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: TTA (True Audio) compressor 3.1 (Read 2566 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TTA (True Audio) compressor 3.1

It does not appear that the current version, 3.x, has been discussed on HA in regards to users' results.  Has anyone tested the quality for themselves?  What do you think of the current TTA version versus other current lossless codecs?

The graphs on True Audio's site show consistently impressive results.  But as Garf mentioned in a discussion about TTA 2.0, we should be skeptical of claims on webpages.

Ready.  Set.  Discuss!
"The way we see our world is better than yours."

TTA (True Audio) compressor 3.1

Reply #1 –
Quote
The graphs on True Audio's site show consistently impressive results.  But as Garf mentioned in a discussion about TTA 2.0, we should be skeptical of claims on webpages.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The problem is that TTA is particularly suspicious because the developers have already been caught hand-picking tracks that would lead to better compression using their codec compared to other codecs (including more efficient ones, like Monkey's)

Your best bet would be doing your own comparisions, or checking independent, unbiased comparisions like [a href="http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm]Hans Heijden's[/url] and Speek's.

I don't know if they changed their practices, but I personally wouldn't trust comparisions done by the TTA team.
 

TTA (True Audio) compressor 3.1

Reply #2 –
In independant tests you can see that TTA performs a very good speed/compression ratio.

You wouldn't want to trust too much the claim on any official websites, because they are not indepedant. But that doesn't mean they are not allowed to show it performs well, especially when it's true.