Glad to see that development of TAK goes further but unfortunately I'm rather disappointed with both v1.1.0 and v1.1.1
First of all, I don't completely understand the reason of removing -p5 preset. What is it ? Some kind of "Developer Paranoia" ? I'm seriously. Not the first time I see how the developers due unknown reasons "emasculate" some useful stuff from the tools they produce. Probably they think: "Oh, its too slow. Every new user will immediately use the maximum setting and will decide that tool is too slow".
Excuse me, but lossless compressors are always have been the part of advanced area, so you just anger the users by taking away the things which can help to squeez out the maximum from the given tool. Furthermore it's somehow breaks your own words given in "Missing Features" section of Readme.html: "Even more speed and better compression."
Anyway here are some brief tests I made. Three versions have been used: 1.0.4, 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 with two lossless albums, converted each one to one big WAV file. Timer v8.00 have been used for measuring and output is redirected to another HDD to keep minimal impact on IO system.
[font= "Courier New"]Chick Corea '2006 - The Ultimate Adventure (773 930 348)
--------------------------------------------------------
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl16384 -wm0 -sts3 290.972 504 605 505
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl16384 -wm0 -sts0 213.665 504 827 649
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl16384 -wm0 228.194 504 612 442
Squarepusher '2004 - Ultravisitor (844 452 716)
-----------------------------------------------
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl16384 -wm0 -sts3 289.281 471 284 005
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl16384 -wm0 -sts0 213.270 471 621 610
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl16384 -wm0 229.862 471 431 438
[/font][/size]
The results here are pretty expected. Averagely v1.1.1 -p4m is 7.3% slower than v1.1.0 -p4m but it's decreases the compression ratio gap showed by v1.1.0.
Now v1.1.1 maximum mode is 21.1% faster than v1.0.4 one and negligibly (0.016%) worse on compression ratio. Well, its OK. But look on the next tests with -fsl512
[font= "Courier New"]Chick Corea '2006 - The Ultimate Adventure
------------------------------------------
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl512 -wm0 -sts3 139.929 519 996 238
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl512 -wm0 -sts0 193.307 519 875 895 (110 packs better than 104)
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl512 -wm0 201.356 522 506 351 (111 packs much worse than 104)
Squarepusher '2004 - Ultravisitor
---------------------------------
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl512 -wm0 -sts3 152.894 492 159 222
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl512 -wm0 -sts0 211.687 491 492 454 (110 packs better than 104)
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl512 -wm0 223.147 494 896 627 (111 packs much worse than 104)
[/font][/size]
Results here are very unpleasant. With -fsl512 v1.1.1 not only 0.520% worse compresses but also 44.9% SLOWER !
Also you may notice that v1.1.0 somehow packs better than v1.0.4 although it shouldn't.
I suppose you know that -fsl512 is used for compressing the files processed with LossyWAV. By the way, results with LossyWAV processed files are even worse.
I used latest DEV version 1.1.3e at default -q 5 level.
[font= "Courier New"]Chick Corea '2006 - The Ultimate Adventure
------------------------------------------
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl512 -wm0 -sts3 138.360 253 372 934
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl512 -wm0 -sts0 190.513 253 408 503
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl512 -wm0 208.103 258 427 682
[/font][/size]
So, with LossyWAV processed files v1.1.1 is 50.4% slower and 1.994% worse on compression. Now let's see what will happens with another -fsl values.
Now I will use only one test file because they are both show quite similar behaviour.
[font= "Courier New"]Chick Corea '2006 - The Ultimate Adventure
------------------------------------------
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl1024 -wm0 -sts3 207.017 512 660 380
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl1024 -wm0 -sts0 197.920 512 648 369
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl1024 -wm0 209.851 512 915 726 (still worse)
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl2048 -wm0 -sts3 257.169 508 215 882
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl2048 -wm0 -sts0 203.414 508 167 598
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl2048 -wm0 219.218 508 407 219 (14.8% faster than 1.0.4)
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl4096 -wm0 -sts3 263.727 505 789 477
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl4096 -wm0 -sts0 191.189 505 777 818
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl4096 -wm0 206.334 505 679 778 (21.8% faster than 1.0.4)
takc104 -e -p5m -fsl8192 -wm0 -sts3 285.178 504 967 305
takc110 -e -p4m -fsl8192 -wm0 -sts0 208.951 504 801 487
takc111 -e -p4m -fsl8192 -wm0 222.858 504 767 462 (21.9% faster than 1.0.4)
[/font][/size]
Well, I suppose problem is in -fsl values of 512, 1024 and partially 2048, but who knows ?
Truly speaking it doesn't fit in my head how such simple things haven't been noticed by you after compilation.
Anfortunately I can't test all permutations of presets\evaluation levels\fsl values. First of all because presets map have been changed (and that's another reason against changes you made) and furthermore I just have no time.
Anyway if I were you, I would return to v1.0.4 compression algo but obliviously I'm not you
Hope that such brief tests will help to narrow your search but NO thanksgiving for v1.1.0 and v1.1.1 from me. Goodluck.