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.
Topic: FLAC 1.3.0 has been released (Read 193864 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #150 –
Quote from: ChronoSphere on
I'm liking build B, though build D is only marginally slower. I also ran a comparison on a folder containing 5:54:53 of music between flac 1.2.1, flacD and flaccl (nVidia 260GTX), running them at 4 threads via foobar
Code: [Select]
flac 1.2.1 2:15    157,7x
flaccl     1:18    272,9x
flacD x64  1:10    304,2x

That's.... impressive!
Now if only we could cut some of that speed and make it compress as good as TAK does...

edit: formatting

What compression level did You set for flaccl? flaccl -6 compresses as good as FLAC -8. And flaccl -6 still should be faster than flaccl -8 
I think speed comparison should be done with settings that produce a same compression ratio.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #151 –
My rationale for that comparison was "max compression while staying subset compatible". Besides, that one is only true for my old GPU, it's not to be interpreted as flaccl being slower than libflac.
Though if flaccl compresses better, how does it manage to stay within the subset? I think changing the presets of libflac (or adding a "max" one)  so that it matches flaccl is worth a thought.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #152 –
Code: [Select]
CD Image: 44.1/16/Stereo, 1h:15m:48s
CPU: Core i5 3210M @ 2.50GHz

flac-1.2.1b                 (-8)    96.1s     47.33x
flac-1.3.0-icl(john33)      (-8)    82.9s     54.86x
flac-git-7251201-win32(AiZ) (-8)    45.6s     99.74x
flacA_x32                   (-8)    45.5s     99.96x
flacB_x32                   (-8)    38.9s    116.92x
flacC_x32                   (-8)    41.8s    108.80x
flacD_x32                   (-8)    35.0s    129.94x

BUT, to put that into perspective:

Code: [Select]
wavpack_4.70.0 (hhx)     65.2s     69.75x
wavpack_4.70.0 ( )       22.1s    205.79x! (same size as flac)

Takc_2.3.0     (pMax)    95.0s     47.87x
Takc_2.3.0     (p0e)     10.7s    425.05x! (same size as flac)

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #153 –
According to my tests, compression ratio of wavpack (@default settings) is closer to flac -5 than to flac -8. And flac -5 encoding speed (on your CPU) will probably be around 300x.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #154 –
Intel Core2 6600 @ 2.40 GHz
Measured with timer64 on a RAMdisk
16bit/44.1kHz 3:40:10.093 (582565116 samples)

Code: [Select]
flacA        76.206        173.34x
 flacB        75.956        173.92x
 flacC        76.112        173.56x
 flacD        75.925        173.99x
 
 flac64_A    74.006        178.50x
 flac64_B    72.836        181.67x
 flac64_C    74.022        178.47x
 flac64_D    72.618        181.91x

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #155 –
Quote from: ChronoSphere on
Though if flaccl compresses better, how does it manage to stay within the subset? I think changing the presets of libflac (or adding a "max" one)  so that it matches flaccl is worth a thought.

FLACCL -6 is similar to FLAC -8
FLACCL -8 is similar to FLAC -8 +  very slow settings which have very slight impact on compression. Settings are: flac  -8 -A tukey(0.5) -A flattop. Compression gain is very small, less than 1% ( ~0.11%)

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #156 –
Hi guys,

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but here are my results for the 8 binaries for setting -0 through -8 for both encoding as well as decoding. The scripts are very similar to the lossless codec comparison I did some time ago, these results are from a AMD A4-3400 with Windows 7.





I think the small differences for the 32-bit compiles considering decoding are within measurement error. For each 'row', the topmost is -0, the lowest is -8
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #157 –
Quote from: The Sheep of DEATH on
Bug? Using the -p option results in much larger files than without p (up to 2% larger!). This doesn't seem to happen when I use a blocksize of 512. I haven't tested it on many input files yet, so it might be limited to my input files -- more testing is needed.

This has just been fixed in git: http://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commit;h...ad99baa1ca24c49
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #158 –
Anybody have AMD Athlon CPU? Athlon, AthlonXP, Athlon64... Please test encoding speed of the attached encoders, for both -8 and -5 presets.

[removed]

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #159 –
Same sample as my other ones, on an athlon XP 2400+, running a clean winXP SP3
Code: [Select]
32bit -5:
flac 1.2.1  8,468s    53,8x
flac32_a    7,562s    60,2x
flac32_n    7,218s    63,1x
flac32_s    7,281s    62,5x

32bit -8:
flac 1.2.1 21,437s    21,2x
flac32_a   18,234s    24,9x
flac32_n   17,609s    25,9x
flac32_s   18,187s    25,0x


Does anyone use such a system for everyday use? I just reactivated me ol' faithful to test it as doing anything else on it is pretty much impossible...

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #160 –
Good to see the decoding speed improving a little too.  Years ago we used libflac for decoding in rockbox, but we switched to ffmpeg because their decode was an order of magnitude faster.  It something like doubled battery life on ARM devices playing FLAC files.  Improving the decoder would probably help various other portable devices that use the official source.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #161 –
so, which one is the fastest ?

also, the flac quality has something to be with the speed ?

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #163 –
Code: [Select]
CD Image: 44.1/16/Stereo, 40m:48s
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.20GHz

flac-1.2.1b    (-5)    26.9s     91.00x    202MB
flac32_a       (-5)    23.5s    104.17x    202MB
flac32_n       (-5)    21.7s    112.81x    201MB
flac32_s       (-5)    23.2s    105.52x    202MB

flac-1.2.1b    (-8)    92.8s     26.38x    198MB
flac32_a       (-8)    76.8s     31.88x    198MB
flac32_n       (-8)    73.8s     33.17x    197MB
flac32_s       (-8)    76.5s     32.00x    198MB

wavpack_4.70.0 ( )     23.8s    102.86x    201MB
wavpack_4.70.0 (h)     33.3s     73.51x    196MB
wavpack_4.70.0 (hhx)   85.6s     28.60x    190MB

Takc_2.3.0     (p0)     8.4s    291.43x    204MB
Takc_2.3.0     (p0e)   12.7s    192.76x    188MB
Takc_2.3.0     (pMax)   159s     15.40x    174MB

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #164 –
Athlon64 X2 4000+, Win7

Code: [Select]
encoder (-8)    process time (s)    ~realtime (x)
----------------------------------------------------
flac32_a         116.797            35.6
flac32_n         112.149            37.1
flac32_s         116.017            35.9

flacA            130.728            31.8
flacB            109.341            38.0
flacC            130.666            31.8
flacD            108.685            38.3


encoder (-5)    process time (s)    ~realtime (x)
----------------------------------------------------
flac32_a         37.674            110.4
flac32_n         34.772            119.6
flac32_s         37.767            110.1

flacA            42.213             98.5
flacB            40.045            103.9
flacC            42.026             99.0
flacD            40.092            101.7


(timer64 [flac] [-8/-5] image.wav -f)
(image.wav 16/44.1, t = 4160s)

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #165 –
flac32_n uses 3DNow, while flac32_s uses SSE. FLAC prefers SSE over 3dNow, so I thought that flac32_s will be faster.
But for Athlons XP and Athlons 64 it's actually slower. That was unexpected.
Not sure about Phenoms though... maybe SSE is faster for them.

Here are another 3 encoders: one uses 3DNow, another uses SSE, and the 3rd uses new code for SSE (hopefully faster).
 

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #166 –
Code: [Select]
CD Image: 44.1/16/Stereo, 40m:48s
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.20GHz

flac_3dnow     (-5)    23.1s    105.97x
flac_oldsse    (-5)    23.1s    105.97x
flac_newsse    (-5)    22.0s    111.27x

flac_3dnow     (-8)    76.1s     32.17x
flac_oldsse    (-8)    76.1s     32.17x
flac_newsse    (-8)    74.3s     32.95x

flac_newsse.exe is faster, but flac_3dnow.exe is slower than flac32_n.exe.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #167 –
Quote from: CoRoNe on
flac_newsse.exe is faster, but flac_3dnow.exe is slower than flac32_n.exe.

That's because I uploaded wrong flac_3dnow.exe file, sorry.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #168 –
Athlon64 X2 4000+

Code: [Select]
encoder (-5)    process time (s)    ~realtime (x)
   ----------------------------------------------------
   flac_3dnow_v2    37.081            112.2
   flac_oldsse      40.544            102.6
   flac_newsse      37.128            112.0
   
   
   encoder (-8)    process time (s)    ~realtime (x)
   ----------------------------------------------------
   flac_3dnow_v2    105.784                39.3
   flac_oldsse      109.965                37.8
   flac_newsse      105.659                39.4

(Side note: is there a simple way to format/align these columns? Pasting from Notepad works just partly.)

3dnow and newsse are the fastest I've seen so far on AMD, with the exception of flac32_n, which is the fastest at compression -5 (I double checked).

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #169 –
Code: [Select]
32bit athlon XP2400+, -5:
flac 1.2.1      8,468s    53,8x
flac32_3dnow    7,203s    63,2x
flac32_sse_old  7,578s    60,1x
flac32_sse_new  7,312s    62,3x

32bit athlon XP2400+, -8:
flac 1.2.1      21,437s    21,2x
flac32_3dnow    17,484s    26,0x
flac32_sse_old  18,031s    25,3x
flac32_sse_new  17,609s    25,9x

Ran three times, one time 3dnow needed half a second less on -5 preset, but i wrote it off as measurement error. Others stayed within a +/-100ms margin

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #170 –
Code: [Select]
CD Image: 44.1/16/Stereo, 40m:48s
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ @ 2.20GHz

flac_3dnow_v2  (-5)    21.2s    115.47x
flac_oldsse    (-5)    23.1s    105.97x
flac_newsse    (-5)    22.0s    111.27x

flac_3dnow_v2  (-8)    74.2s     32.99x
flac_oldsse    (-8)    76.1s     32.17x
flac_newsse    (-8)    74.3s     32.95x

All similar results I see.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #171 –
Encoding speed on Intel Core i7-950

flac -5:
old sse: 294.1x
new sse: 314.8x (+7%)

flac -8:
old sse: 125.0x
new sse: 128.4x (+2.7%)

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #172 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Encoding speed on Intel Core i7-950

flac -5:
old sse: 294.1x
new sse: 314.8x (+7%)

flac -8:
old sse: 125.0x
new sse: 128.4x (+2.7%)

my results different

Intel Q9400 @3.2Ghz
comp. level 8
same sample

81.47x flac_oldsse
78.74x flac_newsse

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #173 –
Was it an expected behaviour that the 3dnow_v2.exe could run on an intel core2? i.e. does this concrete version already have branches depending on cpu? the time was comparable to flacD.

Said that, one strange thing happened: In my inital test, all flacx encodes were between 152 and 153 seconds. When i ran flacd again after testing 3dnow, i obtained 149 seconds. So, this deviates more than the different between the runs of the codecs. Maybe the hard drive had more influence in the test than what I expected. Cache should not play a role, since i'm taking about a 700+ MB .wav, and this laptop has only 2GB of RAM.

FLAC 1.3.0 has been released

Reply #174 –
Quote from: [JAZ] on

Was it an expected behaviour that the 3dnow_v2.exe could run on an intel core2? i.e. does this concrete version already have branches depending on cpu? the time was comparable to flacD.

If 3dnow is not available then '3dnow_v2' should be equal to 'oldsse'.