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: TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor (Read 34864 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Home page: http://tta.iszf.irk.ru/

TTA 2.0 vs. FLAC vs. MAC vs. WavPack: http://tta.iszf.irk.ru/comparisons.html

It's only a touch slower than WavPack, and it absolutely smashes any other lossless audio codec in terms of compression ratio. Anybody have experience with this codec? I'm *extremely* interested in converting my FLAC collection to TTA when v2.0 is completed...hopefully the gstreamer transcode-while-keeping-correct-tagging stuff will help me out

TTA is GPL btw.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #1 –
How does it do against OptimFrog?
地獄

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #2 –
Sounds interesting  Two small questions: How does it compare to the others in decoding speed? How portable is the code?

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #3 –
Sounds interesting.
Hmm, but what about tagging, foobar-support, etc. ...
The compression-ratio in comparison with encoding speed is amazing.
My future is lossless (I'm using flac already).
FLAC --> MP3 (Lame 3.96.1: V5 --athaa-sensitivity 1)

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #4 –
I don't know much about TTA, but a developer(s) have posted here before.

Hopefully he/she/they will drop in this thread

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #5 –
Quote
It's only a touch slower than WavPack, and it absolutely smashes any other lossless audio codec in terms of compression ratio.

Really?

I tested 3 files and Monkey's Audio beat it on all 3. I'd advise some more scepticism regarding claims on webpages.

Also, it has a very restrictive license.

The code looks quite simple, though, and it does beat FLAC (not in decoding speed though).

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #6 –
What is meant by
Quote
It's uses a low order filters and so this comparisons is not correctly at all, but shows the TTA filters quality.
It makes me raise my eyebrows 

edit: there is some explanation here

BTW: speek has added TTA the  his comparision table
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
 

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #8 –
Quote
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=13925&

That thread refers to TTA 1.5. This thread TTA 2.0.

I tested two random files - compression rate only:

FLAC normal > TTA2 high > Monkey high > Monkey extra high.

So I do not believe in the TTA2 comparison table.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #9 –
Any chance HansHeijden can add TTA 2 to his  comparison page?
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #10 –
Quote
BTW: speek has added TTA the  his comparision table

Hmmm, unimpressive. Slow decoding, average encoding and average compression. Doesn't seem to have any significant advantages over the other codecs.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #11 –
Haha! It's amazing how carefully chosen samples can lead to misleading results.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #12 –
Quote
Haha! It's amazing how carefully chosen samples can lead to misleading results.

Yes. I'ts specially selected CD's and I wrote at top of the comparisons page about this, but I wrote also that this comparisons is not correctly at all. About compression speed - it's a correctly comparisons. Please note, compressors code is not SSE optimized and it may shows a different results in compression speed while running on different processors. What all it means? Only that the TTA filters is faster and better ;-) Need a correct comparisons example for compression rate? OK. This disk is not specially selected and you can get it from any of CD markets:
"Evanescence - Fallen". For this comparisons I add 2 additional modes into the TTA encoder:

TTA 2.0 (-e1) - 302.1 Mb - max filters order 8
TTA 2.0 (-e2 default) - 299.5 Mb - max filters order 16
TTA 2.0 (-e3) - 298,5 Mb - max filters order 32
TTA 2.0A (-e4) - 297.3 Mb - max filters order 64
TTA 2.0A (-e5) - 296.2 Mb - max filters order 128

Monkey's A (fast) - 302,9 Mb - max filters order 16
Monkey's A (normal) - 297,9 Mb - max filters order 64
Monkey's A (high) - 295,9 Mb - max filters order 256

I put on ftp the TTA 2.0A version for only for possibility to replay this test.

ftp://tta.iszf.irk.ru/ttaenc-2.0A-20040114.zip

This version can be optimized for speed, but will never be released.

So, at now the main of our goals is not a reaching of a maximum compression rate. Our purpose now is the encoder algorithms optimization for easy hardware implementation.

Best regards,
-- TTA developer

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #13 –
Quote
Yes. I'ts specially selected CD's and I wrote at top of the comparisons page about this, but I wrote also that this comparisons is not correctly at all.

There is _nothing_ on your webpage suggesting the CDs are specifically picked to make your encoder look good. If anything, the 'not correct' comment will be understood as meaning that it's not fair to compare a simple filter with a more complex one, but then you have the data 'showing' that it's still doing better.

But that is not true at all!

If this wasn't intentional I would _strongly_ suggest to you to add a specific comment like 'these CDs were specifically selected because they give much better results for the TTA codec than could normally be expected'.

Quote
What all it means? Only that the TTA filters is faster and better ;-)


You have not demonstrated that at all, the data you published is simply not enough to support it, let alone that it could be considered reliable given what I've seen so far.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #15 –
Quote
Now if you go to the details, it's always best !

I think you misread it - the details aren't ordered.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #17 –
Quote
There is _nothing_ on your webpage suggesting the CDs are specifically picked to make your encoder look good. If this wasn't intentional I would _strongly_ suggest to you to add a specific comment like 'these CDs were specifically selected because they give much better results for the TTA codec than could normally be expected'.

Please look at this:

"The following 4 CDs are used to show the TTA compressor efficiency"

Sorry for my badly english if it's not correctly, but yours variant is not correctly also. '.. give much better results for the TTA codec than could normally be expected'. It's not true, because it depends from CD's you have. Some of our users wrote to me, that they got a same results. In my collection the count of such CD's is approx. 10-15%. But the all of my CD's TTA compress better than WavPack and FLAC. The compression speed results are stable at all of my CD's.

Anyway I has corrected this comment: 'Unlike of the advanced audio compressors such as Monkey's Audio - TTA uses a low order filters and this comparisons is not correctly at all, but shows the quality of TTA filters. The following 4 CDs were specifically selected to show the TTA compressor efficiency'.

At now I trying to found from a popular CD's the examples on which TTA shows a poorly results. I will add a 4 of such CD's to my comparisons also.

About a previous questions:

TTA supports ID3v1/v2 tags. It's free (GPL) and portable.

Winamp 2 and Apollo plugins are included in TTA 2.0 distribution package.
Foobar2000 plugin and Windows frontend are coming soon.
Plugins for other popular software are planned.

Sincerely,
-- Alexander

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #18 –
Quote
It's free (GPL) and portable.

Have you considered making it, or at least the part needed for decoding, LGPL or BSD? That would make it easier to make decoders.

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #19 –
How about making a DirectShow filter to encode/decode for it ? (don't go for ACM it's not well suited for VBR content)

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #20 –
Quote
Have you considered making it, or at least the part needed for decoding, LGPL or BSD? That would make it easier to make decoders.

Yes, it's possible. TTA is not a commercial project, just my toy. The full TTA library (LGPL) will be apears at the project site in a next few days.

P/S TTA plugin for Foobar already working and I think that I can to place this plugin on ftp://tta.iszf.irk.ru at sunday. Today I has uploaded into this ftp a Linux and FreeBSD4.6 TTA2.0 compiles.

-- Alexander

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #21 –
Quote
How about making a DirectShow filter to encode/decode for it ?

It's planned and we thinking about it.

-- Alexander

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #22 –
Quote
Quote
How about making a DirectShow filter to encode/decode for it ?

It's planned and we thinking about it. -- Alexander

Alexander, have a look at http://corecodec.org/projects/coreflac , the DirectShow based encoder and decoder filters that jcsston from the matroska team has done some time ago .... shouldnt be too hard to adapt them for your use i guess  .....

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #23 –
Quote
Any chance HansHeijden can add TTA 2 to his  comparison page?

Done!
Seems the Winamp plugin can't seek album-sized files?

Hans

TTA: The free lossless True Audio compressor

Reply #24 –
Quote
Seems the Winamp plugin can't seek album-sized files?

Sorry,

We forgot to test our plugins with album-sized files and I think the most of our users have no such files, because I still don't know about this problem.

If it's a bug in plugin - it will be fixed quickly.

-- Alexander