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: TAK 2.3.1 (Read 4138 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: TAK 2.3.1

Reply #25
Oh, and the 88.2/24 Anal Trump actually compressed worse with 2.3.1.
Available for free here: https://analtrump.bandcamp.com/album/that-makes-me-smart
Strange! How big is the difference? I would have checked it myself but i seem to be too dumb to downlad it for free...

Click "Buy Digital Album  name your price" and enter "0" as price ;-)

The worst is -p4m:
51 064 065 bytes with 2.3.0
51 083 360 bytes with 2.3.1

It still isn't that bad, 1 kbit/s on average?! Largest bitrate difference: 2181 vs 2189 for track 10.  But there is also a track with an improvement of 3.


And now I see that there are some strange (but small!) results:
-p4e, this improves:
50 983 669 bytes with 2.3.0
50 979 810 bytes with 2.3.1.

-p3e
51 150 393 bytes with 2.3.0
51 150 669 bytes with 2.3.1

-p3:
50 965 890 bytes with 2.3.0
50 967 229 bytes with 2.3.1

and at the low end:
-p0m
64 403 789 bytes with 2.3.0
64 326 035 bytes with 2.3.1

-p0
64 723 721 bytes with 2.3.0
64 723 693 bytes with 2.3.1
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: TAK 2.3.1

Reply #26
Code: [Select]
2.3.0 Enc  131.72s / 98.09x  (52.56%)
2.3.1 Enc  74.01s / 174.39x  (52.56%)
The encoding speed improvement nearly is to good to be true! Are you now using more cores (maybe 6 vs. 4)?

Click "Buy Digital Album  name your price" and enter "0" as price ;-)
Well, i thougt so, but somehow had scruples... At first. ;)

These are some really interesting files. I agree, that the difference is not very significant, but i really want to understand, why this happens. It might be caused by the loss of arithmetic accuracy because ot the switch from FPU to SSE2-floating point caclculations (80 vs. 64 bits), but i am not sure. Maybe it's a random effect, maybe it's something systematic, which bears an opportunity for a tiny optimization.  I will dig into it, but this may take some time. I really want to release 2.3.2 soon. Hopefully in a couple of weeks.

Re: TAK 2.3.1

Reply #27
The encoding speed improvement nearly is to good to be true! Are you now using more cores (maybe 6 vs. 4)?
oh well, jupp, I squeezed all out of it - as possible. sorry for missing noting this detail.
2.3.0 -p4m -tn4 -cpuSSSE3
2.3.1 -p4m -tn6 -cpuSSSE3

while 2.3.1-tn6 used 6cores with ~98% total CPU-Load, 2.3.0-tn4 used 6cores with ~82%-85% total CPU-Load.
Might be some sort of internal balancing of this CPU, even though you told 2.3.0 could only address 4 cores.

  • Test-Set 48 tracks (Classic+ModernTalking+PhilCollins)
  • AMD PhenomII X4 960T BlackEdition, 3.0 GHz, 6 threads (anno 2011), Win7 64bit, RamDisk
Code: [Select]
Enc always with -p4m -t4n
2.3.0 Enc  132.16s / 97.77x  (52.56%)
2.3.1 Enc  92.25s / 140.06x  (52.56%)

2.3.0 Dec  33.87s / 381.50x
2.3.1 Dec  28.86s / 447.70x

Re: TAK 2.3.1

Reply #28
Great to hear that TAK 2.3.1 is finally released  :). The new 8 threads setting really speeds up the encoding process.

But I have a question: What is the easiest/best way to update existing TAK files to newer versions of the codec? FLAC allows FLAC files as input, but TAK requires WAV as input. There is support for pipe encoding, but it seems that this is only useful for applications that support it (like Foobar200, but some don't recommend it for reencoding). Is there a way to reencode the files using a batch file or is something like Foobar2000 or Xrecode III the better way?

Re: TAK 2.3.1

Reply #29
Foobar200, but some don't recommend it for reencoding
Who are those "some" and why they don't recommend foobar2000 for reencoding?
Many people here can confirm that using foobar2000 for re-encoding is safe. Just be sure not to enable DSP, Additional decoding and ReplayGain in Converter settings. And you can use Binary Comparator ( https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_bitcompare ) after conversion to compare resulted files with sources.

Re: TAK 2.3.1

Reply #30
Who are those "some" and why they don't recommend foobar2000 for reencoding?
Many people here can confirm that using foobar2000 for re-encoding is safe.

I searched and found one post I remembered again on Hydrogenaudio:

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=106974.msg879004#msg879004

To be more precise: There is no technical problem with Foobar2000 and reencoding, but Foobar2000 can't replace/update existing files, it always creates new one which creates extra work afterwards.

The "easiest" solution seems to add some characters to the new file name. When the encoding is done, you have to delete all files without the the extra characters and remove these characters from the new files:

I have a conversion preset set up in Foobar, it converts to Leve 8 and adds "~~" to the beginning of every file name. Once conversion is done, delete every file that doesn't have the prefix and use something like MP3tag to remove it from the new files.
I also like to bit-compare the new files before deleting the old ones, i might just be paranoid though.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=106974.msg878938#msg878938

You can still use the source folder option, but rename the output file to include something that differentiates it from the original. Of course, you'll need to have space available for the converted tracks plus the original until you delete the originals.

What I would do, use source folder, and and then use %filename%-16 for the output filenames, this will allow you to convert, then you can easily filter out all the tracks that don't have "-16" in the filename and remove them.

Depending on how much space you have available, you can convert an album or group of tracks at a time.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=98750.msg854514#msg854514

There also seems to be foo_run, but there doesn't seem to be much documentation:

You can't replace the source files with converter. The term "converter" may be a bit misleading as it doesn't convert the originals. It allows encoding a new copy.
If you absolutely must replace files in place it can be performed with foo_run.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=117340.msg968867#msg968867

I think I will probably use the extra character solution.



Just be sure not to enable DSP, Additional decoding and ReplayGain in Converter settings. And you can use Binary Comparator ( https://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_bitcompare ) after conversion to compare resulted files with sources.

Thanks, I'm already using Binary Comparator, it's a really useful plugin  ;).

 

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021