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.

Poll

Do you use TAK as (one of) your primary codec(s)?

Yes
[ 46 ] (21.6%)
No
[ 160 ] (75.1%)
What's TAK?
[ 7 ] (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 246

Topic: TAK Poll (Read 20894 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TAK Poll

I am curious. Perhaps this poll will be of some help to TBeck, as well.

TAK Poll

Reply #1 –
If you choose Yes, then the poll errors as there is not a reason you don't use TAK.

TAK Poll

Reply #2 –
Thanks for the heads up. I changed the last option to a null vote to get around this.

TAK Poll

Reply #3 –
I voted "no" and should probably say why: It's actually a mixture of different reasons. I don't care too much about lossless formats. I do have a couple flacs lying around, though. But I see no reason in using something that gives marginally better results, has less support and is closed source. Note: I'm not even asking for TAK to go open source. I couldn't care less. Oh, and I don't use Windows at home. So, I could have just selected a couple more checkboxes I guess....

TAK Poll

Reply #4 –
No; reason: I don't use lossless because transparent MP3s are enough for me/my ears.

TAK Poll

Reply #5 –
I voted "No", because i'm still really happy with WavPack.

TAK Poll

Reply #6 –
Seems like a loaded poll. Where is the option to answer "Yes" and why a person uses it. Maybe it's easier to be negative 

I think I'd rather acknowledge Thomas' work, it's been almost exactly 4 years since the first post about sharing his work with the public 
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

TAK Poll

Reply #7 –
No. reason: my stationary player only supports flac. While I am perfectly comfortable with lossy for portable use I enjoy not having to worry about artifacts while sitting in front of the stereo.

If some technology transfer from TAK to flac, increasing speed and compression, was possible without braking compatibility, this end user would welcome it. However the relevance of these issues is decreasing rapidly with time.

TAK Poll

Reply #8 –
I do, and please add one to the 'yes' answer... according to the forum engine I did not choose. In fact I did.

TAK Poll

Reply #9 –
I voted no. Mostly because it's closed source and doesn't have widespread support, especially in hardware. If TAK and FLAC were to switch places (including TAK being open source), I'd use it in a heartbeat. But for now, FLAC is good enough. Especially when I don't store most of my music in lossless anyway.

TAK Poll

Reply #10 –
I don't use TAK.

Reasons:

I don't use Windows.
I prefer free (libre) software.

Other reasons:

I'm very satisfied with FLAC.  It's fast enough that even if TAK has quite large relative speed advantage it's not that much of a practical advantage to me.  For example when I rip a CD and encode to FLAC the encoding is completed within a few seconds of the total rip being completed.  Even if TAK is massively faster the difference to me would be perhaps a second or two.  I wouldn't even notice.

There is far more to free software than the terms of the license.  Projects that depend entirely on a single developer are prone to stall or even cease entirely.  All it takes is loss of interest, lack of time, illness etc and the project is finished.  This happens both with free and non-free projects but with a free software project there is always the possibility of a community finding the project valuable enough that they pick it up and continue it.  There are thousands of defunct, no longer maintained projects out there and the fact they are dead isn't necessarily any indication of their merit.  There is also a well populated graveyard of formats (and codecs), and millions/billions of files stored on tape, floppy, zip and disk which can only be read with difficulty or not at all.  A format that doesn't offer the expectation of unimpeded and continuing development and compatibility with different architectures and operating systems isn't a good candidate for archiving data, regardless of technical excellence.

TAK Poll

Reply #11 –
Lossless encoding is not important to me. Anything I care about that much I just store in WAV format.

TAK Poll

Reply #13 –
Quote from: tedgo on
I voted "No", because i'm still really happy with WavPack.

Same here, but if TAK becomes open source, I might consider the change (compression ratio is important to me).
Opus 96 kb/s (Android) / Vorbis -q5 (PC) / WavPack -hhx6m (Archive)

TAK Poll

Reply #14 –
I used to use TAK, but I am currently in the process of converting all my TAKs (and other lossless formats) to FLAC, as I will eventually be moving to a Linux dual-boot solution and want full compatibility.

TAK Poll

Reply #15 –
I chose "No". I am happy with Linux and don't plan going back to Windows ever again.
It's a shame though, I really like TAK. I may switch to TAK if it is ported to Linux.
I don't mind if it remains closed-source as long as there is good support like frequent releases & bug fixes, inside Linux.
(an example of that is ATI's Catalyst, although Catalyst for Linux is a problematic binary driver...)

But the only way TAK could spread like a real contamination and surpass FLAC/WavPack would be open-sourcing it right now, and of course, having a stable Rockbox/SansaFuze/WhatHaveYou firmware support!

TAK Poll

Reply #16 –
My player of choice is XMPlay. It does play TAK with the WinAmp plugin but it is a bit funky in functionality (For example the bitrate displayed rapidly changes as the file is being played.).

After my test I decided that WavPack is a good enough performer that it is not worth re-encoding my collection.

I also weigh in how actively the codec is being changed. WavPack has changed very little in the past months, or even years possibly, so I consider it "stable". TAK is still actively in development and the codec receives changes on each new version that affect compression and speed. I don't have the patience to "update" my collection from time to time so I like to use the codec that can give me peace of mind that I am getting the most out of it relative to my needs.

TAK Poll

Reply #17 –
The idea that you need to re-encode because of improvements in speed is just plain silly.  The idea that you're not happy that TAK is improving compression when it is already superior to that of WavPack (with which you appear to be happy) seems nonsensical.  Sorry but this idea of "stability" just doesn't fly.

Quote
I have never seen a single performance metric where TAK doesn't beat WavPack.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=632799

TAK Poll

Reply #18 –
"The idea that you need to re-encode" is not my idea. And neither did I say I was unhappy that TAK is being improved. The very reason I checked it out to begin with was because of its amazing speed/compression ratio which seems unmatched among all the lossless codecs. You are however right that this is a silly reason, simply my mind is very anal and I'd feel unhappy knowing that my TAKs could be faster/smaller if I re-encoded them with the newest build.

That is a very trivial reason though. Main reasons are player and the small difference over WV versus the time it would take to re-encode everything.

TAK Poll

Reply #19 –
I seriously doubt that WavPack no longer has any room for improvement.

Those who choose to re-encode simply because a new version of a codec are not showing good stewardship towards this planet.

TAK Poll

Reply #20 –
Using FLAC since 2001 and never found any reason to change.

TAK Poll

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Takla on
There is far more to free software than the terms of the license.  Projects that depend entirely on a single developer are prone to stall or even cease entirely.  All it takes is loss of interest, lack of time, illness etc and the project is finished.  This happens both with free and non-free projects but with a free software project there is always the possibility of a community finding the project valuable enough that they pick it up and continue it.  There are thousands of defunct, no longer maintained projects out there and the fact they are dead isn't necessarily any indication of their merit.  There is also a well populated graveyard of formats (and codecs), and millions/billions of files stored on tape, floppy, zip and disk which can only be read with difficulty or not at all.  A format that doesn't offer the expectation of unimpeded and continuing development and compatibility with different architectures and operating systems isn't a good candidate for archiving data, regardless of technical excellence.


+1. Couldn't have said it better myself.
XLD // ALAC // OGG VORBIS

TAK Poll

Reply #22 –
As much as +1 posts are useless and as a result generally unwanted here, I'll gladly answer:

Let's pretend Thomas forever turned his back on TAK.  Does this mean that all of a sudden I won't be able to decode my files?

Now let's pretend that several years pass and not one single new operating system supports TAK.  Does this mean that I won't be able to run one of the older ones that does in order to transcode to a different format?

The answer to both of these questions is of course not!

EDIT:
To the OP:
What is the point of this poll other than to solicit people to bash TAK?  Thomas has already stated how he feels about releasing the source code and there are already threads open for people to give their input for improvement.  I don't see this poll/discussion as being particularly useful or constructive.  If it's any consolation, while I'm not an open-source fanboy zealot (I am anti-fanboy and anti-zealot, in fact; I am not anti-open-source), I don't use TAK.

TAK Poll

Reply #23 –
I need to be sure I can play my files. Support and openness is more important than squeezing the extra bits of performance that makes TAK a pretty impressive achievement.

Should TAK ever reach the same status as FLAC I might consider it. Even if at that time, if it ever occurs, then Moore's law will probably have overtaken both the  speed and storage improvements.

TAK Poll

Reply #24 –
Quote from: greynol on
Now let's pretend that several years pass and not one single new operating system supports TAK.  Does this mean that I won't be able to run one of the older ones that does in order to transcode to a different format?

The answer to both of these questions is of course not!


Right. Who would have thought that they would be unable to read their MS-Word files just because Microsoft issued an update?

I used to have my LP/CD database on a DOS/Win 3.x computer. To be able to use it, I would face at least the following issues:
- I need a floppy drive. (3.5, luckily).
- Pray that I can get my DOS floppies working
- ... and on my hardware!
- What kind of interface does this hard drive have?
- And then I need a utility that reads DBase files.
Right there. Then probably only remains some ugly charset conversion.