Re: Lossless codec comparison - part 3: CDDA (May '22)
Reply #28 – 2022-06-07 11:05:42
So how much of the news is the change in corpus?I guess that's hard to tell in general. I could have chosen to take the same corpus as last time to be able to compare, but that would propagate any advantages certain codecs have on certain material. I instead chose to make a 'fresh' start. One could argue the inclusion of the single instrument material and the number of orchestral sources provide an advantage to codecs that do well with tonal content, and the addition of exotic material (like the chiptune and microsound sources) provide an unfair advantage to certain codecs that just happen to perform well there. I think I made a balanced corpus including a wide variety of material one would want to losslessly encode, not just music. If we would continue to compare codecs based on sources that were likely similar to the ones used in tuning the codec, we won't learn anything new. Also, it seems reasonable to assume asymmetric codecs are better suited to deal with material that is different than the usual. See for example Ryodi Ikeda - Dataplex, which I think is very different from what would most people would consider music. Wavpack -x4, FLAC, ALAC, TAK, Shorten and ALS, all asymmetric codecs, do much better compared to symmetric codecs like WavPack, Monkey's Audio, TTA and LA. OptimFROG, being a bit of both, also very well here. That's why I think it is important to include material that is off the beaten path. I didn't do that (as much) in the previous revisions.
Last Edit: 2022-06-07 11:07:41 by ktf