Skip to main content

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec (Read 215234 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #175
TAK shows some interesting results - some data I thought I'd share 

Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK @ 0 compression beats FLAC @ -8 compression. 

Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like the following?
[a href="http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=24bit01jp0.jpg" target="_blank"]

Moderation: Amended inline images to linked thumbs

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #176
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8.  Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused.  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?
I'm on a horse.


TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #178
  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?
yup 
I wouldn't call it an irregularity, as I think everyone saw similar results.

In my comparison TAK Turbo easily beats FLAC -8 using two apodisation switches as well.  I'm not sure that any number of apodisation switches could provide the same compression as TAK Turbo.

There is a lot of talk about the speed comparison between TAK and FLAC, but if you take compression into account there is no comparison - FLAC simply cannot compete in the same arena.

Of course, I still find the speed comparisons interesting, especially given the swift release of FLAC 1.1.4 following 1.1.3, and FLAC's resurgence as the faster decoder.  I look forward to further streamlining from both quarters (hmm... 'both'... 'quarters'... ermm...).
I'm on a horse.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #179
Got some good results for 24bit files - ALL presets beat FLAC
i.e. TAK 0 beats FLAC -8.  Did anyone else find any pleasant irregularities like these?
I'm confused.  Are you referring to the fact that TAK Turbo compresses better than FLAC -8?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like the irregularities he's talking about are the fact that increasing the compression level did not always result in a smaller file.  In the pure tones, Tak High compressed better than Tak Extra, which is certainly unexpected.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #180
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like the irregularities he's talking about are the fact that increasing the compression level did not always result in a smaller file.  In the pure tones, Tak High compressed better than Tak Extra, which is certainly unexpected.
Yes, that's why I checked before answering, because that really is an irregularity.  However, wildnewt has already answered contrary to that.

I remember seeing a similar thing with FLAC in one of the tests I've been involved in, where (for sake of argument) -5 and -6 compressed worse that -4.  I guess it just depends on the individual sample and the settings the presets are using... and whether the sample finds a 'loophole' in the normal situation.
I'm on a horse.

TAK 1.0 - Final release of the new lossless codec

Reply #181
Just as a side note...
Is there actually interest in a foobar2000 0.8.3 decoder plugin?
Absolutely yes.
-- Dean-Ryan Stone

 

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020