Lossless Comparison Test

Topic: Lossless Comparison Test (Read 12222 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lossless Comparison Test

Reply #25 – 2010-03-24 11:24:58

Quote from: dv1989 on 2010-03-23 22:54:59

I thought there might exist command line programs that can call and time others, so I searched Google for "command line timer". This was the first result: Gammadyne's Free DOS Utilities: TIMER.EXE. There are probably other/better ways: it seems that you must run TIMER.EXE then the encoder, rather than simply passing the latter's command line to the former; if workable, this would probably involve batch files. Still, it's a start.

Edit: timeit.exe from the Windows Server 2003 Resource Kit is probably better.

I used Timer with batch files: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=50954

I was using an MS app (may have been TimeIt), but it reported CPU+IO time, so I switched to Timer to report only CPU time. (I believe this is documented in the depths of these forums also.)

Edit: Sorry, on checking, I used a different TIMER.EXE! http://www.7-zip.org/utils.html

Lossless Comparison Test

Reply #26 – 2010-03-25 07:14:17

Thanks, Synthetic Soul.

I know that this may be a redundant question, but is converting any lossless format to a .wav file the same as decoding?

Lossless Comparison Test

Reply #27 – 2010-03-25 09:48:23

Quote from: vpa on 2010-03-23 16:50:59

It depends on the music. FLAC is better with some classical tracks (piano sonatas), while Flake performs better on noisy tracks (especially japanese noise like Merzbow, Dissecting Table, Aube, Masonna, ...) but also with most "normal" music you get slightly better results when you use -9 -10 or -11 with Flake compaed to FLAC -8.

I was thinking of speed, too.

Lossless Comparison Test

Reply #28 – 2010-03-25 10:33:33

Quote from: ezlez on 2010-03-25 07:14:17

I know that this may be a redundant question, but is converting any lossless format to a .wav file the same as decoding?

Yes, you are decoding to WAVE.

Lossless Comparison Test

Reply #29 – 2010-03-25 21:02:45

Quote from: Garf on 2010-03-25 09:48:23

Quote from: vpa on 2010-03-23 16:50:59
It depends on the music. FLAC is better with some classical tracks (piano sonatas), while Flake performs better on noisy tracks (especially japanese noise like Merzbow, Dissecting Table, Aube, Masonna, ...) but also with most "normal" music you get slightly better results when you use -9 -10 or -11 with Flake compaed to FLAC -8.

I was thinking of speed, too.

When talking about Flac and its maximums Flacuda should be mentioned. It compresses clearly stronger and much faster as Flac 1.21 AND the latest flake SVN i could get at -8.
Its developer Mr. Chudov thinks this is how far the Flac standard itself can go. No further improvisations compression wise should be expected cause it uses even much brute-force already.
Unfortunately it is net and nvidia only atm.

Notice