2008 ripping/encoding general poll
Reply #130 – 2008-01-15 13:58:50
I call shenanigans here, if you're gonna compare speeds don't be comparing FLACs slowest high compression settings with TAKs fastest low compression settings, et al. Either TAK -p5m vs. FLAC -8 or TAK -p0 vs. FLAC -0 would be a fair speed test. Don't know what the settings should be for the other two encoders off the top of my head... been too long since I last used either. It's funny what people will call 'fair'. As greynol pointed out, we cannot compare like for like when it comes to compression, as FLAC and TAKs compression range, for my data, do not intersect. In order for FLAC to compete, with comparitive compression, we must use its slowest settings. You need a constant in order to compare the other aspects - i.e.: compression must be constant to properly compare encoding and decoding speed, or encoding speed must be constant to properly compare compression. Out of interest: TAK -p5m vs. FLAC -8 (vs. WavPack -hhx3) % E D TAK 63.532% 10x 93x FLAC 65.476% 19x 120x WV 64.378% 4x 58x TAK -p0 vs. FLAC -0 (vs. WavPack -f) % E D TAK 65.281% 110x 129x FLAC 70.674% 134x 141x WV 66.741% 73x 103x Note that TAK ranges 63.532-65.281% and FLAC ranges 65.476-70.674%. Perhaps we should consider default values: % E D FLAC 65.721% 53x 124x MA 63.793% 41x 38x TAK 64.093% 62x 113x WavPack 65.582% 64x 88x Now once you use flac -0, things do indeed change, but it seems most people around here don't use -0...http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=58731 The vast majority of people taking that poll indicate that they use -8. Certainly it may be fast enough, but it isn't anywhere near "average" or "above average". This is the only point I'm trying to make. I find it very interesting that the majority (59%) of FLAC users are using -8, and 97% of users who voted use -5 or over. It shows that these "negligable" values are... well, not so negligable.if you're talking about why people choose a codec, I doubt that matters. all encoders are fast enough. encoding is done once. flac is fastest where it matters most (decoding). being below average in compression is not a big deal when all codecs are within a few % of each other. We must also remember that really fast decoding speeds are irrelevant, when restricted by I/O . I changed my reported values from global time to processing time as I was seeing major drop-offs in speed due to hardware restraints. Anything over 60x was being noticeably affected, and nothing could get much past 80x. All said and done, I agree with the majority that there is little between the major codecs. It should come down to feature set, compatibility, error tolerance, etc. TAK is still in its early stages, yet it is already proving to be a strong contender. WavPack is a superb, easy to use, all-round codec with a fantastic feature set. FLAC is robust, fast and proven, and it will take some change for it to be toppled from its current position.