Skip to main content
Topic: Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15) (Read 8631 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #25
Morons ... though I wish they were right about ALAC.
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #26
To throw a bit of a wrench into the WMAL results, according to this MSDN article, it would appear that the performance/efficiency ratio for WMAL encoder changed between Vista and Win7. Did anyone try testing with both versions to see the difference?

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #27
Did anyone try testing with both versions to see the difference?

Yes, indeed. I've had some unpublished results from a Windows XP system which I planned to use for the third revision of this lossless codec comparison (I switched to a Windows 7 system shortly after), but I noticed that WMAL was indeed much more competitive (but quite slow in decoding) in earlier Windows versions.

Here is one album tested with that Windows XP device


As you can see, WMAL was in a very different spot comparing to where it is in my recent results.

I've written about this earlier: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=837436
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #28
Yes, indeed. I've had some unpublished results from a Windows XP system which I planned to use for the third revision of this lossless codec comparison (I switched to a Windows 7 system shortly after), but I noticed that WMAL was indeed much more competitive (but quite slow in decoding) in earlier Windows versions.
 

  Thanks for the report! I started a discussion with lvqcl about potentially changing the default complexity value for WMAL in wmaencode.exe, as I'm guessing most people on HA would prefer higher compression ratios over faster encoding times.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=887951





Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #29
Thanks for the report! I started a discussion with lvqcl about potentially changing the default complexity value for WMAL in wmaencode.exe, as I'm guessing most people on HA would prefer higher compression ratios over faster encoding times.

To be honest i doubt the typical HA member will use WMAL at all. No matter how it compresses.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #30
Thanks for the report! I started a discussion with lvqcl about potentially changing the default complexity value for WMAL in wmaencode.exe, as I'm guessing most people on HA would prefer higher compression ratios over faster encoding times.

To be honest i doubt the typical HA member will use WMAL at all. No matter how it compresses.


Sure, but for a comparison like this ...
“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”
- Donald Trump, May 2017

Lossless codec comparison (Jan '15)

Reply #31
but I noticed that WMAL was indeed much more competitive (but quite slow in decoding) in earlier Windows versions.

From my old tests (about 5 yesrs ago) on WinXP: WMAL compression was somewhere between Monkey's Audio fast and normal, en/decoding speed is slower than Monkey's Audio high.

Just as in your graphs.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018