| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
 Posted - 03/24/2005 : 6:05:00 PM
|
If FLAC is more supported by players like the neuros, that is probably a factor that will inspire future users to start using it more. And that will ultimately make it more of a "standard" feature in this industry. It's all about progress :)
I'm playing with a whole other idea in audio encoding, based on the idea of using a codec like WavPack hybrid mode. This allows you to create a high bitrate file ~384kbit/s along with a correction file. You can keep the correction files and the lossy files on your computer for true lossless audio, or take the lossy files with you on your portable for transparently encoded music at a more manageable bitrate.
Another advantage of wavpack lossy 384+kb/s is that it can be transcoded to other codecs without a discernable loss of quality compared to the original source.
This could be another nice codec for the neuros to implement, but for now, FLAC is much more popular and I'd love to see it.
|
Edited by - Supacon on 03/24/2005 6:08:50 PM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
 |
|
|
Sean Starkey
Posting Mania
848 Posts |
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2005 : 2:01:51 PM
|
What are you saying, Sean? That there is a reasonable chance of somebody implementing this codec in the neuros in the near future?
I haven't caught on to WavPack yet, but if the neuros used it, I'd happily transcode everything I've got to WavPack hybrid mode (with the correcton files). It's the perfect codec for something like the Neuros! |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Sean Starkey
Posting Mania
848 Posts |
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 02:46:03 AM
|
Although it would be great to have any lossless codec play on the Neuros, IMO Wavpack would be the best. It compresses better (roughly 5% better) than FLAC, and although it is less than Monkey's Audio, it makes up for it by having much faster encoding and decoding speeds (even uses a little less cpu power than FLAC) and supports Replaygain and Hi-res audio, two important features IMO, that Monkey's Audio doesnt support. Supacon already commented on the advantages of Wavpack's Hybrid mode as well.
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Edited by - Entwined on 03/30/2005 02:48:17 AM |
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 12:22:33 PM
|
Entwined, you are correct, except that as far as I can tell, you usually don't get smaller filesize with WavPack than FLAC at the same time as faster encoding/decoding speed. FLAC still has an advantage in decoding speed (important on a portable) being an asymmetrcial codec. (WavPack also does have an asymmetrical mode using the -x options though).
But nonetheless, WavPack is a very flexible codec and can give the user a lot of choice that way, and is still very competitive in all respects, any way you slice it. In my opinion (now that I've just gotten to know and love it) WavPack is currently the coolest lossless codec around. And 4.2 will be released in a matter of days too
http://www.wavpack.com/ |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Josh Coalson
Likes to Post
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 1:33:42 PM
|
this flexibility in decode complexity can be a disadvantage outside the PC. if some device "supports" wavpack but cannot handle all the modes because some require too many mips, and this is not clear to users and the decoder, there are going to be customer support problems.
this is why with FLAC I put almost all the complexitity and variability in the encoder.
Josh
- Josh Coalson - FLAC developer - |
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 1:38:21 PM
|
You've got a good point, Josh. FLAC is going to be easier to support. Bryant doesn't yet know if portables will have a problem with WavPack -h mode, because it does take some amound of processing power, and it is possible that some portables might not yet be sufficient to handle it. If that is the case, one would have to re-encode all their WavPack files again, in a faster decode mode (i.e. wavpack -fx4).
I still think that FLAC is the best choice for a first lossless codec, is it's "safer" from the perspective of being easy to decode. Nonetheless, it would still be nice to see what WavPack can do. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 4:40:27 PM
|
I ran a quick test to see how fast and efficient the modes were, to hopefully clear up some misconceptions:
Computer: AMD Athlon 2000+ (old, I know)
Software: Foobar2000 - Diskwriter
Album: Radiohead, OK Computer, (53:27, 539MB)
Results:
Codec Encoding Time File Size Decoding Time
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAC Q5 | 2:26/21.97x | 361MB/67% | 1:17/41.65x |
FLAC Q8 | 12:32/4.26x | 359MB/66.6% | 1:07/47.89x |
WAVPACK | 2:08/25.05x | 359MB/66.6% | 1:10/45.81x |
WAVPACK -h| 2:49/18.98x | 352MB/65.3% | 1:43/31.14x |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what i concluded as the best total efficiency to the least:
Wavpack Normal > Flac Q5 > Wavpack High > Flac Q8
Interestingly enough, it looks like Flac Q8 would be fastest to decode.
FLAC in lossless mode seems to be on par with WAVPACK.
Id get ecstatic to see any of these codecs be implemented in the Neuros.
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Edited by - Entwined on 03/30/2005 4:42:15 PM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Josh Coalson
Likes to Post
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 4:50:06 PM
|
diskwriter timings may not be indicative because so much of the time is spent writing to disk.
flac.exe has a test mode which will be a little more accurate, but it also does MD5 checks which are not used in a player. and depending on where you got it, it might have 3dnow optimizations. and it's built for x86 which is very different that the neuros cpu.
not sure if wvunpack.exe has a test mode.
- Josh Coalson - FLAC developer - |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 7:34:07 PM
|
FLAC Q5 | 2:26/21.97x | 361MB/67% | 1:17/41.65x |
FLAC Q8 | 12:32/4.26x | 359MB/66.6% | 1:07/47.89x |
WAVPACK | 2:08/25.05x | 359MB/66.6% | 1:10/45.81x |
WAVPACK -h| 2:49/18.98x | 352MB/65.3% | 1:43/31.14x |
Wow. Those times for Wavpack are really impressive! I didn't think that it would be even close to the decode speed of FLAC, especially not at the same compression ratio. Of course, this is only one album. A better test would involve a few types of music.
Entwined, what version of WavPack are you using for this? 4.1, or one of the 4.2 betas? |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 10:57:47 PM
|
I used Wavpack 4.1... are there any proported advantages in using the beta?
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 11:02:57 PM
|
I believe that there are some speed advantages when decoding, using the latest beta. WavPack 4.2 will be released very soon, however. There are a handful of new features, including built-in ape tagging abilities, and some advanced options.
The results you achieved especially seem good considering that you are using 4.1. I'm wondering if you happened to have a rare case where for whatever reason, WavPack performs exceptionally better and maybe FLAC isn't at the top of its game.
I'm going to wait a couple of weeks, and hopefully I'll have a nice, comprehensive test of my three favorite lossless encoders - FLAC, WavPack, and APE (which seems to be fading fast, but still has good compression). |
Edited by - Supacon on 03/30/2005 11:04:59 PM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 11:30:06 PM
|
hmmm, well, im running the official binaries, so i dont know about any 3dnow or SSE optimizations, but if diskwriter indeed takes most of the time writing the files, it might have fast times because im running on a RAID 0 array.
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Josh Coalson
Likes to Post
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:18:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Entwined
hmmm, well, im running the official binaries, so i dont know about any 3dnow or SSE optimizations, but if diskwriter indeed takes most of the time writing the files, it might have fast times because im running on a RAID 0 array.
probably not. take the example
prog A: runs in 10s
prog B: runs in 8s
=> prog B is 20% slower
subtract 6 seconds i/o time that will not be in a player
prog A: 4s
prog B: 2s
prog B is now twice as slow.
you will need a more accurate test like I described to get good a performance estimate.
- Josh Coalson - FLAC developer - |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 01:15:33 AM
|
| Hmm... maybe I should bug David to add something like that to 4.2. Is it a complicated thing to add in, Josh? I'm not sure exactly how it works on a technical level. This kind of stuff is probably better suited to a thread at HydrogenAudio.org though. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 01:17:59 AM
|
wouldn't
wvunpack -m -v
do the same thing as
flac -t
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 01:29:24 AM
|
as suggested, i ran the files using "FLAC -t" and then, for fun, ran "WVUNPACK -m -v", -m checking the md5 checksum and -v verifying the file.
decoding results:
FLAC Q5: 0:47/68.23x
FLAC Q8: 0:41/78.22x
WAVPACK: 0:59/54.36x
WAVPACK -H: 1:17/41.65x
of course, i do not know if using those Wavpack arguments do the exact same test as the FLAC one, but FLAC is the surefire winner there...
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Edited by - Entwined on 03/31/2005 04:10:32 AM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Supacon
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:01:56 PM
|
| That's what I'd expect. FLAC is definitely more optimized for decoding. I'm noticing that you haven't been testing WavPack's -f mode, however. That could possibly be faster than FLAC. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Entwined
Just Posting
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 3:45:01 PM
|
Encode File Size (WVUNPACK -M -V)
---------------------------------------------
WAVPACK -F: 2:10/24.67x | 367MB/68.1% | 0:50/64.14x
Still falls behind in filesize and decoding time...
Neuros Wishlist: Gapless Playback + Wavpack Support + Replaygain = Bliss. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Lossless Audio Format?
