Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: FLAC v1.4.0 (Release) (Read 30622 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: FLAC v1.4.0 (Release)

Reply #150 –
No idea where is the best thread to ask generic flac 1.4.x new features questions, so ... summoning @ktf by mention.

* subdivide_tukey(1) is supposed to be tukey(5e-1), right?
* but, -A "subdivide_tukey(3);subdivide_tukey(1)" is not the same as -A "subdivide_tukey(3);tukey(5e-1)" - they produce different-size files. Indeed it looks like that in -A "subdivide_tukey(3);subdivide_tukey(1)" is the same as - A "subdivide_tukey(1);subdivide_tukey(3)" is the same as -A "subdivide_tukey(3)", with the lowest one simply ignored.
* however, the subdivide_tukey(1) is not subsumed in the (3) routine. Different taper.

And it isn't that simple:

* The following yield the same file sizes:
-A "subdivide_tukey(3);subdivide_tukey(2)"
-A "subdivide_tukey(3/5e-1);subdivide_tukey(2)"
-A "subdivide_tukey(3);subdivide_tukey(2/5e-1)"
-A "subdivide_tukey(3/5e-1);subdivide_tukey(2/5e-1)"

* But look:
-A "subdivide_tukey(3/6e-1);subdivide_tukey(2/6e-1)" gives same sizes as -A "subdivide_tukey(3);subdivide_tukey(2/6e-1)",
but different from
-A "subdivide_tukey(2/6e-1);subdivide_tukey(3/6e-1)"

-A "subdivide_tukey(2/8e-1);subdivide_tukey(8/8e-1)" gives same sizes as -A "subdivide_tukey(2);subdivide_tukey(8/8e-1)"
-A "subdivide_tukey(2/2e-1);subdivide_tukey(8/8e-1)" gives same sizes as -A "subdivide_tukey(2/8e-1);subdivide_tukey(8)"



Bug, feature or ... uh, engineering compromise?

Re: FLAC v1.4.0 (Release)

Reply #151 –
Quote from: Porcus on
* subdivide_tukey(1) is supposed to be tukey(5e-1), right?
I see in the code subdivide_tukey(1) is simply dropped.

Quote
* But look:
-A "subdivide_tukey(3/6e-1);subdivide_tukey(2/6e-1)" gives same sizes as -A "subdivide_tukey(3);subdivide_tukey(2/6e-1)",
but different from
-A "subdivide_tukey(2/6e-1);subdivide_tukey(3/6e-1)"

-A "subdivide_tukey(2/8e-1);subdivide_tukey(8/8e-1)" gives same sizes as -A "subdivide_tukey(2);subdivide_tukey(8/8e-1)"
-A "subdivide_tukey(2/2e-1);subdivide_tukey(8/8e-1)" gives same sizes as -A "subdivide_tukey(2/8e-1);subdivide_tukey(8)"

Bug, feature or ... uh, engineering compromise?
No clue really. I should run a debugger to find out what is happening there.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.