Skip to main content


Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Topic: Order of apodization functions (Read 204 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Order of apodization functions

Documentation says about apodization functions:
When more than one function is specified, then for every subframe the encoder will try each of them separately and choose the window that results in the smallest compressed subframe.
So, from manual it is not clear at all if order of functions does matter or not. But it does matter.
For example
Code: [Select]
flac.exe -l 12 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0,5);partial_tukey(2);punchout_tukey(3) input.wav -o output.flac
input.wav: wrote 178263 bytes, ratio=0,306
Code: [Select]
flac.exe -l 12 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A partial_tukey(2);punchout_tukey(3);tukey(0,5) input.wav -o output.flac
output.wav: wrote 175430 bytes, ratio=0,305
result in different compression despite the same apodization functions are used, just order is different. FLAC version is 1.3.3, wav file -

So, how this actually works? Is documentation not clear or this is bug?

Re: Order of apodization functions

Reply #1
BTW: your system uses comma as a decimal separator, so you should use it too: "tukey(0,5)", not "tukey(0.5)"

Re: Order of apodization functions

Reply #2
OK, changed dot to comma, edited my post. Anyway compression is not exactly the same.

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021