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: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages? (Read 1676 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Most codecs' individual wiki pages are quite a bit outdated, often to the point of being misleading. 

Either one could make an effort to bring them up-to-date (... well how much is happening to them?) or I possibly: slim down some of them to the more permanent information (like author, when it was developed, some key features that are unlikely to be removed or change) and codec-specific usage guidance - and then a general "for more information, see the lossless comparison". 
Maybe make sure that every article has early on the line about what "lossless" is, plus then something about hybrid.  (The FLAC article explains this ... is that good and needed, or should it be relegated the
Likely make the info boxes up-right more uniform.

And that goes for some of the better maintained too, like Monkey's.


Examples:
ALAC: good news, it was reverse-engineered in 2005.
LPAC: Author is recently working on MPEG-4 ALS, which as of April 2005 ...
RK Audio: "some years ago", "recently", ...
Shorten: "years ago" ... yeah, it's been years.
TAK: Page looks updated, but no mention of 2.3.1.
OptimFROG: Links to a 2005 lossless comparison, and calls its 2001 features "new".
TTA: Mixed bag isn't it?  But the encryption feature that the author has touted, isn't even mentioned.
WavPack: no mention of releases after 5.1.0
WMAL: "It's a welcome addition since it was the first lossless codec backed up by a major player in the multimedia compression field." 
(This is an article on all the WMA formats, and with obsolete information on the non-"L" WMAs too.)


And also:
According to https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless , both LPAC and RK Audio are "popular".
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #1
Maybe make sure that every article has early on the line about what "lossless" is
For this point I'd suggest simply linkifying the term lossless to allow the reader to visit the Lossless wiki entry. Which thankfully all the popular lossless codecs entries already have, with the exception of TAK, that I've since added. A minor point maybe, but no reason to duplicate the same info multiple times on multiple pages.

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #2
Update as opposed to dumbed down page to more static info.
WavPack 5.4.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac64 2.72 -V 100

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #3
Update as opposed to dumbed down page to more static info.
Issue is that nobody bothers to keep them updated in their individual pages. I'd guess users care more the lossless comparison page; that goes both for users who will update, and users who want to learn.
That's not dumbing down, it is redirecting to where the info is.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #4
So ... the only thing changed in six weeks, is that the WMAL article is augmented with some well-deserved knocking over not even being supported by all Win10 versions.
Yes I could have fixed a lot myself, but my point was that nobody really bothers to maintain these pages, and I think that point got fairly well across now.

So what to do? Agree on one format for maintained codecs and one for legacy? Or just pretend the wiki will be maintained?

Also, these are too dumb:
https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Lossless_audio_codecs
https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Audio_codecs
https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Lossless
https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Codecs (uh ... two video codecs, Snow and Tarkin ...)
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #5
So what to do? Agree on one format for maintained codecs and one for legacy? Or just pretend the wiki will be maintained?
Perhaps rename Lossless comparison to lossless audio codecs, point all pages on separate codecs to that page and move any (still relevant) information on those codec pages to the lossless audio codec page?
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #6
So what to do? Agree on one format for maintained codecs and one for legacy? Or just pretend the wiki will be maintained?
Perhaps rename Lossless comparison to lossless audio codecs, point all pages on separate codecs to that page and move any (still relevant) information on those codec pages to the lossless audio codec page?

Looking at it: Some of the codec-specific pages (e.g. Monkey's) have user guides. If those are reasonably up to date, then they could very well be kept, and that doesn't fit well into a general catch-all-codecs page.

Question: Does the wiki have
* Template documents?
* Any other provision for a draft, than posting a new version (possibly immediately reverting the change, but that gives a perma-URL to post)?
* Any provision to replace a page by a redirect?

I've been reluctant to just change "format" without any discussion, but I could on occasion start in one corner of it and post for comments.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #7
I've been reluctant to just change "format" without any discussion, but I could on occasion start in one corner of it and post for comments.

Starting at the least controversial - nobody will yell at me for calling LPAC "legacy" (that is the polite/neutral/wiki-esque phrase for obsolete/historical, right?) Look at
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_Predictive_Audio_Compression
* It's lossless
* It's a legacy format
* It was created by ... and used for ... and had certain features that made it noteworthy.

That's probably enough for the reader?
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #8
Sounds good.

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #9
Quote
Question: Does the wiki have
* Template documents?
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=&namespace=10

Quote
Starting at the least controversial - nobody will yell at me for calling LPAC "legacy"
The "Infobox file format" template could be used here
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_file_format

I took the liberty of adding the "Navbox audio codecs" template
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Template:Navbox_audio_codecs

Quote
Question: Does the wiki have
* Any other provision for a draft, than posting a new version (possibly immediately reverting the change, but that gives a perma-URL to post)?
I use a sub-page of my user page for drafting.
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=User:Korth/EAC_Compression_Options
 
Quote
Question: Does the wiki have
* Any provision to replace a page by a redirect?
#REDIRECT [[name of the target page]] or #REDIRECT [[Namespace:name of the target page]]
korth

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #10
Edit: Anyone, did I get the shorten-in-ffmpeg thing right? It was a genuine bug, and one should not use any ffmpeg older than the fix to decode Shorten?


I took the liberty of adding the "Navbox audio codecs" template
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Template:Navbox_audio_codecs
I took the liberty of changing that one, as I found out by way of (Really)RareWares that LTAC is a predecessor of LPAC. Also I fixed abbreviations.

Some fixes for the legacy formats (except RealAudio, which surprisingly has no wiki entry even for the pesky old lossy format):
LPAC now also with LTAC: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_Predictive_Audio_Compression
RKAU: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=RK_Audio
La (that is kinda "borderline" obsolete, its high compression means it might still be included in comparisons): https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_Audio
Shorten: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Shorten
WMA(L): Only included the navbox at the end.


Quote
I use a sub-page of my user page for drafting.
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=User:Korth/EAC_Compression_Options
Seems that ordinary users don't have privileges for that.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #11
New year, new "on to this!" (I)
( ... I realize that could be quite futile, does anyone read the knowledgebase anymore? There isn't even an ffmpeg entry ... Anyway.)

* Infoboxes: There are more of them, https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Category:Infobox_templates
@korth  proposed one of them, but I see other codecs use ... oof.

* So there was an LPAC entry but no MPEG-4 ALS. I frankly think that is pretty much a dead format too. I made this:
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=MPEG-4_ALS
Basically, I think the first a casual reader ("casual" by HA standards or not) needs to read, is that
. it is a lossless thing
. is there a reason to use it? (And I politely indicated a "no" there).
Then I subsumed LPAC/LTAC into that article.

I took the liberty of adding the "Navbox audio codecs" template
https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Template:Navbox_audio_codecs
I took the liberty of changing that one, as I found out by way of (Really)RareWares that LTAC is a predecessor of LPAC. Also I fixed abbreviations.
So then I suggest redirecting LPAC to MPEG-4 ALS instead?
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #12
New year, new "on to this!" (II): TAK updatehttps://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=TAK .

Posted in part as a possible format for an alive and maintained lossless codec, but actually mainly because it was so hopelessly outdated
* Again, I guess user will want to first read that it is lossless, and then a what-the-hell-is-the-point-with-using-it? So I put that up-front. I don't use TAK myself, but I'm damn impressed over its performance, so I guess that is what would be the selling point of the format. Compare the before-headings of MPEG-4 ALS to TAK.

* While I think "pros" and "cons" might be fine for the comparison argument, I stuck to "features" and "limitations" once the performance is up before the headings.  I mean, if are only here for CDDA, then the absence of floating-point isn't much of a "con".

* Is it a good idea to have parameters and command-line stuff before "how do I use it to play?" Or should they be interchanged?

Then something TAK-specific:
* TAK supports RIFF chunks; can it, like WavPack, restore a .wav file bit-identical to the original file (I mean, not only lossless audio, but the file)? @TBeck , once you are around here ... ? (And sure, please reply if someone got something wrong, and I left a bit that could be obsolete as well.)
* Also, it seems that TAK supports embedded cuesheets by now? It was on the to-do list in the previous entry but it seems to work?
* TAK in CUETools ... I got a damn error thrown at me, so I am likely doing something stupid. @korth, can you ... ?
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #13
* Also, it seems that TAK supports embedded cuesheets by now? It was on the to-do list in the previous entry but it seems to work?

Don't know about other players, only about foobar2000: IIUC a format should only support reading and writing the CUESHEET tag. Everything else is handled by foobar2000 decoder and foobar2000 core.

* TAK in CUETools ... I got a damn error thrown at me, so I am likely doing something stupid. @korth, can you ... ?

What error? Also remember that TAK doesn't support Unicode, and the file path (not just filename) should contain only ANSI characters.

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #14
and the file path (not just filename)
Nailed it, thanks.

So the point about cuesheets in fb2k is that as long as the tagging scheme is pretty much free to format (Vorbis and APE tags are), then fb2k/CUETools can freely write a <CUESHEET> tag and track-specific <CUE_TRACK01_ACCURATERIPCRC> etc - that nothing else supports?

(Seems that neither VLC nor SMPlayer can read any TAK metadata whatsoever ...)
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #15
* Infoboxes: There are more of them, https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Category:Infobox_templates
@korth  proposed one of them, but I see other codecs use ... oof.

My suggestion was based on changes to ALAC and TTA by @beardgoggles (contributions)
(formerly C3POwen)
korth

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #16
Oh eff, the navbox https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Template:Navbox_audio_codecs , click "LPCM"

That LPCM article is quite ... bullshit, eh? While I am certainly sympathetic to a format that can be decoded royalty-free (well then you can't play a DVD ...), it gets wrong what "linear" PCM is. Sure that was common everyday speak in the restricted lingo of DVD, just as most everyday-spoken "PCM" does not include (A)DPCM, but ... that article should be deleted.

Which leaves one "uncompressed" codec left in the navbox. And then I think one could just
* put "(Uncompressed) PCM" as the first "lossless" (or last?)
* remove the distinction between compressed and uncompressed. (Let's not confuse with any lossy uncompressed LossyWav ...)
* Hybrid should be explained. Actually, all the three "lossless", "lossy" and "hybrid" could link to something.
* Make a short and better "PCM" article that refers to Wikipedia and links to the WAVE, AIFF and lossless wiki entries. Lossless codecs work on PCM ("nearly only" yes I know ...)
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Update (slim down?) lossless codecs' wiki pages?

Reply #17
Some long-overdue updates done.
And one I made as a draft (on purpose to revert it immediately), as I think it should be discussed.

WavPack. Permalink: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=WavPack&oldid=35446

Wonder if this is a "Looked like a good idea at the time", I am not convinced it was successful for a "live and happy" codec. My idea was that the curious user should get from the preamble
* yes this is a lossless codec
* is it alive and can be used for something?
* on the map, is it punk or is it doom metal fast or heavy-compressing?  ;)
and then at the beginning of "Features" should get "why use this" rather than rattling off something better suited for a table (that's what the lossless comparison is for I'd say).

I started out something like that for less-job-to-do codec pages as lab rats, but then it is too easy to tell an end-user at a glance "nothing to see here, move on". I still think I improved https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=OptimFROG (edit: eff, there is a reference bug ... the link is there though).
But WavPack with all that is to say about it? Not sure.

Also, I am not sure if the WavPack software list is ... of any help. Even though I added a couple (Picard ...), I still  wonder if it should have been just a link. I made a Wikipedia link out of history and that technical description on why work in integer domain.


WavPack subforum regulars @shadowking @DARcode @includemeout  @anyoneelse  ... what do you think? (Should I have posted it over there, rather?)

If - and that's an "if"! - this was an improvement format-wise, then someone should check my factual claims too. (Yes it does support >192 kHz! But, is iOS playback as simple as indicated by fb2k in appstore?)
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar