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.
Recent Posts
11
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)
Last post by Hakan Abbas -
I have never considered the idea of compressing according to the content by giving the right to play with block sizes. Because I always try to do things that are as adaptive as possible and find a middle way according to the context. Otherwise, it would be good to get dozens of different results with a few parameters that will be presented for testing and use the best one. But normal users are not interested in this in normal life. And it is also a time-consuming process. It is very variable according to the situation. Of course, for LossyWav, this may be necessary by nature.

Below is the case where I just halved the block size for mine(HALAC) (from 4096 to 2048). There is an improvement in the results. As I said, in this form, no action is even being taken yet. And unnecessarily fast. The blocks size can be reduced even further, but the amount of data required for entropy encoding is decreasing. This also has a negative effect on compression. It will be more efficient if we group the blocks and put them into coding. And it will also be much more accurate to process as 8 + 8 bits. The only problem for me right now is the processing speed of LossyWav.

Sean Paul (Block Size: 4k -> 2k)
Code: [Select]
01 - Riot : 15,802,208 -> 15,555,518
02 - Entertainment : 18,723,000 -> 18,365,454
03 - Want Dem All : 15,340,527 -> 15,120,997
04 - Hey Baby : 14,494,502 -> 14,403,168
12
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: Lossless music stores (files!) not offering FLAC, but other lossless compressed?
Last post by Porcus -
Several vendors support some lossless option that isn't FLAC - either alongside FLAC or with no compressed lossless alternative. That wasn't the question, "it is well known" that there are such offers around.
I see ktf did some research on the actual question.

Honestly, I didn't intend this topic to be read as "this is a bad thing". Actually I am pleased to see that a free and open format has become dominant. I wonder what could have been if a couple of big players had been more successful - one thing is inferior formats, but then it is the scenario that control over the delivery format could make DRM-infestation much easier. Reminder that we still got a bit of intentional crippling in the market (looking at you, scamQA), we could easily have gotten worse.

Sure there are codecs with a multichannel support that FLAC doesn't offer in its own file format, and when 7.1.4 channel 352/24 in WAVE is a full CD-ROM per minute (isn't that closing in on Netflix' HD video?) there could be some savings up for grabs. Technically not too hard to implement, when there are both codecs and containers around.
But with lossless compression having become close-to-synonymous with FLAC except to the apple crowd who might think that "audio" is synonymous to "mp3 or m4a or wav or aif", I have a hunch that a vendor who tried to deliver high-channel files as WavPack would probably regret it after a few days of overworked customer support - even when a self-extracting format was available, just click it then! (Yes SFX was discontinued with WavPack 5, I don't know if anyone has really come to miss it.)
14
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by Wombat -
I tried some AVX2 versions on my 5900x and metaflacs replaygain is clearly faster with GCC, 16bit and option disabled asm is clearly faster with GCC and 16bit/24bit combined is both faster with the default AVX2 clang.
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.
19
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)
Last post by Porcus -
Block size 512 can be set with

flac -b 512
wavpack --blocksize=512
Takc.exe -fsl512

Not much use trying ALAC as it doesn't support wasted bits, but if you want to experiment with block size: CUETools.ALACEnc.exe -b 512 (remember the whitespace). Also Monkey's doesn't support wasted bits.
20
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Defender -
Quote from: Case on
Quote from: Defender on
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 scanning
[...]
Does this make any sense to you?
LUFS-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.
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.

Is your routine for calculating LUFS-S/M pretty much optimized already or do you expect to be able to implement some speedgains in the feature?

And second question: Would it be possible to use in 0.6.8+ the LRA method that was in use in 0.6.7 when scanning LUFS-S/M is not enabled?