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: Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15) (Read 19160 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #26 –
To throw a bit of a wrench into the WMAL results, according to this MSDN article, it would appear that the performance/efficiency ratio for WMAL encoder changed between Vista and Win7. Did anyone try testing with both versions to see the difference?

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #27 –
Quote from: CitizenInsomniac on
Did anyone try testing with both versions to see the difference?

Yes, indeed. I've had some unpublished results from a Windows XP system which I planned to use for the third revision of this lossless codec comparison (I switched to a Windows 7 system shortly after), but I noticed that WMAL was indeed much more competitive (but quite slow in decoding) in earlier Windows versions.

Here is one album tested with that Windows XP device


As you can see, WMAL was in a very different spot comparing to where it is in my recent results.

I've written about this earlier: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=837436
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #28 –
Quote from: ktf on
Yes, indeed. I've had some unpublished results from a Windows XP system which I planned to use for the third revision of this lossless codec comparison (I switched to a Windows 7 system shortly after), but I noticed that WMAL was indeed much more competitive (but quite slow in decoding) in earlier Windows versions.
 

  Thanks for the report! I started a discussion with lvqcl about potentially changing the default complexity value for WMAL in wmaencode.exe, as I'm guessing most people on HA would prefer higher compression ratios over faster encoding times.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=887951




 

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #29 –
Quote from: CitizenInsomniac on
Thanks for the report! I started a discussion with lvqcl about potentially changing the default complexity value for WMAL in wmaencode.exe, as I'm guessing most people on HA would prefer higher compression ratios over faster encoding times.

To be honest i doubt the typical HA member will use WMAL at all. No matter how it compresses.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Wombat on
Quote from: CitizenInsomniac on
Thanks for the report! I started a discussion with lvqcl about potentially changing the default complexity value for WMAL in wmaencode.exe, as I'm guessing most people on HA would prefer higher compression ratios over faster encoding times.

To be honest i doubt the typical HA member will use WMAL at all. No matter how it compresses.


Sure, but for a comparison like this ...

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #31 –
Quote from: ktf on
but I noticed that WMAL was indeed much more competitive (but quite slow in decoding) in earlier Windows versions.

From my old tests (about 5 yesrs ago) on WinXP: WMAL compression was somewhere between Monkey's Audio fast and normal, en/decoding speed is slower than Monkey's Audio high.

Just as in your graphs.