21
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by Wombat -All i was able to produce with lto and clang produced slower binaries.
I guess some experienced users can do better with lto or pgo or even a combination of both.
Irony/sarcasm.Why should I worry?I don't know. Why do you ask the question? I don't think anyone said or implied that you should.
Can confirm that 0.6.8 with only RG+DR+POS enabled performs on the same level as 0.6.7 with RG+DR+POS+LRA.Because scanning with 0.6.8 seemed a lot slower than scanning with 0.6.7 and I was wondering if that was because of the extra LUFS-M/S scanningLUFS-M / LUFS-S scanning seems to be the reason. I use the libebur128 library for LRA scanning and also for LUFS-M/S. Seems that the extra work required to split the incoming data at precise 100 ms chunks to be fed to the library also hurts LRA scanning speed.
[...]
Does this make any sense to you?
13,749,585 '01 Riot (Feat. Damian Jr. Gong Marley).lossy.flac'
11,713,235 '01 Riot (Feat. Damian Jr. Gong Marley).lossy.b512.flac'
15,951,686 '02 Entertainment 2.0 (Feat. Juicy J, 2 Chainz & Nicki Minaj).lossy.flac'
13,103,138 '02 Entertainment 2.0 (Feat. Juicy J, 2 Chainz & Nicki Minaj).lossy.b512.flac'
Someone needs a simples dynamic range meter, with the ability to record a log file. + truepeak does not show rms and peak
Because scanning with 0.6.8 seemed a lot slower than scanning with 0.6.7 and I was wondering if that was because of the extra LUFS-M/S scanningLUFS-M / LUFS-S scanning seems to be the reason. I use the libebur128 library for LRA scanning and also for LUFS-M/S. Seems that the extra work required to split the incoming data at precise 100 ms chunks to be fed to the library also hurts LRA scanning speed.
[...]
Does this make any sense to you?