Skip to main content
Topic: should i use APE insane compression (Read 13336 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

should i use APE insane compression

are there  any drawback in APE insane compression except the long loading time?

I'm using APE to archive CD , I want high accuracy and reliability rather than time.


In terms of codec popularity, are FLAC & APE equally likely to be supported by future(within 5-10years) softwares and error proof?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #1
are there  any drawback in APE insane compression except the long loading time?

I'm using APE to archive CD , I want high accuracy and reliability rather than time.


In terms of codec popularity, are FLAC & APE equally likely to be supported by future(within 5-10years) softwares?


1. Well the encoding and decoding speeds are pretty lousy. other than that, there are no advantages (other than smaller size) /disadvantages compared to the other APE settings

2. Use EAC to rip your CD. ripping to insane does not make it more/less reliable than other settings.

3. Definitely Flac because it's open source and its development way more active than APE (at present).

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #2
I believe there have been cases where Extra High has produced smaller files then Insane.  If you're looking for high compression ratios but don't care about encoding time, I think OptimFrog and LA are supposed to be better than Monkey's Audio.

As far as support over 5-10 years is concerned, it's extremely difficult to say.  ATM, Monkey's Audio appears to be pretty dormant, all discussions around LA have ceased, and I don't really follow OptimFrog (though there isn't much talk about it on this forum).  Contrast these with flac, WavPack and TAK which are very active.

FWIW, MAC is still my codec of choice, though I only use High compression.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #3
are there  any drawback in APE insane compression except the long loading time?

Much slower decoding for almost no benefit. Totally not worth it. Last time I tested, "High" had the best tradeoff between speed and compression. Even though you might not care about compression or decoding times, in my opinion going higher than "High" is just wasting your time.

And that's especially true when you're saving the files to CD. It doesn't matter if your compilation is 671 MB or 672 MB. Remember, you aren't going to fill your CD's up to the last byte anyway.

Edit: Personally I'd go with Wavpack though.

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #4
Exactly, though I've been able to squeeze an extra lossless title on a DVD-R when going from High to Extra High; but the extra encoding/decoding time hardly makes this worth it for me.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #5
If you are interested in other formats Apple Lossless usually achieve slightly smaller sizes than FLAC level 8

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #6
aTAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK!!!!


It's the new king, dude!

 

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #7
I'd definitely NOT use ape/Monkey's because of the reported lack of robustness in error handling, that consideration seems more important than the minor differences in compression ratios.  Also, I believe monkey's lacks support for multichannel and streaming.  I'd say FLAC or WavPack or (if using Windows) WMA Lossless.  FLAC and wmal seem to have good support futures; I don't know enough about WavPack to say.



are there any drawback in APE insane compression except the long loading time?

I'm using APE to archive CD , I want high accuracy and reliability rather than time.


In terms of codec popularity, are FLAC & APE equally likely to be supported by future(within 5-10years) softwares and error proof?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #8
I am archiving some classical CD albums(secure EAC), burning a number of CUE to DVD, interested in FLAC & APE, not too proprietary WMA & ALAC.
I consider the future support , size and bit-exact accuracy(Low bug rate and robustness), as long as i en/decode them while i am showering, time is not matter.

Should I add WAVPACK/ optimforg into my mind?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #9
According to this, optimfrog doesn't support multi-channel, and is very slow encoding, and not open source (which is more of a concern with something not backed by a big company, e.g. Apple lossless), but I haven't used it.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?ti...less_comparison



This is also pretty useful:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/All.htm






I am archiving some classical CD albums(secure EAC), burning a number of CUE to DVD, interested in FLAC & APE, not too proprietary WMA & ALAC.
I consider the future support , size and bit-exact accuracy(Low bug rate and robustness), as long as i en/decode them while i am showering, time is not matter.

Should I add WAVPACK/ optimforg into my mind?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #10
I'd definitely NOT use ape/Monkey's because of the reported lack of robustness in error handling, that consideration seems more important than the minor differences in compression ratios.

I'm just curious, and please don't take this the wrong way, but do you know what that means exactly?

There is a lot of misconception about robustness in error handling when it comes to Monkey's Audio and this issue has been very overblown.  However, this is something to consider since it doesn't seem that an ape file can recover from any type of data corruption when using the Insane compression setting.

Also, none of the lossless codecs being discussed are error-proof.

Finally, so long as you continue to have the software to support the files you've already encoded, there is no reason to worry about any lack of future development.  Which (if any) of the codecs talked about won't work on Vista, for instance?  Now maybe the next platform might have trouble with "legacy 32-bit software", but I highly doubt it.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #11
I use MAC extra high cause to me that's the sweet spot (compression ratio better than TAK/FLAC/wavPack while still being reasonably fast).
For better compression I'd use LA and I think TAK usually is the better (faster) alternative to high mode though sure MAC's high mode will be fast enough to most users.

From today's view I think FLAC is the most future proof lossless codec among those you mentioned but I wouldn't care much about that for lossless codecs. If necessary (the day may come for any codec) you can transcode to another format.
lame3995o -Q1.7
opus --bitrate 140

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #12
I think the answer to your question depends on how u will use these files.
(standard consulting corp's answer)

some information I can provide is:
1. playing insane ape files costs 300 mhz cpu, but the file size is 4.7% smaller than level 8 flac file
2. opening insane and extra high ape files, our pc will delay 2~3 seconds, other type ape files won't
3. even fast ape files are still 0.6% smaller than level 8 flac files
4. playing fast ape files will cost 12~48 mhz cpu
5. playing level 8 flac files will cost 12~36 mhz cpu
6. wavpack files are 0.8% bigger than normal ape files, but playing them only cost 0~24 mhz cpu. normal ape files need 24~60 mhz cpu
8. TAK files are almost the same as high ape files in their sizes which are about 3.6% smaller than level 8 flac files. but playing them only cost 12~ 48 mhz cpu. high ape files need 48~72 mhz cpu

I give u a simple table.
...................fie size.............cpu cost in playing
level 8 Flac...100%............ 12~24 mhz
fast ape.......99.4%............ 12~48 mhz
wavpack......98.1%............ 0~24 mhz
normal ape...97.3%............ 24~60 mhz
tak...............96.3% ............ 12~48 mhz
high ape.......96.3% ............  48~72 mhz
insane...........94.3%............ delay 3 seconds, 100% cpu when opening files, 300 mhz when playing

until now (13, June, 2007)
rockbox (3rd party mp3 player system) support FLAC, WAVPACK, APE.
but for ape files only fast model can be played normally.

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #13
some information I can provide is:
1. playing insane ape files costs 300 mhz cpu, but the file size is 4.7% smaller than level 8 flac file
2. opening insane and extra high ape files, our pc will delay 2~3 seconds, other type ape files won't
3. even fast ape files are still 0.6% smaller than level 8 flac files
4. playing fast ape files will cost 12~48 mhz cpu
5. playing level 8 flac files will cost 12~36 mhz cpu
6. wavpack files are 0.8% bigger than normal ape files, but playing them only cost 0~24 mhz cpu. normal ape files need 24~60 mhz cpu
8. TAK files are almost the same as high ape files in their sizes which are about 3.6% smaller than level 8 flac files. but playing them only cost 12~ 48 mhz cpu. high ape files need 48~72 mhz cpu

I give u a simple table.
...................fie size.............cpu cost in playing
level 8 Flac...100%............ 12~24 mhz
fast ape.......99.4%............ 12~48 mhz
wavpack......98.1%............ 0~24 mhz
normal ape...97.3%............ 24~60 mhz
tak...............96.3% ............ 12~48 mhz
high ape.......96.3% ............  48~72 mhz
insane...........94.3%............ delay 3 seconds, 100% cpu when opening files, 300 mhz when playing
Interesting set of data there, chaojen. May I ask where you retrieved those from?

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #14
Interesting set of data there, chaojen. May I ask where you retrieved those from?


several days ago I started to rebackup my CD annually
Before that
I did several tests in four lossless formats for myself, including APE, FLAC, ATK, WAVPACK

OS:
Windows XP SP2

Player:
foobar 2000 0.9.4.3
component:
tak decoder - foo_input_tak v0.3.2
flac decoder - foo_input_std v1.1.0
monkey's audio decoder - foo_input_monkey v2.1.2
configuration:
output data format - 16bit
no DSP

samples:
The Carpenters - Now And Then 1973
Roxette - Tourism (1992)

encode software:
Monkey's Audio v4.01
TAK  v1.0.1
FLAC v1.1.4
WAVPACK  v4.41

monitor software:
PC VIEW v5.2.15.1

I used IBM X31 as test platform and tune CPU to run 600 mhz for getting obvious results in CPU usage.

I tested the lossless formats in Rockbox through iRiver H320.

In fact, on that time I also recorded the memory usage in PC and battery consumption in H320. Du to originally I just test them for myselt, so some figures are lost now.

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #15
fast ape.......99.4%............ 12~48 mhz


Quote
normal ape...97.3%............ 24~60 mhz


Quote
high ape.......96.3% ............  48~72 mhz


should i use APE insane compression

Reply #16
The smoking "high" ape is a laugher par excellence.

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #17
I'm a longtime APE fan but I'm converting my Monkey's Audio - Insane music to TAK "extra max" because Insane causes too much of a CPU hit at the beginning of each track.  When I'm playing a game with the music going in the background there is a little hitch at each track juncture that annoys me too much to continue using it.  For now I am keeping all my other Monkey's Audio as I have no problems whatsoever with anything below Insane in this regard.  From Insane -> TAK "extra max" the drop is compression is very very small and the speed increase is phenomenal.

For example one album:
MA Insane - 508 364 480 bytes
2x runs decoding speed test on the first three tracks = Speed (x realtime): 10.677

TAK ExtraMax - 511 473 082 bytes
2x runs decoding speed test on the first three tracks = Speed (x realtime): 125.280 

As for just converting the Insane to Extra High or High, well that wouldn't net anywhere near the speed boost and would take me that much longer to do the conversions.
"Have you ever been with a woman? It's like death. You moan, you scream and then you start to beg for mercy, for salvation"

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #18
martin2048
I get high compression on ballads with TAK, maybe it's the same with classical music...

Usually about 50% in normal mode

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #19
I get high compression on ballads with TAK, maybe it's the same with classical music...

Well, the compression greatly depends on the type of music. I got 48.37% with Tak High + Standard on Bach's Brandenburgische Konzerte, but 63.47% on solo harpsichord with the same settings.
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing


should i use APE insane compression

Reply #21
Well, the compression greatly depends on the type of music.

In fact with all lossless codecs, it depends on the loudness of the material. The quieter, the better compression you get.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #22
Maybe, but the Brandenburgische Konzerte Album Gain is -1.13 dB, and works for harpsichord CD has -0.52 dB. It seems that the attack is more imporant. It's harder to get a good prediction in the case when the waveform has sharp attacks (as is the case with the harpsichord).
If age or weaknes doe prohibyte bloudletting you must use boxing

should i use APE insane compression

Reply #23
Monkey Audio/APE is my favorite lossless, but I prefer the next highest compression.  The highest compression does eat up too much CPU, and is distracting, but like I said the 2nd highest compression works great.  Most people here like other lossless codecs, but the truth is, it doesn't matter which you use, since you can always convert lossless to other codecs without any loss in quality.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020