Skip to main content
Topic: Which is the best lossless codec? (Read 373540 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #325
Hi, KTF! Why are you trying to remove TTA project? If you don't like it? Why?

Because there is next to no discussion about it here at HydrogenAudio, and because I haven't seen a TTA file it in the wild, ever.


Ok. But.. as I know the HydrogenAudio and it's Knowledge Base has been made not only for it's users.. am I right?

Quote
Where did you get information about the popularity of codecs?

Here: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=105188


Again, This is a local poll in one topic at one site. Can you use Google, download statistics from projects pages, Page Rank of the sites e.t.c.?
Yes, the TTA codec project was frozen for a long time, but the codec still shows a good results in comparisons.
I think, that your comparison would be meaningless If you remove all of the codecs which is not popular at this time at this site. Each codec has an unique technology.
I think that you must keep the information about all codecs for future, even if the some projects will be closed.
But this is of course just my opinion.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #326
Please compare codecs test results with similar compression ratio:
http://www.squeezechart.com/audio.html

That compression chart takes one preset (the highest compression) per codec, which I don't think is fair. Please see the chart below: the TAK -p2 setting (that's the fourth point, starting with the leftmost one) is almost twice as fast as TTA, and it compresses about 1% better. TAK -p3, the seventh datapoint, is still faster but compresses almost 3% better! FLAC -6, is about as fast as TTA, and it's compression is only slightly worse. So, TTA is in no way the fastest codec around in any sane comparison, it only is when you test the slowest settings of any codec. That's comparing apples with oranges.


Quote
Lower latency of the compressor is achieved by fully adaptive coding algorithm, without buffering stage, [...]

That seems like a valid point.

Ok. But.. as I know the HydrogenAudio and it's Knowledge Base has been made not only for it's users.. am I right?

I'm not planning on removing it from the table again now that you have brought it back. I was just under the impression that development had stalled, you have proved me wrong.

Quote
Again, This is a local poll in one topic at one site. Can you use Google, download statistics from projects pages, Page Rank of the sites e.t.c.?

None of these methods is really going to work. Seeing that this Wiki belongs to Hydrogenaudio, I thought that using the HA poll would be the most relevant. Of course, you can discuss which of OptimFROG or TTA is more popular, but one of the debated (and reversed) edits placed TTA right behind FLAC and WavPack. ALAC is surely more popular, as I can name a few online stores that sell ALAC. Except if you can name several stores that sell TTA, I would consider ALAC more important/popular. For WavPack, Monkey's Audio, WMA and TAK, new discussion topics are created on this forum regularly, which again, makes me think they are next in this order. OptimFROG and TTA are not often discussed here, so I would consider them last in this order.

I hope this explains the rationale for this order sufficiently.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #327
Just because I am curious:

You can easily found TTA files on russian torrents, but there is no files in TAK or OptimFROG formats for example.


I googled as follows; used Chrome, entered the string in the address field WITH all the quotation marks (they matter!) but not the colon.
I got the following number of hits, which of course includes software applications that support the formats blah blah blah. But FWIW:

".tak" "lossless" "torrent": 2.1k
".mka" "lossless" "torrent": 8.0k (but a helluvalot for .mkv, some of these could be audio-only)
".shn" "lossless" "torrent": 9.7k
".ofr" "lossless" "torrent": 10.1k
".wv" "lossless" "torrent": 12.5k
".tta" "lossless" "torrent": 12.8k
".wma" "lossless" "torrent": 16.7k
".ape" "lossless" "torrent": 52k
".wav" "lossless" "torrent": 161k
"ALAC" "lossless" "torrent": 235k
".m4a" "lossless" "torrent": 320k
".m4a" OR ".mp4" "lossless" "torrent": 389k
".flac" "lossless" "torrent": 429k
"FLAC" "lossless" "torrent": 933k

Since Russian sites are mentioned, I also checked:
".tta" "???????" -"torrent": 3.5k
".tta" "torrent" -"???????": 9.5k
".tta" "torrent" "???????": 3.6k
".tta" "torrent" OR "???????": 12.6k

Google isn't really reliable if you compare apples to androids/oranges, as ".tta" "torrent" yields fewer than if you also require "lossless", but ... you get the picture. There is not much doubt which two rule the ground I think.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #328
Please compare codecs test results with similar compression ratio:
http://www.squeezechart.com/audio.html

That compression chart takes one preset (the highest compression) per codec, which I don't think is fair. Please see the chart below: the TAK -p2 setting (that's the fourth point, starting with the leftmost one) is almost twice as fast as TTA, and it compresses about 1% better. TAK -p3, the seventh datapoint, is still faster but compresses almost 3% better! FLAC -6, is about as fast as TTA, and it's compression is only slightly worse. So, TTA is in no way the fastest codec around in any sane comparison, it only is when you test the slowest settings of any codec. That's comparing apples with oranges.
........
I hope this explains the rationale for this order sufficiently.


Thanks for your explanation. I understand you. I still not agree with your methods of comparisons, especially in case of popularity of the codecs, but as I wrote above it's just my opinion )

About compression speed. I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct. Anyway, FLAC is slowly than TTA with same compression ratio. Thus, only TAK is faster, am I right?
Sorry, I didn't found the comparisons of encoding speed in your test results. Can I show your results in a table form?

I have tested the TAK and my results little bit different than yours, but very close to this comparison for example:
http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/index.asp
Please correct the link to this page in Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase.
As you can see,
TTA encoding speed 72x with compression 65.209%.  // about 65%
TAK -p2 encoding speed 66x with compression 64.077%  // about 64%, and yes, it's 1% better, and slowly!
TAK -p3 encoding speed 38x with compression 63.763%  // still about 64%, 1% better in compression, and again slowly!
Where I can find the configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

PS: I prefer to compare codec with open source analogs, because such comparison would be more correct if you can see the code and you can compile all codecs by yourself.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #329
Google isn't really reliable if you compare apples to androids/oranges, as ".tta" "torrent" yields fewer than if you also require "lossless", but ... you get the picture. There is not much doubt which two rule the ground I think.


Yes. I think you are right.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #330
Thanks for your explanation. I understand you. I still not agree with your methods of comparisons, especially in case of popularity of the codecs, but as I wrote above it's just my opinion )

Well, Procus' results do indeed put TTA in quite a different place! I only thought to do what is best anyway.

Quote
I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct.

How is it correct that you conclude that TTA is the fastest on a chart that only shows the slowest setting?

Quote
Thus, only TAK is faster, am I right?

No, only TAK is encoding faster and has a better compression ratio at the same time. Other codecs are encoding faster by sacrificing compression. I think you should pick your words more selectively.

Quote
Sorry, I didn't found the comparisons of encoding speed in your test results. Can I show your results in a table form?


Sure, here you go
Code: [Select]
Codec, preset         , compr , enc , dec
flac, -8              , 56.663, 91.4,  512.0
flac, -7              , 56.716, 136.4, 509.2
flac, -6              , 56.852, 154.0, 558.4
flac, -5              , 57.057, 231.6, 556.1
flac, -4              , 57.216, 298.8, 552.7
flac, -3              , 59.380, 355.2, 589.2
flac, -2              , 60.184, 292.0, 614.4
flac, -1              , 60.389, 373.5, 604.0
flac, -0              , 62.384, 394.3, 629.3
tak , -p4m            , 54.320, 23.5,  284.9
tak , -p4e            , 54.355, 47.7,  285.3
tak , -p4             , 54.422, 56.2,  285.1
tak , -p3m            , 54.536, 37.6,  316.4
tak , -p3e            , 54.585, 72.2,  316.8
tak , -p3             , 54.664, 89.1,  316.9
tak , -p2m            , 54.878, 60.0,  338.6
tak , -p2e            , 54.977, 105.5, 339.5
tak , -p2             , 55.157, 189.4, 340.8
tak , -p1m            , 55.721, 113.6, 425.2
tak , -p1e            , 55.809, 170.4, 425.0
tak , -p1             , 55.966, 286.6, 424.0
tak , -p0m            , 56.511, 167.1, 423.6
tak , -p0e            , 56.610, 275.0, 422.2
tak , -p0             , 56.904, 407.0, 420.3
la  , -high           , 53.145, 6.9,   8.2
la  ,                 , 53.346, 9.2,   11.7
tta ,                 , 56.634, 151.5, 143.1
wv  , -hh -x          , 55.832, 45.7,  104.6
wv  , -hh             , 55.985, 87.4,  104.7
wv  , -h -x           , 56.145, 59.4,  130.0
wv  , -h              , 56.314, 107.5, 127.9
wv  ,                 , 57.079, 142.4, 162.9
wv  , -f              , 58.536, 167.1, 194.4
ape , -c5000          , 53.876, 15.9,  14.8
ape , -c4000          , 54.081, 41.0,  36.1
ape , -c3000          , 54.683, 70.8,  58.0
ape , -c2000          , 55.072, 81.9,  63.9
ape , -c1000          , 56.186, 111.6, 82.9
ofr , --mode bestnew  , 53.106, 2.5,   4.0
ofr , --mode highnew  , 53.416, 5.7,   8.3
ofr , --mode best     , 54.124, 7.5,   9.7
ofr , --mode high     , 54.391, 19.5,  25.1
ofr , --mode normal   , 54.627, 29.1,  36.9
ofr , --mode fast     , 55.305, 41.4,  52.0
refalac,              , 57.783, 93.8,  201.5
refalac, --fast       , 60.073, 150.3, 158.9
shn ,                 , 62.266, 149.9, 280.0
als ,                 , 56.475, 59.8,  157.3
wma ,                 , 58.427, 102.5, 122.7
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #331
results of google queries are somewhat strange...

".wv" "lossless" "torrent": 12.5k
"wv" "lossless" "torrent": 126k
"wavpack" "lossless" "torrent": 276k

".ofr" "lossless" "torrent": 10.1k
"ofr" "lossless" "torrent": 50.9k
"optimfrog" "lossless" "torrent": 76.8k

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #332
results of google queries are somewhat strange...


Yes they are, but yours at least make sense - restricting the search reduces the number of hits. The weirdnesses I pointed out are worse to explain.

".tta" "torrent": 11300
".tta" "torrent" AND lossless: 12800. Should be fewer.

Quotation marks matter:

".tta" AND torrent AND lossless: 13200



Anyway, it is FLAC and ALAC ... and then the small ones.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #333
Quote
I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct.

How is it correct that you conclude that TTA is the fastest on a chart that only shows the slowest setting?

It because his test seems to show the efficiency of the algorithms more accurately and his results generally coincide with mine.

Quote
Thus, only TAK is faster, am I right?

No, only TAK is encoding faster and has a better compression ratio at the same time. Other codecs are encoding faster by sacrificing compression. I think you should pick your words more selectively.

Ok. I will. Yes, I know that the TAK has a little bit better compression ratio. I talk about comparison of encoding speed with same or higher compression rate. I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?

http://synthetic-soul.co.uk/comparison/lossless/index.asp

As you can see,
TTA encoding speed 72x with compression 65.209%. // about 65%
TAK -p2 encoding speed 66x with compression 64.077% // about 64%, and yes, it's 1% better, and slowly!
TAK -p3 encoding speed 38x with compression 63.763% // still about 64%, 1% better in compression, and again slowly!

Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #334
Don't forget flacCL when it comes to "fastest" on capable hardware.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #335
Quote
I think that the Squeezechart's comparison method is more correct.

How is it correct that you conclude that TTA is the fastest on a chart that only shows the slowest setting?

It because his test seems to show the efficiency of the algorithms more accurately and his results generally coincide with mine.

Hmm... If i would remove the stronger and also slower modes from TAK, it would look much better in this comparison. And then you would regard it's algorithm's as mor efficient? It's still the same algorithm, but with some possibly as insane regarded settings removed. They are there to give the users more choices.

Ok. I will. Yes, I know that the TAK has a little bit better compression ratio. I talk about comparison of encoding speed with same or higher compression rate. I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?
...
Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

Is this really necessary? Could you first think a bit about this:

The test is from 2008. Why do you want to compare TTA with a more than 6 year old version of TAK. This must have been V 1.0.4. Now we have 2.3.0. And each version in between has improved on speed and some on compression.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #336
I'm happy to see a good discussion weighing the merits in an open matter. These types of discussions are hard, especially when they are titled with exclusive words like "best".

Furthermore, it is difficult to give all the contenders a fair shake when the authors have their little darlings that they use for reasons x, y or z. This is exacerbated when there are choices that make things appear to be on the most equal footing but really don't. Let's say we pick this option because it makes he compression between two contenders more equal. Forget that the option crippled the encoding speed in favor for decoding speed or vice-versa, my preferred codec wins.

Is Monkey's Audio still being accused of being intolerant of errors as a blanket statement?  I raised the issue many years ago and was treated like a pariah.  Turned out the codec was tested in Insane Mode, yet it doesn't break with less strong modes. It was bullshit ("Insane" mode??? hello?!?).  Then the goalposts got moved: you lose more samples with MAC then others, yeah, so how was *that* reflected in the chart that didn't bother to address test conditions?

So anyway, efficiency is a sticky one. Depending on where you are willing to draw the arbitrary line it was either wavpack or MAC. Then along came TAK which beat wavpack no matter how you sliced it; MAC as well except at the extreme end.

Regarding the recent question, I think we'll only arrive at the truth if the data is presented honestly.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #337
It because his test seems to show the efficiency of the algorithms more accurately and his results generally coincide with mine.

No, it doesn't show the effiency of the codecs, it shows the efficiency of the slowest setting of that codec. I don't think that is fair. Furthermore, you seem to forget the word 'encoding' every time: you're talking about encoding efficiency. However, there's decoding efficiency as well, and for that FLAC and TAK clearly beat TTA. So, once more, please use a more specific wording.

Quote
Ok. I will. Yes, I know that the TAK has a little bit better compression ratio. I talk about comparison of encoding speed with same or higher compression rate. I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?

As said by TBeck already, those results are *ancient*. A lot of development has happened in the meantime

Quote
Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

They are very well documented in the test PDFs. In short, AMD A4-3400, Windows 7, tested from RAMdisk, CPU-time measured instead of real time, MD5 checksumming disabled where possible, test material 43 full CD albums of different genres.

Is Monkey's Audio still being accused of being intolerant of errors as a blanket statement?  I raised the issue many years ago and was treated like a pariah.  Turned out the codec was tested in Insane Mode, yet it doesn't break with less strong modes. It was bullshit ("Insane" mode??? hello?!?).  Then the goalposts got moved: you lose more samples with MAC then others, yeah, so how was *that* reflected in the chart that didn't bother to address test conditions?

Have you ever checked this yourself? I just did: I changed three bytes at (to me) seemingly random places in the file, and it stopped decoding at the very first one. I did this again, changing only one bit at a random place somewhere halfway the file: it stopped decoding at about that place in the file. I tried a third time, with the same result. This was done with a -c2000 (normal mode) compression. So, I think saying that Monkey's audio is not error resistant is justified.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #338
Is Monkey's Audio still being accused of being intolerant of errors as a blanket statement?  I raised the issue many years ago and was treated like a pariah.  Turned out the codec was tested in Insane Mode, yet it doesn't break with less strong modes. It was bullshit ("Insane" mode??? hello?!?).  Then the goalposts got moved: you lose more samples with MAC then others, yeah, so how was *that* reflected in the chart that didn't bother to address test conditions?

Have you ever checked this yourself? I just did: I changed three bytes at (to me) seemingly random places in the file, and it stopped decoding at the very first one. I did this again, changing only one bit at a random place somewhere halfway the file: it stopped decoding at about that place in the file. I tried a third time, with the same result. This was done with a -c2000 (normal mode) compression. So, I think saying that Monkey's audio is not error resistant is justified.

Okay, I just tried to decode it with ffmpeg, and it just plays, albeit with a short piece (< 1s) missing. So, the problem is not with the format, but with the official decoder: there is no way to force the decoder to keep on decoding. It does not have an option like the FLAC decoder has for such things (-F or --decode-through-errors)
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #339
Yes and that's old news. I'm now fairly apathetic about the entire thing, I just raised the issue to make a point.

I simply don't appreciate misleading information about anything. I also think a good article will add helpful information where appropriate. If I had a 300MB image that was corrupt, I'd like to know that it still might be possible to decode it all the way through, and if so with which tools.  Maybe the missing data could be replaced using CTDB.  Maybe I just wanted a track that was perfectly fine but happened after the corrupt portion. This would be better than deleting the whole thing because I read some article by HA geniuses that basically told me I was out of luck, no?

Now maybe this isn't the best place for the information, but if a "good" article is essentially telling me I'm fucked, a better article would point out the caveat and direct me to some other information. Conceptually it's pretty trivial; nothing harder than pointing out some slick feature like DRM that everyone pines for. If you don't believe me, then ask...but just not here.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #340
Yes and that's old news. I'm now fairly apathetic about the entire thing, I just raised the issue to make a point.

It's a wiki right, why not change it yourself?

Anyway, I just did. I think it is no more than fair to mention that is not actually a format issue, but merely a support issue.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #341
Yes and that's old news. I'm now fairly apathetic about the entire thing, I just raised the issue to make a point.

It's a wiki right, why not change it yourself?


Hah, I got that from greynol once. But I think that one should discuss factual matter first - and especially since the wiki was closed, and we (at least I) got used to it working as a moderated knowledgebase where one could not make changes unless discussed.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #342
I have looked your results, but how about the results of codec comparison by Synthetic Soul, is it wrong too?


Recall that here the question was whether a given format (call it "T") beats another format "F" on both compression and speed simultaneously. That is a partial-only ordering.
Then more ambiguous tests do not bring you any closer to claiming universal superiority. It gets you closer to a universal "no, one cannot claim that".


But as others have pointed out, that test is a few years and have been obsoleted by development. New TAK versions, new FLAC version, and for all that I know, new TTA version(s) too.
The test is certainly not worthless, it just does not say so much about current state as it did when that ... state was current.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #343
Like I said, I no longer care. Besides, I didn't feel it was within my extremely pedestrian capabilities to adjust entries in a chart at the time.

NB: the rules about editing the wiki were not created by me and are not enforced by me. I do have my pet articles which I will defend and have defended; this is simply not one or them.  So I guess that makes me even more of a hypocrite.

Thank you for your graciousness, ktf.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #344

Again, can you write about configuration of the computer which you have used for your tests?

Is this really necessary?

Hi! ) Yes. It's necessary because it significantly defines the results of comparison.
Yes, your codec is pretty good, but TTA still good too in comparison tests.

Could you first think a bit about this:
The test is from 2008. Why do you want to compare TTA with a more than 6 year old version of TAK. This must have been V 1.0.4. Now we have 2.3.0. And each version in between has improved on speed and some on compression.


No problem. My colleague have tested our codecs today, I can show results little bit later.

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #345
Below is newest results of comparison of TTA codec and TAK (Note that I have mentioned before, that I prefer to comparison open source codecs only).
The album has been chosen randomly. I have found good hardware for this test: Intel celeron 2.40Ghz RAM 1Gb. OS Windows 7, swap file is disabled. Here is shown three results of testing.
First without caching, two next shows the work of the codec with cached data. For this test I have wrote small C wrapper-program for measuring the encoding time more correctly. TTA compressor version 3.4.1 (compiled in 2007), TAK 2.3.0 Final.

Deep Purple, Machine Head. 2ch/16bit/44.1KHz
——————————————————————
01-Highway Star.wav
ttaenc.exe          - 6.56 sec 7.77 sec  6.21 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 7.74 sec 8.57 sec 5.90 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 8.06 sec 6.58 sec 6.70 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 12.54 sec 11.44 sec 10.88 sec

02-Maybe I'm A Leo.wav
ttaenc.exe          - 4.96 sec 5.23 sec  5.08 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 6.56 sec 7.97 sec 4.63 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 5.78 sec 5.97 sec 5.70 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 9.88 sec 9.28 sec 8.91 sec

03-Pictures Of Home.wav
ttaenc.exe          - 7.01 sec 6.06 sec  5.37 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 8.21 sec 5.14 sec 5.14 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 6.26 sec 6.24 sec 6.34 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 10.06 sec 9.79 sec 10.60 sec

04-Never Before.wav
ttaenc.exe          - 6.08 sec 4.28 sec  4.12 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 6.33 sec 3.69 sec 3.79 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 5.78 sec 4.44 sec 4.84 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 7.78 sec 7.35 sec 7.44 sec

05-Smoke On The Water.wav
ttaenc.exe          - 5.15 sec 5.72 sec  5.61 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 5.99 sec 7.88 sec 5.30 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 6.69 sec 7.59 sec 6.16 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 10.73 sec 10.30 sec 10.14 sec

06-Lazy.wav
ttaenc.exe          - 6.44 sec 6.33 sec  7.46 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 9.24 sec 6.47 sec 7.72 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 9.82 sec 9.21 sec 9.42 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 14.45 sec 13.70 sec 14.64 sec

07-Space Truckin
ttaenc.exe          - 4.85 sec 4.85 sec  4.69 sec
Takc.exe -e -p1 - 7.18 sec 4.31 sec 4.51 sec
Takc.exe -e -p2 - 5.34 sec 5.23 sec 5.17 sec
Takc.exe -e -p3 - 8.63 sec 8.51 sec 8.40 sec

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #346
It's all is Ok, but can we close the first question. I did not see any objection about placing of "Password protection" line into comparison table. Can I restore this line?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #347
I went on record as objecting and ktf obviously objects.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #348
Just to put in perspective what fast encoding is about.
NIN The Downward spiral CD1, i5-3570@4.4, GTX-970

453.066.564 Bytes ~3sec. flacCL (open source) -6
453.725.634 Bytes ~13sec. tta
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Which is the best lossless codec?

Reply #349
Just to put in perspective what fast encoding is about.
NIN The Downward spiral CD1, i5-3570@4.4, GTX-970

453.066.564 Bytes ~3sec. flacCL (open source) -6
453.725.634 Bytes ~13sec. tta


...as you wrote above, it can be true only "on capable hardware". I think is not relevant to codecs comparison.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019