Skip to main content
Topic: Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07 (Read 29562 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #25
for what kind of audio are u testing?speech?dance?classical??

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #26
What criteria did you use to conclude that "Liquid Audio takes the cake" since it saved less than a megabyte over Monkey?  Why does your graph state that LA achieved 65.61% compression but your text says 65.33%?
What criteria did you use to conclude that "Liquid Audio takes the cake" since it saved less than a megabyte over Monkey?
Uh... maybe the fact that it saves space over Monkey?
You have to recognize the reality that if encoding an album takes 4 minutes with Monkey's Audio and 5 hours with Liquid Audio, then declaring that Liquid Audio has "taken the cake" is really quite foolish since very few people would be happy with that.  Hence the near total absence of LA as a current format.
Tab doesn't seem to mind, but La (mind the lower case a) stands for Lossless audio, a proprietary codec by German Michael Bevin, which unfortunately we haven't heard much about for 3 years now.  La was and still is on par with OptimFROG's strongest compression settings, but a tad faster.  That's why La is still my long-term archival codec of choice.

Liquid Audio, a (former?) software audio player, has nothing at all to do with La.


I like how your link for TAK links to the wikipedia article when clearly in the external links section there is a link to the official site www.thbeck.de/Tak/Tak.html
You mean the official site that's in German? Yeah. That's useful to English speakers trying to find out what the hell TAK is.
What a nice, cosmopolitan and open-minded point of view.  The fact that probably at least half the readers of Hydrogenaudio, let alone the potential users of TAK, are not native speakers of either English or German, wouldn't maybe happen to have crossed your mind for a moment?


edit: phrasing

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #27
Firstly, I do not test strong compression settings, or LA at all.
You did test OptimFROG's Extranew mode, didn't you?  I wouldn't call that one the weakest of the lot.  Or the fastest, for that matter.  Your f***ing marvelous (sic) tables wouldn't do so either

According to HansHeijden's stats, La is both at least as good a compressor, and almost twice as fast as OptimFROG Extranew.  If you ever have some spare time, it'd be nice to check out how TAK compares to, say, La -high -noseek.

Edit 1: spelling.

Edit 2: actually, I forgot about Joseph Pohm's tests that you host on your site in this respect.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #28
Firstly, I do not test strong compression settings, or LA at all.
You did test OptimFROG's Extranew mode, didn't you?  I wouldn't call that one the weakest of the lot.  Or the fastest, for that matter.  Your f***ing marvelous (sic) tables wouldn't do so either 
True, I did test some high compression settings, but I meant to say that I specifically did not look for the optimum compression settings for each codec, or even test some (like La).  I picked the OptimFROG settings not knowing anything about them, so extranew snuck in really.  If I knew more about the OptimFROG settings I could possibly use settings better suited to the table. Extranew is nothing compared to some of the OptimFROG settings though, as demonstrated by Josef and Johan De Bock's results.

According to HansHeijden's stats,  La is both at least as good a compressor, and almost twice as fast as  OptimFROG Extranew. If you ever have some spare time, it'd be nice to  check out how TAK compares to, say, La -high -noseek.
I did have La default in the table with the original format, but when I moved to CPU-only times I dropped it. La -high -noseek is really getting away from the settings I was interested in.

That said, I actually have a little free time at the moment, so I may be able to add in some slower codecs/settings to fill the table out a bit.  Looking at the table OptimFROG does provide some nice comparison for some of the slower TAK, FLAC and WavPAck modes, and it seems unfair not to show La in comparison to OptimFROG.
I'm on a horse.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #29
What a nice, cosmopolitan and open-minded point of view.  The fact that probably at least half the readers of Hydrogenaudio, let alone the potential users of TAK, are not native speakers of either English or German, wouldn't maybe happen to have crossed your mind for a moment?
It's not a good idea to criticize when you don't know the facts. This comparison was not done exclusively for this forum. In fact, this is one of the last places I posted it. Most of the other places it was posted, and in particular, the most important places, all contain solely English-speaking audiences. Don't be a douche if you don't know what you're talking about.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #30
bryant wrote:

> only unzippable with the official WinZip 11, but hopefully other utilities will handle these also

Other archivers "must" bloat also

> license of WavPack certainly allows commercial products assuming proper credit is given

Thank you.  I indeed prefer BSD from GPL also ...

> WinZip can only help WavPack's status as a robust product. It certainly can't hurt.

Some (most) people might miss WAVPACK and think the better audio compression is an achievement exclusive to WinZIP 12 (or 11 ?) ...

Tab wrote:

> Well, is there any known way to force it to use standard zip? If so, I'll update the comparison.

There used to be something like " PKZIP 2.xx compatible " checkbox in WinZIP cca 9 ... no idea whether it persists in WinZIP 11 / 12 since I don't use it  Please update the comparison with standard ZIP :-)

Manqix wrote:

> I believe that KZIP offers the best compression for zip files. It beats 7-Zip by a few bytes.

Right. KZIP offers the best PKZIP 2.xx comaptible ZIP's - it's just a bit slow.
/\/\/\/\/\/\

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #31
It's not a good idea to criticize when you don't know the facts.
Do I detect just a tiny bit of psychological projection there?  Oh, and have a look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=43696 and draw whichever conclusion you like.

This comparison was not done exclusively for this forum. In fact, this is one of the last places I posted it. Most of the other places it was posted, and in particular, the most important places, all contain solely English-speaking audiences.
I'm sure you gave your findings much thought before sharing them with half the audio world, as the replies in this thread seem to suggest.  Mind sharing with us which forums you multi-posted to, so we can learn a bit from that?  Where did you get your sociolinguistics data from, by the way?

Don't be a douche if you don't know what you're talking about.
How well do you know me to know that I don't know what I'm talking about?  Did you know what you were talking about when carefully composing that final sentence?

Just a piece of advice: settle down, man.  Why do expect any goodwill from your sour ventilations?  If I were you, I would have stuck to that selfproclaimed specialty domain of yours, i.e. maximum setting lossless audio compression, and refrain from that silly "English ├╝ber alles" attitude.  Otherwise you are really all too transparently projecting your own Don't be a douche if you don't know what you're talking about onto someone else again.

Back on topic.  How about enlightening us somewhat on which compression settings you used?

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #32
Tab doesn't seem to mind, but La (mind the lower case a) stands for Lossless audio, a proprietary codec by German Michael Bevin, which unfortunately we haven't heard much about for 3 years now... Liquid Audio, a (former?) software audio player, has nothing at all to do with La.

Fair enough, though I think my point still stands.  It's all a little meaningless though it would seem, since the OP seems incapable of learning and growing (up).

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #33
since the OP seems incapable of learning and growing (up).
Mind explaining exactly where this petty and childish comment is coming from?

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #34
Don't be a douche if you don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps because of responses like this?  Many of your responses to criticism have been rude and defensive.

Can we please stop the name calling and finger pointing people, and keep this constructive?

Edit: Tab, I really don't think your figures mean anything until you specify exactly what settings you used.  You may believe that you have used the best settings, but it's possible you didn't, and until you can specify exact switches then the data doesn't really have context.

The fact that only one album was tested (IIRC) is not so bad - although it would be nice to see a wider range of source material - as, IMHO, any valid test is useful, and the tester should be encouraged.
I'm on a horse.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #35
That said, I actually have a little free time at the moment, so I may be able to add in some slower codecs/settings to fill the table out a bit.  Looking at the table OptimFROG does provide some nice comparison for some of the slower TAK, FLAC and WavPAck modes, and it seems unfair not to show La in comparison to OptimFROG.
That's fantastic, Synthetic Soul.  Looking forward to that.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #36
for what kind of audio are u testing?speech?dance?classical??
Interesting question.  After all, 349 MBytes of uncompressed source material, worth just over half an hour of CD audio, is not a very broad base to be anything of an authoritative graduator.  If indeed we're talking about 16 bit stereo CDDA, is still an open question, but very relevant to be able to judge the various codecs' performances.  FLAC, e.g., is known not to be at its best with 24 bit samples.

Edit:
It's only now that it's occurred to me that the source is this CDDA album:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_and_Nowhere
Sorry about that.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #37
Well, is there any known way to force it to use standard zip? If so, I'll update the comparison.

Use WinZip versions older than 11 ...
Or set the compression level to "Maximum (portable)"
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #38
That said, I actually have a little free time at the moment, so I may be able to add in some slower codecs/settings to fill the table out a bit.  Looking at the table OptimFROG does provide some nice comparison for some of the slower TAK, FLAC and WavPAck modes, and it seems unfair not to show La in comparison to OptimFROG.
That's fantastic, Synthetic Soul.  Looking forward to that.
OK, La default, -high, and -high -noseek have been added to the list.

I may mix and match the OptimFROG settings a bit in the future, when I get some more time.
I'm on a horse.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #39
OK, La default, -high, and -high -noseek have been added to the list.
Thanks for the effort, Synthetic Soul.  Most interesting.

And if I may say so, all the more credit to La.  Even without much development for almost 3.5 years, your comparison along with the ones listed on the Wiki claim that, on 16 bit 44.1 kHz stereo CD audio, La is only univocally surpassed in compression ratio by OptimFROG's most recent bestnew, ultranew and maximumcompression presets.  But with quite a heavy speed penalty compared to already slow La.

I may mix and match the OptimFROG settings a bit in the future, when I get some more time.
Side remark: high, extra, best, highnew, extranew, bestnew, ultranew, maximumcompression ...  Not the most straightforward naming scheme, frankly speaking.

Don't get me wrong, OptimFROG undeniably has its merits, especially in its faster normal, high and extra modes, and because of its highly versatile format.  It's just that, since both La and OptimFROG are aiming at the very top of the compression ratio spectrum, it is (imho) debatable whether OF's bestnew, and especially ultranew and maximumcompression modes are worth the time and CPU resources to still actually be of any practical use.  Again, imho, they're not, which is why I prefer La for long-term archival, and FLAC and TAK for everyday use, i.e. playback and transcoding.

Now for the origin of this thread.  I'm still wondering if Tab is willing to share the specifics of his encodings with us, and maybe those other forums he mentioned.  Can't blame us for not asking.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #40
@SSoul: how come the original file for you compare is 2030.59 MiB?

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #41
@SSoul: how come the original file for you compare is 2030.59 MiB?


Probably because that falls just under the 2 gB limit of a wav file.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #42
@SSoul: how come the original file for you compare is 2030.59 MiB?
My test corpus is made up of 50 files which total 2030.59 MiB.  If you click on a setting in the main list you will be taken to a page which details the results for each file in the corpus for that setting, e.g.: TAK Normal.
I'm on a horse.

Lossless Audio Codec Comparison '07

Reply #43
La default, -high, and -high -noseek have been added to the list.

I may mix and match the OptimFROG settings a bit in the future, when I get some more time.
In the meantime, fancy benchmarking OptimFROG best, highnew, bestnew, ultranew and maximumcompression, and Monkey's Audio insane?  All of which should at least provide an interesting comparison at the higher end of the compression scale.

Also, OptimFROG fast is one of the more usable settings to be measured up against TAK.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019