is that the right word?) faster than FLAC.

I obviously understand the advantage of greater compression, however I dont quite understand the latter. What effect does decompression have?

Thx
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: boombaard on 2007-01-31 22:05:28
This sounds really interesting, however im curious about one thing. The 2 biggest advantages, from what I gather, is taht it can compress the track better than monkeys audio and it can decompress (is that the right word?) faster than FLAC.

I obviously understand the advantage of greater compression, however I dont quite understand the latter. What effect does decompression have?

Thx


some people want to be able to to play back files that weigh in at ~50mb each on a 486 with a  100mb HD seamlessly ;-)

seriously though, it mostly has something to do with the possibility of DAP support these days.. can't really think of any other reason that would hold up in court
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: towolf on 2007-01-31 22:11:47

Besides, linux whiners can use wine.

wine is nice but I've yet to figure out how to pass PCM data via a pipe or fifo to a "wine"-ed encoder. I'd like to avoid intermediate .WAV files for transcoding. Doesn't seem to work with wine. (I only tried it with Nero's aac encoder)


You can use a fifo. I only copied the snippet  from this board for later, which I think originated from Doom9.

Code: [Select]
$ mkfifo audiodump.wav
$ wine ./neroAacEnc.exe -ignorelength -q 0.3 -if audiodump.wav -of output.mp4 & mplayer input.ac3 -af channels=6:6:0:0:1:1:2:4:3:5:4:2:5:3 -ao pcm:waveheader:file=audiodump.wav -channels 6
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: jcoalson on 2007-01-31 22:21:46
it can decompress (is that the right word?) faster than FLAC.

actually right now they're about the same on x86 and the current flac in CVS is 15% faster.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Shade[ST] on 2007-01-31 22:39:53
I obviously understand the advantage of greater compression, however I dont quite understand the latter. What effect does decompression have?
seriously though, it mostly has something to do with the possibility of DAP support these days.. can't really think of any other reason that would hold up in court
I currently use WAVPACK to convert lossless albums which I have in .wav / track format.  Since I can't store tags inside the WAVs, I want a format which can hold id3v2 / apev2 tags so that I can replaygain, and then compress to mp3 with replaygain.  I basically chose the fastest compression candidate I had, but now comes wonderful TAK with Turbo mode. That should cut 2-3 minutes off of every album's compression.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: rjamorim on 2007-01-31 22:43:11
What about those of us running Linux or Mac OS X on PowerPC?


Wait.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gaekwad2 on 2007-01-31 22:47:11
This sounds really interesting, however im curious about one thing. The 2 biggest advantages, from what I gather, is taht it can compress the track better than monkeys audio and it can decompress (is that the right word?) faster than FLAC.

I obviously understand the advantage of greater compression, however I dont quite understand the latter. What effect does decompression have?

Thx

Playback with <1% CPU usage, fast replaygain scanning, somewhat faster conversion to lossy (eg. for portable usage).
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Martin H on 2007-02-01 00:56:28
Fast decoding is not an issue for playback purposses, unless if talking hardware-wise or if having an anchient PC, but instead the great advantage of fast decoding is the big time savings you'll get when repeatedly transcoding to lossy track files or re-encode to lossless when either a) a new release is made(which is worth it) or b) you change your mind about the compression settings used.

@Josh

Wow, 15% faster decoding allready in current FLAC CVS  I can't wait for the next official release  (no rush of course ) Nice to have something to look forward to  Your continued efforts are much appreciated, mate
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-01 01:59:48
it can decompress (is that the right word?) faster than FLAC.

actually right now they're about the same on x86 and the current flac in CVS is 15% faster.

Wow, 15% faster decoding allready in current FLAC CVS  I can't wait for the next official release  (no rush of course ) Nice to have something to look forward to  Your continued efforts are much appreciated, mate

Competition is motivating...

I am very confident, that my new dedicated Turbo codec (in planning) will change this.

Maybe it will also compress even better than TAK's current Turbo preset.

But now back to work. I am not allowed to work on further optimizations, before some new features from my to do list have been added to TAK...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Heliologue on 2007-02-01 05:41:17
Competition is motivating...

I am very confident, that my new dedicated Turbo codec (in planning) will change this.

Maybe it will also compress even better than TAK's current Turbo preset.

But now back to work. I am not allowed to work on further optimizations, before some new features from my to do list have been added to TAK...


TBeck, and entirely new codec?  As in, a codec distinct from TAK?  Or do you just mean a new Turbo mode for TAK?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-01 06:22:34

I am very confident, that my new dedicated Turbo codec (in planning) will change this.

TBeck, and entirely new codec?  As in, a codec distinct from TAK?  Or do you just mean a new Turbo mode for TAK?

A new turbo mode.

If i say codec, i usually mean the compression core, the part of my code which does nothing else but compressing and decompressing audio frames.

Those compressed frames are beeing put into TAK's container (the file). The container itself contains a codec id indicating which TAK-codec has been used to compress the frames embedded in the container. When decoding TAK uses this codec id to determine, which of it's internal codecs to use.

If i add a new (internal) codec to TAK, older versions of my applications and the coming SDK have to be replaced with the current version to be able to decompress files created with the new codec.

Currently TAK contains only one (internal) codec which is beeing used for any preset, hence for fastest and strongest compression. But the design is more directed to strong compression than to highest (decoding) speed! Therefore i will built a variation of TAK's existing all purpose codec which will take more care for speed. Probably it will also compress a bit better than the current turbo preset...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: krmathis on 2007-02-01 16:19:07
What about those of us running Linux or Mac OS X on PowerPC?

Wait.
Exactly!
So all linux whiners can not use wine... 
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: boombaard on 2007-02-01 16:48:03

What about those of us running Linux or Mac OS X on PowerPC?

Wait.
Exactly!
So all linux whiners can not use wine... 


isn't that w(h)ine's fault, though?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pest on 2007-02-02 10:36:23
I've just tested TAK against the best codecs.
This is just a small sample which benefits clearly from high-orders,
but perhaps in the future you like to include a strong adaptive codec,
perhaps for archiving purposes only.

Code: [Select]
original      (nothingelse.wav)       11.250.652    EncTime
Sac              --best                3.907.383     41:00    34.73%
OFR v4.600ex     --max --experimental  3.942.855     15:00    35.05%
LA 0.4b          -high                 3.962.097     00:38    35.22%
MAC v4.01        -c4000                4.022.412     00:20    35.75%
TAK v1.0         -extra -max           4.110.974     00:30    36.54%
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-02 11:46:00
I've just tested TAK against the best codecs.
This is just a small sample which benefits clearly from high-orders,

While it's true, that TAK can not achieve the same compression as the strongest symmetrical codecs, drawing conclusions from small sample sets is always very dangerous! Even if this isn't a bad sample for TAK.
but perhaps in the future you like to include a strong adaptive codec,
perhaps for archiving purposes only.

If we already can use such strong codecs like OptimFrog, why should i add another one?

I wanted to create a codec with good compression and very high speed. I doubt, that i could make symmetrical compression considerably faster.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Junon on 2007-02-02 12:25:51
If we already can use such strong codecs like OptimFrog, why should i add another one?

I wanted to create a codec with good compression and very high speed. I doubt, that i could make symmetrical compression considerably faster.


I'm pretty sure this is the appropriate motivation considering TAK's development for the codec to become successful in the future. Judging by the 2007 ripping/encoding general poll the majority of users is more interested in compression/decompression speed than in file sizes, otherwise FLAC and WavPack wouldn't be as successful as they actually are. Of course one major reason for using these two lossless codecs is also their software compatibility, with FLAC even enjoying native support by some hardware devices, WavPack works on a few ones which have the Rockbox firmware installed. TAK will need decent support by the developers of today's audio and CD burning applications in order to stand a chance against these two old bulls.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pest on 2007-02-02 13:17:17
While it's true, that TAK can not achieve the same compression as the strongest symmetrical codecs, drawing conclusions from small sample sets is always very dangerous!


I did not draw any conclusions. It was just a small sample where the gap between
different codecs is larger than usual. Fast is relative. Why not use adaptive techniques
with an asymmetric codec? Sac for example has 10times faster decompression and
i liked the idea to have both worlds as in MP4ALS. Just a thought.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-02 13:50:10

While it's true, that TAK can not achieve the same compression as the strongest symmetrical codecs, drawing conclusions from small sample sets is always very dangerous!

I did not draw any conclusions. It was just a small sample where the gap between
different codecs is larger than usual. Fast is relative. Why not use adaptive techniques

I hope you don't mind. I always have the feeling, it can not be said often enough.

different codecs is larger than usual. Fast is relative. Why not use adaptive techniques
with an asymmetric codec? Sac for example has 10times faster decompression and
i liked the idea to have both worlds as in MP4ALS. Just a thought.

TAK usese adaption, but it is beeing performed in bigger intervals. If you want to reduce the interval, you have to go for symmetric approaches.

... Fast is relative....

Yes. If TAK wasn't FASTER than other codecs, it would be quite useless. TAK's niche would vanish, if i made it  slower.

Some other important topics:

1) The adaption methods used in symmetric codecs seem to be more likely to be covered by patents.

2) If i tried to build a symmetric codec, i wanted it to be better than the existing ones (otherwise it's no fun). While i doubt, that i would achieve this, the searching for new ideas and their evaluation would take much time. I can not spend another thousands of hours on building a new codec while simultaneously improving TAK's usability.

It's good to know my own limits...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pest on 2007-02-02 15:44:41
1) The adaption methods used in symmetric codecs seem to be more likely to be covered by patents.


If I would tell how they work you would be surprised how easy it is.
You just need some understanding of linear algebra.

Quote
2) If i tried to build a symmetric codec, i wanted it to be better than the existing ones (otherwise it's no fun).


This is a hard one, and I think you're on the right way with TAK to gain popularity.
Look at MP4ALS, I made something similiar and improved the whole thing...and surprise too slow to be usable...
But as i mentioned before, if you change your mind, and need some advice i could be the one to help you

Good luck
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-02 16:10:03

1) The adaption methods used in symmetric codecs seem to be more likely to be covered by patents.

If I would tell how they work you would be surprised how easy it is.
You just need some understanding of linear algebra.

It's not, that i wouldn't know a bit about the way they are working. But when i started with asymmetric compression i immediately had some nice ideas for improvements. That's not the case for symmetric compression. Possibly because the authors of the existing symmetric compressors already have done such a good work...


2) If i tried to build a symmetric codec, i wanted it to be better than the existing ones (otherwise it's no fun).

But as i mentioned before, if you change your mind, and need some advice i could be the one to help you

Thank you for your offer, but i really can't see this happen. If TAK should gain some significant popularity, there will be enough for me to do... And if i should begin another large-scale project, it will probably be something different...

Why don't you develop your own codec?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pest on 2007-02-02 16:18:58
Why don't you develop your own codec?


Because no one even uses OptimFROG or the higher MAC modes.
Best adaption and real-time playback contradict each other, and i'm not a fan of compromises.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: adlai on 2007-02-03 00:48:24
does it work in eac? foobar? that's all that I really care about...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-03 06:45:58
Off-topic discussion moved to the Recycle Bin.  Please stay on-topic, and re-read TOS#5 if need be.

Muchos gracias.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: foosion on 2007-02-03 10:40:21
does it work in eac?
Ripping to TAK in EAC shouldn't be a problem with the TAK commandline encoder.

foobar?
Converting (and ripping) to TAK works using the commandline encoder. Tagging works as well with my TAK decoder stub. Playback will have to wait until Thomas has finished the TAK SDK.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-03 15:20:50
does it work in eac? foobar? that's all that I really care about...

foobar?
Converting (and ripping) to TAK works using the commandline encoder. Tagging works as well with my TAK decoder stub. Playback will have to wait until Thomas has finished the TAK SDK.

Just some minutes ago i have run the first test of  my decoding library.  Seems to work well!

But there is some more work left: Test the abstract io layer, write header files and documentation and ask other developers for feedback and testing.

The SDK-decoder also contains some improvements over the decoder of TAK Final:

- It can decode files were head and tail have been cut off. Theoretically any file part containing at least 2 seconds of audio should now be decodable.
- Most of the time you will no longer have to disable the "Restore wave file meta data"-option to decode a damaged file.
- Playback of even heavily damaged files.

When the SDK has been tested, the new decoder will also be included in the TAK applications.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: $char(9836) on 2007-02-03 17:04:11
Seems like it's not very long left now....can't wait 
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: A_Man_Eating_Duck on 2007-02-04 08:07:40
I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

Here is a list of the full albums i encoded (294 of them  )
Code: [Select]
311 - 311
A - Hi-Fi Serious
A Perfect Circle - Mer De Noms
AC-DC - Back In Black
AFI - Sing The Sorrow
Alice In Chains - Facelift
Anthrax - Persistence Of Time
Anthrax - Sound Of White Noise
Anthrax - We've Come For You All
Bad Religion - Stranger Than Fiction
Bad Religion - Tested
Bad Religion - The Gray Race
Beck - Odelay
Bee Gees - The Very Best Of The
Ben Folds - Ben Folds Live
Ben Folds - Rockin' The Suburbs
Ben Folds Five - The Unauthorized Biography Of Reinhold Messner
Ben Folds Five - Whatever And Ever Amen
Bic Runga - Beautiful Collision
Bic Runga - Birds
Billy Joel - Greatest Hits Disc 1
Billy Joel - Greatest Hits Disc 2
Billy Talent - II
Blink-182 - Dude Ranch
Blink-182 - Take Off Your Pants And Jacket
Bob Mould - Bob Mould
Bodyjar - How It Works
Bodyjar - No Touch Red
Breaking Benjamin - We Are Not Alone
Bush - Sixteen Stone
Cake - Comfort Eagle
Cake - Fashion Nugget
Cake - Motorcade Of Generosity
Cake - Prolonging The Magic
Cat Stevens - The Very Best Of Cat Stevens
Chicago - Heart Of Chicago 1967 - 1997
Coldplay - Parachutes
Counting Crows - August And Everything After
Crowded House - Recurring Dream The Very Best Of
Dave Dobbyn - Lament For The Numb
Dave Dobbyn - Loyal
Dave Dobbyn - The Islander
Dave Dobbyn - Twist
Def Leppard - Hysteria
Elliott Smith - XO
Elton John - Greatest Hits 1970 - 2002 Disc 1
Elton John - Greatest Hits 1970 - 2002 Disc 2
Eminem - The Eminem Show
Eric Clapton - One More Car, One More Rider - Disc 1
Eric Clapton - One More Car, One More Rider - Disc 2
Eric Clapton - Unplugged
Evanescence - Fallen
Extreme - Pornograffitti
Faith No More - Album Of The Year
Faith No More - Angel Dust
Faith No More - Free Concert In The Park
Faith No More - King For A Day, Fool For A Lifetime
Faith No More - Live At The Brixton Academy
Faith No More - The Real Thing
Fat Freddys Drop - Based On A True Story
Fatboy Slim - You've Come A Long Way, Baby
Fear Factory - Digimortal
Fear Factory - Obsolete
Fear Factory - Remanufacture
Finger Eleven - Finger Eleven
Finley Quaye - Maverick A Strike
Finley Quaye - Much More Than Much Love
Foo Fighters - Foo Fighters
Foo Fighters - The Colour And The Shape
Foo Fighters - There Is Nothing Left To Lose
Frank Zappa - Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch
Fun Lovin' Criminals - 100 Percent Colombian
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Come Find Yourself
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Loco
Fun Lovin' Criminals - Mimosa
Funeral For A Friend - Casually Dressed & Deep In Conversation
Funeral For A Friend - Seven Ways To Scream Your Name
Gary Moore - Still Got The Blues
George Harrison - The Best Of George Harrison
Green Day - American Idiot
Green Day - Dookie
Green Day - Insomniac
Green Day - Nimrod
Green Day - Shenanigans
Green Day - Warning
Grinspoon - Thrills, Kills + Sunday Pills
Groove Armada - Lovebox
Head Like A Hole - Double Your Strength Improve Your Health And Lengthen Your Life
Hoobastank - The Reason
Hootie & The Blowfish - Cracked Rear View
Husker Du - The Living End
Incubus - Make Yourself
Incubus - Morning View
Iron Maiden - A Real Live One
Iron Maiden - Brave New World
Iron Maiden - Fear Of The Dark
Iron Maiden - Piece Of Mind
Iron Maiden - Rock In Rio Disc 1
Iron Maiden - Rock In Rio Disc 2
Iron Maiden - Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son
Jack Johnson - In Between Dreams
Jeff Wayne - The War Of The Worlds Disc 1
Jeff Wayne - The War Of The Worlds Disc 2
Jimmy Eat World - Jimmy Eat World
Joe Satriani - The Extremist
John Farnham - Anthology 1
John Lennon - Imagine
John Mayer - Heavier Things
John Mayer - Room For Squares
Lagwagon - Blaze
Lagwagon - Double Plaidinum
Lagwagon - Duh
Lagwagon - Hoss
Lagwagon - Let's Talk About Feelings
Lagwagon - Let's Talk About Leftovers
Lagwagon - Trashed
Less Than Jake - Hello Rockview
Less Than Jake - Losing Streak
Less Than Jake - Pezcore
Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory
Linkin Park - Meteora
Live - Mental Jewelry
Live - The Distance To Here
Living Colour - Time's Up
Living Colour - Vivid
Long Beach Dub Allstars - Right Back
Lostprophets - Liberation Transmission
Lostprophets - Start Something
Me First And The Gimme Gimmes - Have A Ball
Michael Jackson - Off The Wall
Michael Jackson - Thriller
Millencolin - For Monkeys
Millencolin - Home From Home
Millencolin - Life On A Plate
Millencolin - Pennybridge Pioneers
Millencolin - The Melancholy Collection
Misfits - American Psycho
Misfits - Famous Monsters
Moby - Play
Mr. Bungle - Mr. Bungle
My Chemical Romance - The Black Parade
New Found Glory - Catalyst
Nirvana - Unplugged In New York
No Fun At All - No Straight Angles
No Fun At All - Out Of Bounds
No Fun At All - State Of Flow
No Fun At All - The Big Knockover
No Fun At All - Throw It In
No Use For A Name - Hard Rock Bottom
No Use For A Name - Leche Con Carne
No Use For A Name - Making Friends
Nofx - 45 Or 46 Songs That Weren't Good Enough To Go On Our Other Records Disc 1
Nofx - 45 Or 46 Songs That Weren't Good Enough To Go On Our Other Records Disc 2 Catching Zzz's
Nofx - Heavy Petting Zoo
Nofx - I Heard They Suck Live
Nofx - Liberal Animation
Nofx - Pump Up The Valuum
Nofx - Punk In Drublic
Nofx - Ribbed
Nofx - S&M Airlines
Nofx - So Long And Thanks For All The Shoes
Nofx - The Decline
Nofx - The Longest Line
Nofx - The War On Errorism
Nofx - White Trash, Two Heebs, And A Bean
One Dollar Short - Eight Days Away
Ozzy Osbourne - Bark At The Moon
Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz
Ozzy Osbourne - No More Tears
Ozzy Osbourne - Ozzmosis
Ozzy Osbourne - The Ozzman Cometh Disc 1
Ozzy Osbourne - The Ozzman Cometh Disc 2
Pacifier - Pacifier
Pacifier - Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Papa Roach - Getting Away With Murder
Pearl Jam - Pearl Jam
Pennywise - A Word From The Wise
Pennywise - About Time
Pennywise - From The Ashes
Pennywise - Full Circle
Pennywise - Land Of The Free
Pennywise - Straight Ahead
Pennywise - Unknown Road
Phil Collins - ...But Seriously
Phil Collins - ...Hits
Pink Floyd - Live 8
Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon
Pink Floyd - The Wall Disc 1
Pink Floyd - The Wall Disc 2
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here
Queen - Greatest Hits
Queens Of The Stone Age - Queens Of The Stone Age
Rage Against The Machine - Evil Empire
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Reel Big Fish - Cheer Up
Reel Big Fish - Why Do They Rock So Hard
Regurgitator - Unit
Salmonella Dub - Inside The Dub Plates
Salmonella Dub - Killervision
Shihad - Killjoy
Shihad - Shihad
Shihad - The General Electric
Silverchair - Diorama
Silverchair - Freak Show
Silverchair - Frogstomp
Simon & Garfunkel - The Definitive Collection
Skunk Anansie - Paranoid & Sunburnt
Skunk Anansie - Post Orgasmic Chill
Skunk Anansie - Stoosh
Smashing Pumpkins - Adore
Smashing Pumpkins - Machina The Machines Of God
Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness - Dawn To Dusk Disc 1
Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness - Twilight To Starlight Disc 2
Smashing Pumpkins - Pisces Iscariot
Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream
Soundgarden - Superunknown
Spiderbait - Grand Slam
Spiderbait - Ivy And The Big Apples
Staind - 14 Shades Of Grey
Stellar - Magic Line
Stevie Wonder - Talking Book
Stevie Wonder - The Definitive Collection Disc 1
Stevie Wonder - The Definitive Collection Disc 2
Stone Temple Pilots - Core
Stone Temple Pilots - Purple
Story Of The Year - In The Wake Of Determination
Strung Out - An American Paradox
Strung Out - Another Day In Paradise
Strung Out - Exile In Oblivion
Strung Out - Live In A Dive
Strung Out - Suburban Teenage Wasteland Blues
Strung Out - The Element Of Sonic Defiance
Strung Out - Twisted By Design
Sublime - Sublime
Sugar - Beaster
Sugar - Copper Blue
Sugar - File Under Easy Listening
Sugar Ray - Floored
Sum 41 - All Killer No Filler
Sum 41 - Chuck
Sum 41 - Does This Look Infected
Supergrass - Supergrass
Supergroove - Backspacer
Supergroove - Traction
Switchfoot - Nothing Is Sound
System Of A Down - Toxicity
The Beatles - Help
The Beatles - Let It Be
The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour
The Beatles - One
The Beatles - Revolver
The Beatles - Yellow Submarine
The Darkness - Permission To Land
The Doobie Brothers - Best Of The Doobies
The Killers - Hot Fuss
The Living End - Modern Artillery
The Living End - Roll On
The Living End - The Living End
The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Lets Face It
The Offspring - Americana
The Offspring - Ignition
The Offspring - Ixnay On The Hombre
The Offspring - Smash
The Police - Greatest Hits
The Reverend Horton Heat - It's Martini Time
The Rolling Stones - Forty Licks Disc 1
The Rolling Stones - Forty Licks Disc 2
The Strokes - Is This It
The Vandals - Hitler Bad, Vandals Good
The Vandals - Look What I Almost Stepped In
The Vandals - Oi! To The World
The Verve - This Is Music (The Singles 92-98)
The Verve - Urban Hymns
Tool - Aenima
Travis - The Invisible Band
U2 - Rattle And Hum
U2 - The Joshua Tree
Unwritten Law - Elva
Unwritten Law - Unwritten Law
Various Artists - Fat Music Vol. IV - Life In The Fat Lane
Various Artists - Floyd ...And Out Come The Teeth
Various Artists - Forrest Gump The Soundtrack Disc 1
Various Artists - Forrest Gump The Soundtrack Disc 2
Various Artists - Good Morning, Vietnam
Various Artists - Natural Born Killers Soundtrack
Various Artists - Physical Fatness Fat Music Vol. III
Various Artists - Punk O Rama Vol. 2.1
Vicious Hary Mary - Orchestra Phantasma
Weezer - Maladroit
Weezer - Pinkerton
Weezer - The Blue Album
Weezer - The Green Album
Yellowcard - Lights and Sounds
Yellowcard - Ocean Avenue

(http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1930408/0/nouser_1930/T0_-1_1930408.png) (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1930408)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Brydenn33 on 2007-02-04 10:19:04
Hehehe,

You're killin' us Thomas . I can't wait for you to release the decoder. I'm excited about TAK!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gaekwad2 on 2007-02-04 14:46:43
In case people aren't tired of them yet, I also made a comparison (using more settings but only a handful of albums).

Code: [Select]
Encoder			size	enc time	dec time
TAK Extra Max 55,58% 13,29% 1,23%
TAK Extra 55,67% 5,11% 1,23%
TAK High Max 55,75% 6,70% 1,14%
TAK High 55,87% 3,28% 1,14%
TAK Normal Max 56,06% 4,10% 0,99%
TAK Normal 56,16% 2,05% 1,00%
TAK Fast Max 56,23% 3,42% 0,98%
TAK Fast 56,54% 1,33% 0,97%
TAK Turbo Max 57,51% 2,66% 0,93%
TAK Turbo 57,84% 0,99% 0,94%
Wavpack hhx3 57,03% 20,43% 1,96%
Wavpack hh 57,39% 3,16% 1,99%
Wavpack hx3 57,35% 13,69% 1,52%
Wavpack h 57,74% 2,37% 1,62%
Wavpack x3 58,04% 8,14% 1,13%
Wavpack 59,12% 1,56% 1,13%
Wavpack fx3 59,41% 4,49% 0,88%
Wavpack f 60,60% 1,16% 0,90%
OptimFrog Extra 55,39% 12,62% 9,24%
OptimFrog High 55,52% 8,53% 6,26%
OptimFrog Normal 55,74% 5,88% 4,30%
OptimFrog Fast 56,31% 4,26% 3,09%
Monkey Extra High 55,39% 6,36% 6,53%
Monkey High 56,11% 3,18% 3,58%
Monkey Normal 56,52% 2,67% 3,06%
Monkey Fast 57,57% 1,80% 2,31%
FLAC 8 59,19% 9,74% 1,02%
FLAC 6 59,40% 2,26% 0,99%
FLAC 5 59,48% 2,06% 1,00%
FLAC 4 59,68% 1,65% 1,02%
FLAC 3 61,77% 1,22% 0,99%
FLAC 2 61,70% 1,20% 1,02%
FLAC 1 62,09% 0,93% 1,04%
FLAC 0 63,75% 0,91% 1,02%

enc/dec time: process time in percent of the album's length, measured by timer.exe, Pentium 4 2.6GHz

Albums used:
Björk - Homogenic
Frank Black - Teenager of the Year
Kraftwerk - Die Mensch-Maschine
Queens of the Stone Age - Songs for the Deaf
Roni Size/Reprazent - New Forms (CD2)
Steely Dan - Gaucho
Stereolab - Margerine Eclipse
Erik Satie - Piano Works
Nothing surprising compared to others' results I think, but I also made a pretty graph:
(http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/2916/graph1ue3.th.png) (http://img400.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graph1ue3.png)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: dem on 2007-02-04 17:19:23
I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6
(http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1930408/0/nouser_1930/T0_-1_1930408.png) (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1930408)

Wow.  Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gib on 2007-02-04 19:41:46
Wow.  Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!

Only saved a dollar?  Well done, dem.  You just blew the lid off the whole audio compression fraud.  What a sham.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: rjamorim on 2007-02-05 00:31:12
I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

[a href="http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1930408" target="_blank"]
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: A_Man_Eating_Duck on 2007-02-05 00:52:49
ok ok, i ballsed up the first graph, this is a better non political statistics version

(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8964/graphca2.png) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: rjamorim on 2007-02-05 01:38:50
MO BETTAH!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Steve56 on 2007-02-05 02:04:43
I've just tested TAK against the best codecs.
This is just a small sample which benefits clearly from high-orders,
but perhaps in the future you like to include a strong adaptive codec,
perhaps for archiving purposes only.

original     (nothingelse.wav)     11.250.652   EncTime
Sac           --best            3.907.383    41:00   34.73%


Never heard of "Sac". Is this a lossless codec or just some options of another codec?

TIA

Steve56
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pest on 2007-02-05 10:05:38
Never heard of "Sac". Is this a lossless codec or just some options of another codec?


It's a lossless codec written by myself.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-05 15:52:33
I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6

Here is a list of the full albums i encoded (294 of them  )

Many thanks for your little comparison! Nice to see, that TAK survives such a stress...

In case people aren't tired of them yet, I also made a comparison (using more settings but only a handful of albums).

I myself can't get enough... Thank you!

Nothing surprising compared to others' results I think, but I also made a pretty graph:
...

It's a really useful presentation! It makes comparisons of different aspects (speed/compression) of the codecs very easy.


I've done a little comparrison between Tak 1.0 normal preset and Flac 1.1.2 -6
...

Wow.  Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!

Well, this might be the truth about any improvements of lossless audio compression in the last years. Therefore i assume,

- that we still could be happy with Shorten's compression efficiency and
- that FLAC does not need any mode stronger than maybe -3 and
- that the development of Optimfrog and LA was a total waste of time...

It's probably a matter of personal taste.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Lyx on 2007-02-05 16:56:19
Quote
Quote
Wow. Based on the current cost of disk storage you just saved almost US$ 1.00!


Well, this might be the truth about any improvements of lossless audio compression in the last years. Therefore i assume,

- that we still could be happy with Shorten's compression efficiency and
- that FLAC does not need any mode stronger than maybe -3 and
- that the development of Optimfrog and LA was a total waste of time...

It's probably a matter of personal taste.


There is a difference between "current gain" and "longterm gain".

To make it quick and brutal: *currently*, we could still be happy with mp3 and shorten (exception: narrowband). All "modern" codecs do not offer a *significant* advantage regarding speed/compression.

However, you dont arrive at a "significant advantage" just overnight. Sure, in some rare cases a technological revolution happens overnight, but thats not how it works most of the time. Thus, the work you put into your codec, as well as all other "modern" audio codecs, is a "longterm-investment" which will someday lead to a result which indeed offers a significant advantage over mp3/shorten. But for now, the masses dont benefit much from it.

- Lyx
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-05 17:21:36
I think you only need to see the excitement that TAK has generated, or even the improvements in FLAC 1.1.3 over 1.1.2, to know that users are very keen to squeeze just a few more MB out of a file (if there is no speed penalty).

It may not be logical, but it is tangible.

Why not have those extra few MB, or extra few minutes, if it doesn't cost me anything?  Why use something inferior?

Thomas and I had a similar discussion regarding speed.  There is a point where the hard drive becomes a major factor in encoding and decoding speed, but users just want to know that their encoder is the theoretical best that it can be, irrespective of how those speeds translate when applied to a 5400rpm hard drive.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-05 17:31:40
To make it quick and brutal: *currently*, we could still be happy with mp3 and shorten (exception: narrowband). All "modern" codecs do not offer a *significant* advantage regarding speed/compression.

This isn't 'brutal'. I am aware of the (limited) practical relevance of the compression improvements achieved since Shorten.

But regarding the speed, i have to contradict. For instance TAK is encoding much faster than FLAC. Ok, if you say FLAC -0 is enough, than speed differences are irrelevant.

However, you dont arrive at a "significant advantage" just overnight. Sure, in some rare cases a technological revolution happens overnight, but thats not how it works most of the time. Thus, the work you put into your codec, as well as all other "modern" audio codecs, is a "longterm-investment" which will someday lead to a result which indeed offers a significant advantage over mp3/shorten. But for now, the masses dont benefit much from it.

I doubt, that we can expect a significant improvement as a cumulation of many small future improvements. I am convinced, that it would need some 'revolution' to get considerably futher.

But this is only based upon my intuition, i am not able to prove it...

Fortunately some people are already happy with the insignificant improvements achieved, otherwise there would be little motivation to release new codecs (I have been working for many years on TAK, without any publication in mind. Without the motivation resulting from the feedback of potential future users, i never would have started the work on a release.)

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Lyx on 2007-02-06 00:14:57
I think you only need to see the excitement that TAK has generated, or even the improvements in FLAC 1.1.3 over 1.1.2, to know that users are very keen to squeeze just a few more MB out of a file (if there is no speed penalty).


Yes, i'm aware about that. I wasn't questioning that there is an interest in it. I was just questioning the actual benefit from a rational point of view. I know that most people either simply do what they're told, or tend to become obsessive about single aspects of things while ignoring the rest (which possibly on the global scale legitimates the questional path which technological development is following currently). I'm aware that most people dont care about this or disagree with it - the opinions of others however are secondary to me. I'm primarily interested about objectivity - so, whats really the case, not necessarily what everyone else likes.
Quote
I doubt, that we can expect a significant improvement as a cumulation of many small future improvements. I am convinced, that it would need some 'revolution' to get considerably futher.

I'm not certain if i possibly worded myself a bit ambigious in my prev post, so i thought maybe i should make a bit more clear what i meant. I wasn't suggesting that FLAC or TAK or whatever will someday offer a significant compression gain (at reasonable speed). Technological projects aren t islands. They are built on previous knowledge. Others in turn will learn from those again, and so on. This partially is even the case for breakthroughs - contrary to popular belief, many breakthroughs dont just come out of nowhere out of pure chance. More often it is the case that the various puzzle-pieces are already there and it just needed someone to connect them or do the next step.

So, no matter if TAK will become and important player or not. For certain you will have learned something from it and did therefore progress. And possibly it will also contribute ideas and information to other developers which will then in turn do the next step. Thus, regardless of if TAK as an "implementation" suceeds or not, its ideas contribute to a longterm-gain. Or to put it simply: TAK is a small part of technological evolution.

- Lyx
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-06 01:09:18
Quote

I doubt, that we can expect a significant improvement as a cumulation of many small future improvements. I am convinced, that it would need some 'revolution' to get considerably futher.

I'm not certain if i possibly worded myself a bit ambigious in my prev post, so i thought maybe i should make a bit more clear what i meant. I wasn't suggesting that FLAC or TAK or whatever will someday offer a significant compression gain (at reasonable speed). Technological projects aren t islands. They are built on previous knowledge. Others in turn will learn from those again, and so on. This partially is even the case for breakthroughs - contrary to popular belief, many breakthroughs dont just come out of nowhere out of pure chance. More often it is the case that the various puzzle-pieces are already there and it just needed someone to connect them or do the next step.

No contradiction from my side. Not regarding your description of technological evolution...

But there will always be limits, which can not be overcome. The question is, how close lossless audio compression has come to those limits. Nobody knows, but my intuition tells me: quite close. Therefore i possibly preferred the term 'revolution', because i would regard any considerable improvement as a miracle...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mr Bungle on 2007-02-06 03:10:09
Yes, i'm aware about that. I wasn't questioning that there is an interest in it. I was just questioning the actual benefit from a rational point of view.


I think it's entirely rational to want to use to best technology available.  You can look at just about any technology (mature or otherwise) and find efforts to make it as good as it can be.  Lossless audio technology is no different.

Quote
So, no matter if TAK will become and important player or not. For certain you will have learned something from it and did therefore progress. And possibly it will also contribute ideas and information to other developers which will then in turn do the next step. Thus, regardless of if TAK as an "implementation" suceeds or not, its ideas contribute to a longterm-gain. Or to put it simply: TAK is a small part of technological evolution.

- Lyx


I find this to be pretty meaningless.  Whether TAK plays a small role or becomes a/the codec of choice is pure speculation.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Shade[ST] on 2007-02-06 07:02:05
I find this to be pretty meaningless.  Whether TAK plays a small role or becomes a/the codec of choice is pure speculation.
Guess why he said "regardless whether..." ?
He wasn't implying that TAK was going to have a small influence.

Though this still is OT.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mr Bungle on 2007-02-06 08:56:43
Yeah he was...

'TAK is a small part of technological evolution'

is what he said.

OK that's enough from me on this off-topic.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: sn0wman on 2007-02-06 10:42:13
hello !
i am not using lossless compressors at all, but anyway i am impressed of your work man !
thats really something big !
i have also some questions to you
- Piping support.


you mean, it can read from stdin and output to stdout ? i havent found any info in documentation about it.
if you didnt mean that, is it in plans ?

Quote
- MD5 audio checksums for verification and identification.


to make more use out of it, let user get the stored fingerprint by some command like getmd5 etc...

Quote
- Unicode support.


does it accept unicode filenames ?

/edit: fixed quote tags
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-06 11:31:59
Your quotes are from the to-do list.  I think this may answer some of your questions.

Yes, piping is reading from STDIN or writing to STDOUT.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: sn0wman on 2007-02-06 11:38:46
Your quotes are from the to-do list.  I think this may answer some of your questions.


ouch, indeed, sorry
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-08 06:45:22
Current progress

Back with my progress reports!

What i am working on:

WinAmp playback plugin

Done.

SDK

The Software development kit will consist of a DLL and header files for Delphi Pascal and C. Most probably it will provide not only decoding but also encoding functionality. Hopefully other developers will use it to write plugins for audio applications not supported by myself.

Currently i am in contact with one experienced developer to discuss my interface. After the finalization of the interface and some testing performed by myself, i probably will sent the SDK to some interested developers for external testing.

Decoder improvements

Even more error tolerance for damaged files.

Encoder

The additional evaluation level EXTRA is back (last found in YALAC 0.11). Main reason: I can not make any single encoder option (of the options dialog) available to the developers, because those options will change in the future, if i improve the encoder. Those internal changes have to be hidden, otherwise i would have to update the encoder interface on every change. As a compensation i reintroduced the evaluation level EXTRA.

Then we have the 5 presets TURBO, FAST, NORMAL, HIGH and EXTRA which can be combined with evaluation levels STANDARD, EXTRA and MAX (Should be regarded as 'Insane'). This should be enough options.

Probably i will also remove access to the internal options from the TAK applications...

That's all for now.

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: pepoluan on 2007-02-10 04:16:12
Then we have the 5 presets TURBO, FAST, NORMAL, HIGH and EXTRA which can be combined with evaluation levels STANDARD, EXTRA and MAX (Should be regarded as 'Insane'). This should be enough options.

Probably i will also remove access to the internal options from the TAK applications...
I agree. The huge options I had with OptimFROG always give me a headache. Too many things to fine tune. Give users some (hoepfully) tuned presets and do not expose everything.

BUT

I still recommend you give something like "custom parameters" where expert users can just type in their parameter preferences, perhaps maybe to tune the compression for their particular case. You don't have to provide a radio-button interface. A textbox should suffice.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-10 05:04:09
Then we have the 5 presets TURBO, FAST, NORMAL, HIGH and EXTRA which can be combined with evaluation levels STANDARD, EXTRA and MAX (Should be regarded as 'Insane'). This should be enough options.

Probably i will also remove access to the internal options from the TAK applications...
I agree. The huge options I had with OptimFROG always give me a headache. Too many things to fine tune.

Well, the user doesn't have to use all the options. But nevertheless you are right,

- because first impression is "Puh, so many options..." and
- because even less experienced (and less technically interested) users may be tempted to try the advanced options, just to make sure that they really are using the optimum settings...

Give users some (hoepfully) tuned presets and do not expose everything.

The current presets are the result of many months of evaluation, performed by me and the hard working early (YALAC-) testers. They should be very well tuned.

BUT

I still recommend you give something like "custom parameters" where expert users can just type in their parameter preferences, perhaps maybe to tune the compression for their particular case. You don't have to provide a radio-button interface. A textbox should suffice.

Yes, this would be nice to satisfy technically interested users. But i doubt, that this will be possible...

After i have done my homework (player support and SDK) i will continue the work, that is most fun for me: Optimization of speed and compression efficiency. I may tune the current all-in-one codec by adding new options and also add new codecs specialised for maximum speed or compression efficiency.

I already wrote about my new dedicated TURBO codec, which will hopefully decode significantly faster and also provide even better compression than the current TURBO preset...

All those optimizations will affect the individual encoder options: some will be removed, some added and some modified. If i wanted to expose all those options, every new optimized version would be likely to be incompatible (detailed options wise) to the previous one.

But technically interested users may join the "evaluation and optimization" club, when i ask for testers which help me to tune the new codecs or options.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kwanbis on 2007-02-10 17:32:50
I'm getting:

C:\Encoders>takc puede.wav
Command line error: invalid mode

C:\Encoders>takc puede
Command line error: invalid mode

C:\Encoders>takc -mode -e -pN puede.wav
ommand line error: invalid mode

Any ideas?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-10 17:36:47
I'm getting:

C:\Encoders>takc puede.wav
Command line error: invalid mode

C:\Encoders>takc puede
Command line error: invalid mode

C:\Encoders>takc -mode -e -pN puede.wav
ommand line error: invalid mode

Any ideas?

This is the right syntax:
Code: [Select]
takc -e -pN puede.wav

Hope it works.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kwanbis on 2007-02-10 17:44:06
Hope it works.
(it works)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: spockep on 2007-02-12 02:55:17
But there will always be limits, which can not be overcome. The question is, how close lossless audio compression has come to those limits. Nobody knows, but my intuition tells me: quite close. Therefore i possibly preferred the term 'revolution', because i would regard any considerable improvement as a miracle...


I disagree somewhat with this statement.  There have been many times in technological development that people have said "its not possible."  Even though it may be a ways off, we will all see lossless files the size of lossy files.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Digisurfer on 2007-02-12 03:16:49
I knew of TAK in passing, but didn't really pay much attention to it, in large part because I've been cutting back on my foruming a lot over the past year (takes up too much of my free time). I came across this post yesterday, read all the old posts regarding it's development, and today did some testing of my own using foobar2000 v0.9.4.2 to transcode and tag. Let me say that I am incredibly impressed by the work you've done, and all for free no less. I've been using Monkey's Audio since 2003 or thereabouts, and just recently switched to FLAC for it's high level software and hardware support (have never been happy with it's compression level and speed at -8). What I would really love to see is TAK reach or exceed that same level of support some day because it is perfect for the role, giving the best of both worlds between APE and FLAC. High compression, fast decode, and depending on compression level fast encoding too. Hopefully playback support will come to foobar2000 soon. Thanks for all your hard work, perserverance, and a really great codec! Take care!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-12 04:21:21

But there will always be limits, which can not be overcome. The question is, how close lossless audio compression has come to those limits. Nobody knows, but my intuition tells me: quite close. Therefore i possibly preferred the term 'revolution', because i would regard any considerable improvement as a miracle...

I disagree somewhat with this statement.  There have been many times in technological development that people have said "its not possible."  Even though it may be a ways off, we will all see lossless files the size of lossy files.

Did i say "its not possible."? It would be a wonder for me, but wonders seem to happen now and then...

Hopefully playback support will come to foobar2000 soon.

Probably you will not have to wait very long...

Thanks for all your hard work, perserverance, and a really great codec! Take care!

Thank you very much!

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: fairway on 2007-02-12 09:19:22


But there will always be limits, which can not be overcome. The question is, how close lossless audio compression has come to those limits. Nobody knows, but my intuition tells me: quite close. Therefore i possibly preferred the term 'revolution', because i would regard any considerable improvement as a miracle...

I disagree somewhat with this statement.  There have been many times in technological development that people have said "its not possible."  Even though it may be a ways off, we will all see lossless files the size of lossy files.

Did i say "its not possible."? It would be a wonder for me, but wonders seem to happen now and then...

Hopefully playback support will come to foobar2000 soon.

Probably you will not have to wait very long...


foobar2000 + TAK will be the sweetest thing.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-14 21:13:32
Current progess

While waiting for feedback for my SDK, i spent some time on something different:

As i wrote earlier, the individual encoder options will be removed from the Compression options dialog of the public TAK releases (They will still be accessible in special evaluation versions for some selected testers).

Unfortunately the options dialog looked quite empty after this... But fortunately i've got a hopefully good idea to use the new space.

Now there is a comparison table with 15 rows, each containing data of one combination of preset and evaluation level:

Turbo + Standard
Turbo + Extra
Turbo + Max
...
Extra + Standard
Extra + Extra
Extra + Max

Each row contains 3 columns: Compression, Encoding speed and Decoding speed.

If you select a Preset+Evaluation combination (either by cklicking into the table or by using the preset and evaluation buttons), the corresponding row will be selected and it's data will be used as reference.

Example:

After selceting Normal + Standard you will see this:
Code: [Select]
                    Compression   Encoding speed  Decoding speed

Turbo  + Standard     - 1.26 %      * 2.46          * 1.14
...
Normal + Standard       0.00 %      * 1.00          * 1.00
...
Extra  + Max          + 0.75 %      * 0.12          * 0.75


Normal + Standard now is the reference. How to interpret the data:

- By using Turbo + Standard you would loose 1.26 percent compression. Selecting Extra + Max would increase the compression by 0.75 percent.
- Turbo + Standard would encode 2.46 times faster.
- Extra + Max woud achieve ony 0.75 of the decoding speed.

Important: This comparison is based upon the data from my primary test file set! Other files and systems (different cpus) can give quite different results.

But nevertheless i think it's a helpful feature, especially for new users. It can help to choose the optimal preset for your application.

What do you think?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-14 22:36:21
I think the idea is quite sound, but I would be concerned about putting specific figures to the table.

Is it possible that you could do something similar with a rating-type system?  maybe even coloured indicators (like a litmus-type scale)?

Another option:  ask for volunteers to provide data, so that you can at least say that the figures were calculated using a huge corpus involving a tremendous variety of files.

I dunno.  If you are happy that your current corpus is quite indicative of expected results (I guess you must have quite a good idea by now, comparing it to the alpha and beta tester's results) then I guess it would be fine.

I just wonder whether giving users specific figures may give you tech support headaches.

As I say though, I think a table is a nice touch.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-14 22:56:28
I think the idea is quite sound, but I would be concerned about putting specific figures to the table.

Is it possible that you could do something similar with a rating-type system?  maybe even coloured indicators (like a litmus-type scale)?

Hm, possibly a good idea. I will think about it...

I dunno.  If you are happy that your current corpus is quite indicative of expected results (I guess you must have quite a good idea by now, comparing it to the alpha and beta tester's results) then I guess it would be fine.

My primary file corpus is quite representative but...

I just wonder whether giving users specific figures may give you tech support headaches.

... very good point! This has also been my most important concern...

I am really not sure. I suppose, this table could be very useful for new users, but especially new users will be most irritated, if their results don't match the table data...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: PabUK on 2007-02-14 23:15:00
I think the comparison table is a good idea. While accuracy is something of an issue, I think as long as you include a disclaimer saying where the figures are derived from then you'll be fine. It would certainly be helpful to many users who are trying to decide which preset to use.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-15 00:06:56

I think the idea is quite sound, but I would be concerned about putting specific figures to the table.

Is it possible that you could do something similar with a rating-type system?  maybe even coloured indicators (like a litmus-type scale)?

Hm, possibly a good idea. I will think about it...

Okay. Now no more absolute values:

Code: [Select]
                    Efficiency   Relative      Encoding speed  Decoding speed

Turbo  + Standard      0 %         - 63 %        * 2.46          * 1.14
...
Normal + Standard     63 %            0 %        * 1.00          * 1.00
...
Extra  + Max         100 %         + 37 %        * 0.12          * 0.75

'Efficiency' is the portion of the range defined as the difference of the weakest and the strongest preset. Not exact, but my english is too limited...

An example:

Weakest preset: 55.00 % (absolute)
Strongest preset: 53.00 % (absolute)
Range: 55.00 - 53.00 = 2.00 % (absolute)

If Normal + Standard achieves an absolute compression of 53.74 % then it's efficiency is:

  (55 - 53.74) / 2.00 * 100 = 63 %

'Relative' is similar but relative to the selected (reference) preset.

Possibly i should replace speed values less than 1 (slower) with the reciprocal: Instead of '* 0.75 write '/ 1.33'. This means 'is 1.33 times slower'.

I think the comparison table is a good idea. While accuracy is something of an issue, I think as long as you include a disclaimer saying where the figures are derived from then you'll be fine. It would certainly be helpful to many users who are trying to decide which preset to use.

Fine. Unfortunately not many people are reading a disclaimer (me too...).

With the new approach, users have to read the documentation to know, what efficiency means... That's probably a bit annoying but more safe...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: gaekwad2 on 2007-02-15 00:42:16
If you want to avoid all possible misunderstandings a scale from 0 to 10 (or similar) might be better than percentages though. It may seem unlikely that anyone could mistake numbers from 0% to 100% for the actual compression strength, but...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-15 23:53:57
Should i release an alpha version of the WinAmp plugin?

As i wrote earlier, a WinAmp plugin is already done. I wanted to wait with a release until the finalization of my SDK, because the plugin shall use the SDK library. But the testing of the SDK will possibly take a bit more time and i really would like TAK users to be able to playback TAK files as soon as possible. For me it was very much fun to hear my first TAK file...

I am thinking about an alpha release within the next days. Well, i haven't had any severe trouble with the plugin, therefore i could also call it a beta release. But i want to wait, until the SDK is done. Then i will compile a new version of the plugin and call it beta...

Any reason why i shouldn't release an alpha now? (For the user it's totally easy to switch to the later beta and final.)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Brydenn33 on 2007-02-16 00:36:58
No,

Release it ASAP! Hehehe, I've been checking the forum daily to give it a try . Can't wait Thomas!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: fairway on 2007-02-16 00:47:22
No,

Release it ASAP! Hehehe, I've been checking the forum daily to give it a try . Can't wait Thomas!


I would also love an alpha and Thomas can prove that he actually got it working ;-)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Mangix on 2007-02-16 04:57:20
i say release it. TAK right now is almost completely useless unless there is something that can actually play the audio.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-16 06:35:47
i say release it. TAK right now is almost completely useless unless there is something that can actually play the audio.
I rarely play my WavPack archive files.

That said, I think you should release it Thomas.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: DARcode on 2007-02-16 07:14:59
i say release it. TAK right now is almost completely useless unless there is something that can actually play the audio.
I rarely play my WavPack archive files.

That said, I think you should release it Thomas.
Yup, many users simply keep the lossless files as an archive and usually listen to the music transcoded to their favorite lossy format on DAPs/mobiles or stereos, but not all: me I listen to PC playback a lot, and therefore a WA plugin would be welcome even im alpha state, it'd also push the format even further I think.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Madman2003 on 2007-02-16 12:11:49
I wouldn't release a winamp plugin, instead focus on a C library and API. But i'm biased, since i have no use for a winamp plugin.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: spockep on 2007-02-16 12:22:49
Another vote for yes release the alpha plugin.  Like I said earlier it would be cool to hear a TAK file.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-16 19:31:01
Well, i just released the first alpha of my Winamp plugin. More info here: TAK Winamp Plugin: Alpha and beta releases (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=52770&view=findpost&p=472363)
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kanak on 2007-02-18 02:40:26
@Thomas

I was using the -l2 option in takc (version 1), and noticed two things:

1. The results are in German... (Nein, Ja). You might want to change it to English.

2. More pressing, It seems that TAK is not using SSE in my computer. Is it disabled at the moment or am i the only one suffering from this? I'd love to see how fast TAK would go if SSE were enabled. 

Thanks for your work on TAK and for releasing the plugin. I'm in the process of converting all my lossless to TAK.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-18 03:19:21
1. The results are in German... (Nein, Ja). You might want to change it to English.

You are right. Currently i am using one of my standard libraries (also used in other projects) to create the protocol file. I didn't want to touch this well tested code. But i will change it sooner or later.

2. More pressing, It seems that TAK is not using SSE in my computer. Is it disabled at the moment or am i the only one suffering from this? I'd love to see how fast TAK would go if SSE were enabled. 

Currently TAK isn't using any SSE optimizations. Because of it's speed oriented design, nearly any calculation is beeing performed in 16-bit integer arithmetic. I doubt that SSE's floating point arithmetic could be any faster. Only the core calculation routine of the predictor coefficients is using floating point. Early Yalac evaluation versions contained a SSE implementation of this code, but the speed advantage wasn't significant (maybe 1 percent...). It's possible, that future TAK versions will use the 128-bit MMX-implemenation (instead of the good old 64-bit MMX) of SSE3 and then you will see a 'Ja', sorry, 'Yes' in the SSE field. But first i will have to buy a new PC which supports SSE3...

Thanks for your work on TAK and for releasing the plugin. I'm in the process of converting all my lossless to TAK.

Wow, that's great news for me! I wasn't sure if someone is really using TAK!

  Thomas
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kanak on 2007-02-18 03:21:58

Thanks for your work on TAK and for releasing the plugin. I'm in the process of converting all my lossless to TAK.

Wow, that's great news for me! I wasn't sure if someone is really using TAK!

  Thomas


  The pleasure is mine. I'm saving about 7 mb per album (previously compressed using wavpack -hh). Now all i need is a plugin in foobar and replaygain support, and i'm all set!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-18 03:28:54
The pleasure is mine. I'm saving about 7 mb per album (previously compressed using wavpack -hh). Now

Out of curiousity: Which preset are you using?
all i need is a plugin in foobar and replaygain support, and i'm all set!

Possibly you will not have to wait too long for a foobar plugin, but damn... i always had the feeling, i have forgotten something... "replaygain support"! That it was!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kanak on 2007-02-18 03:47:59

  The pleasure is mine. I'm saving about 7 mb per album (previously compressed using wavpack -hh). Now

Out of curiousity: Which preset are you using?


-4. I tried -4m but the space savings vs -4m wasn't enough to justify the slower encode speed.

Love tak.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Raiden on 2007-02-19 14:33:45
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: johnsonlam on 2007-02-19 15:05:32
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?


I think still someone using 0.8.x because some 3rd party plugin not working in 0.9.

Foobar2000 is one of the best and serious player/converter/processor, can't imagine doing batch job or simple scripting without it, using other tools works but take a much longer time.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-19 15:27:26
Even so, I think developing for an older, non-supported, version of foobar is a waste of time that could be spent  better elsewhere.

Perhaps a 3rd party can choose to do so when the SDK is released, if they see fit.

NB: I dig foobar too, but that's pretty 'TOS #5'.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Night Rain on 2007-02-19 15:30:47
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?


Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kwanbis on 2007-02-19 16:18:37
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?

yes.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: sthayashi on 2007-02-19 21:43:12
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?

A foobar2000 decoder + winamp decoder is the only thing that's been keeping me from converting my current lossless files over.

Though I'm willing to wait for an API to come out so that others can work on plugins/conversion tools if necessary.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-02-19 22:37:09
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?

A foobar2000 decoder + winamp decoder is the only thing that's been keeping me from converting my current lossless files over.

Though I'm willing to wait for an API to come out so that others can work on plugins/conversion tools if necessary.

A Winamp playback plugin is already available and it looks, as if an experienced developer will soon start the work on a foobar plugin. I myself will not provide a plugin for older foobar versions. I can't do all on my own...
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: randal1013 on 2007-02-21 06:28:50
i need help with the parameters when using foobar to encode to TAK.

after looking at the readme, i came up with the following chains:
-e -p4 %d
-e -extra %d

and neither work. i'm not sure what i'm doing wrong, as far as i can tell those chains should work. can anyone help me out?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: kanak on 2007-02-21 06:40:55
i need help with the parameters when using foobar to encode to TAK.

after looking at the readme, i came up with the following chains:
-e -p4 %d
-e -extra %d

and neither work. i'm not sure what i'm doing wrong, as far as i can tell those chains should work. can anyone help me out?



since piping is not supported, you need to do this:

takc -e -p4 %s %d
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-21 06:46:58
%d is the destination name.  You are not specifying a source.  Therefore:

Code: [Select]
-e -p4 %s %d

Edit:  Beaten to it.  That's what comes of lining up a load of tabs in Firefox before reading.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: randal1013 on 2007-02-21 06:50:15
since piping is not supported, you need to do this:

takc -e -p4 %s %d
that works, thanks!

now it's saying:
Code: [Select]
Error flushing file (Object not found) : file://C:\folder\1_1.Igor Stravinksy - L'adoration De La Terre.tak

EDIT: apparently TAK doesn't like 32BPS
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: wildnewt on 2007-02-21 12:48:18
TAK shows some interesting results - some data I thought I'd share 

Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK @ 0 compression beats FLAC @ -8 compression. 

Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like the following?
[a href="http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=24bit01jp0.jpg" target="_blank"]

Moderation: Amended inline images to linked thumbs
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-21 13:01:56
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8.  Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused.  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: wildnewt on 2007-02-21 13:10:56
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8.  Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused.  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?


yup
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-21 13:21:15
  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?
yup 
I wouldn't call it an irregularity, as I think everyone saw similar results.

In my comparison TAK Turbo easily beats FLAC -8 using two apodisation switches as well.  I'm not sure that any number of apodisation switches could provide the same compression as TAK Turbo.

There is a lot of talk about the speed comparison between TAK and FLAC, but if you take compression into account there is no comparison - FLAC simply cannot compete in the same arena.

Of course, I still find the speed comparisons interesting, especially given the swift release of FLAC 1.1.4 following 1.1.3, and FLAC's resurgence as the faster decoder.  I look forward to further streamlining from both quarters (hmm... 'both'... 'quarters'... ermm...).
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: sthayashi on 2007-02-21 15:28:46
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8.  Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused.  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like the irregularities he's talking about are the fact that increasing the compression level did not always result in a smaller file.  In the pure tones, Tak High compressed better than Tak Extra, which is certainly unexpected.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Synthetic Soul on 2007-02-21 15:59:32
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like the irregularities he's talking about are the fact that increasing the compression level did not always result in a smaller file.  In the pure tones, Tak High compressed better than Tak Extra, which is certainly unexpected.
Yes, that's why I checked before answering, because that really is an irregularity.  However, wildnewt has already answered contrary to that.

I remember seeing a similar thing with FLAC in one of the tests I've been involved in, where (for sake of argument) -5 and -6 compressed worse that -4.  I guess it just depends on the individual sample and the settings the presets are using... and whether the sample finds a 'loophole' in the normal situation.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: Dhry on 2007-03-10 16:41:36
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?
Absolutely yes.
Title: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec
Post by: TBeck on 2007-03-20 04:29:17
TAK 1.0 has been tested by Ultimate Command Line Compressors (http://uclc.info/): Comparison (http://uclc.info/lossless_audio_compression_test.htm)