My new parameter:/c ""C:\Program Files (x86)\foobar2000\encoders\CUETools.FLACCL.cmd.exe" -8 --verify %s -o %d && "C:\Program Files (x86)\foobar2000\encoders\metaflac.exe" --set-tag="Album=%g" --set-tag="Artist=%a" --set-tag="Title=%t" --set-tag="Tracknumber=%n" --set-tag="Date=%y" --set-tag="Genre=%m" --set-tag="Comment=FLACCL 2.1.5 -8" %d"
Is it just me or is FLACCL slower in real use than FLAC?
As far as i remember FLACCL has different level scale in comparison with FLAC.FLACCL -6 is comparable to FLAC -8 in terms of compression ratio.FLACCL -8 is equivalent to something like FLAC -8 -p -e
The recent official flac versions compress similar to flacCL at -8. CUEtools flake -8 is similar to flac -8 -ep at a usable speed. The last flake compression optimization didn't make it into flacCL.
It's not encoding speed that's an issue (encoding itself is 5x faster than FLAC: ~600x vs ~120x), it's initialization time.
Quote from: Wombat on 07 January, 2017, 08:14:24 PMThe recent official flac versions compress similar to flacCL at -8. CUEtools flake -8 is similar to flac -8 -ep at a usable speed. The last flake compression optimization didn't make it into flacCL.
It should be saving compiled OpenCL binary blobs to:%localappdata%\CUE Tools\OpenCLMake sure the process has write permission to that path, and that there's nothing there conflicting with it.E: I just checked. It does take almost a full second to initialize on an RX 480, even with the .cl file pre-compiled. Which nullifies the advantage of encoding a 2 minute track in 200ms if the software encoder can produce the same results in less time than the 200ms plus the combined startup time of the FLACCL encoder.