Lossless audio compression (need high compressed audio)

[Nexin]

Is any audio compressor better than Flac atm for..

audio channels 5.1 and 7.1
Lossless 96/24
Lossless any/any

[pandy]

Is any audio compressor better than Flac atm for..

audio channels 5.1 and 7.1
Lossless 96/24
Lossless any/any

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison

[tebasuna51]

Rule 12:
"...
Do not ask "what's best" because this question cannot be answered objectively. Each and everyone has their own view about what's best in a certain area. The best is what works best for you!"

better than flac for what?
¿Less size, less time encoding/decoding, more compatible, ...?

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison

Best compression is for LA, OptimFROG, Monkey's, ... but don't support multichannel

edit: pandy is fast

[smok3]

Is any audio compressor better than Flac atm for..

audio channels 5.1 and 7.1
Lossless 96/24
Lossless any/any

Maybe TAK http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=TAK
(I've never tested it, so this is an educated guess, you could get about 1% better compression than FLAC, maybe even more...)

[Nexin]

Yes I normally use flac but needing greater compression. That said hydrogenaudio.org list LA as best compression although suffers for slow encode and decode which can make a difference. I will try tak again when I last tested it was same or slightly worse than flac.

Does anyone know if Monkeys Audio (.ape) is now been developed for multichannel lossless audio ?

[nevcairiel]

The size differences between all these lossless codecs are so miniscule, does 1% really make a difference to worry about it?

[sajara]

Some numbers for you:

System:
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2630QM CPU @ 2.00GHz, features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2
App: foobar2000 v1.3
Settings:
High priority: no
Buffer entire file into memory: yes
Passes: 4
Threads: 1
Postprocessing: none
Stats by codec:
TAK: 354.976x realtime
File: 01. Eagles - Long Road Out Of Eden - No More Walks In The Wood.tak
Run 1:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.001
Decoding time: 0:00.341
Speed (x realtime): 353.213
Run 2:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.001
Decoding time: 0:00.338
Speed (x realtime): 357.012
Run 3:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.001
Decoding time: 0:00.339
Speed (x realtime): 356.227
Run 4:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.001
Decoding time: 0:00.341
Speed (x realtime): 353.483
Total:
Opening time: 0:00.001 min, 0:00.001 max, 0:00.001 average
Decoding time: 0:00.338 min, 0:00.341 max, 0:00.340 average
Speed (x realtime): 353.212 min, 357.011 max, 355.709 average
Total:
Decoded length: 8:03.467
Opening time: 0:00.003
Decoding time: 0:01.359
Speed (x realtime): 355.709
------

System:
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2630QM CPU @ 2.00GHz, features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4.1 SSE4.2
App: foobar2000 v1.3
Settings:
High priority: no
Buffer entire file into memory: yes
Passes: 4
Threads: 1
Postprocessing: none
Stats by codec:
FLAC: 552.206x realtime
File: 01 - No More Walks In The Wood.flac
Run 1:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.000
Decoding time: 0:00.222
Speed (x realtime): 542.267
Run 2:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.000
Decoding time: 0:00.219
Speed (x realtime): 550.688
Run 3:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.000
Decoding time: 0:00.217
Speed (x realtime): 556.462
Run 4:
Decoded length: 2:00.867
Opening time: 0:00.000
Decoding time: 0:00.216
Speed (x realtime): 559.727
Total:
Opening time: 0:00.000 min, 0:00.000 max, 0:00.000 average
Decoding time: 0:00.216 min, 0:00.222 max, 0:00.218 average
Speed (x realtime): 542.267 min, 559.727 max, 553.204 average
Total:
Decoded length: 8:03.467
Opening time: 0:00.001
Decoding time: 0:00.874
Speed (x realtime): 553.205

---
Album size:
Tak: 280MB
Flac: 294MB


TAK usually gives ~3 to 5% better compression than FLAC 8, using TAK p4m.

FLAC is widely supported by players and music / DAW editors. Tak only works with plugins if player program supports it.

Other than archival purposes for shaving some Mb in your HD, I wouldn't care.

All other lossless compressors are no better than FLAC.

Since I've never had done 5.1 transcodes here is a test:

CLI encoder: flac.exe
Destination file: D:\Documents\My Music\Audio Rendered\-\Oxygene.flac
Encoder stream format: 44100Hz / 6ch / 16bps
Command line: "C:\Users\AppData\Roaming\foobar2000\encoders\flac.exe" -s --ignore-chunk-sizes -8 - -o "Oxygene.flac"
Working folder: D:\Documents\My Music\Audio Rendered\-\
Encoder process still running, waiting...
Encoder process terminated cleanly.
Track converted successfully.
Total encoding time: 1:12.703, 32.82x realtime

File size : 524 MB (549 649 891 bytes)
Last modified : 2014-01-25 10:13:42
Duration : 39:46.756 (105 255 936 samples)
Sample rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 6: FL FR FC LFE BL BR
Bits per sample : 16
Bitrate : 1842 kbps
Codec : FLAC
Encoding : lossless
Tool : reference libFLAC 1.3.0 20130526

CLI encoder: C:\Users\AppData\Roaming\foobar2000\encoders\Takc.exe
Destination file: D:\Documents\My Music\Audio Rendered\-\Oxygene.tak
Encoder stream format: 44100Hz / 6ch / 16bps
Command line: "C:\Users\AppData\Roaming\foobar2000\encoders\Takc.exe" -e -p4m -ihs - "Oxygene.tak"
Working folder: D:\Documents\My Music\Audio Rendered\-\
Encoder process still running, waiting...
Encoder process terminated cleanly.
Track converted successfully.
Total encoding time: 6:22.469, 6.24x realtime

File size : 484 MB (508 099 858 bytes)
Last modified : 2014-01-25 10:16:40
Duration : 39:46.756 (105 255 936 samples)
Sample rate : 44100 Hz
Channels : 6: FL FR FC LFE BL BR
Bits per sample : 16
Bitrate : 1703 kbps
Codec : TAK
Codec profile : TAK 4 max
Encoding : lossless
Tool : TAK encoder 2.3.0

[Nexin]

Thanks for test results a 14mb difference over many files will make a difference quickly. Then I will be compressing multi channel audio with tak from now. I Will compare again when monkeys audio is capable of compressing multi channel audio. Or something new happens to make me test earlier for now tak will do it.

A 14mb difference is like the 2 channel compression difference between monkeys audio and flac. Wonder if tak is coded with a compression algorithm similar to monkeys audio ?

[sajara]

See my 5.1 test above. Tak indeed chunks a fair bit of bytes.

I don't see at a glance 5.1 support from APE on their site.

[Nexin]

Sajara between the Oxygene.tak track and the Oxygene.flac track that's a 40mb difference tak easily beating flac. I agree for storage purposes it is better to use tak. For audio play better to use flac least until tak becomes more supported. Though as is lossless easy to convert with today's CPU's capability very fast to say flac format for playing.

I also looked at monkeys Audio web site and read it is still only capable of 2 channel audio compression. Maybe someone here knows more if development for multi channel compression is been coded.

Thanks for your tak foobar2000 encoder settings will be using them with fb2k. ;)

[sajara]

Thanks for your tak foobar2000 encoder settings will be using them with fb2k. ;)

For easy config:

TAK

Encoder: Takc.exe
Extension: tak
Parameters: -e -p4m -ihs - %d
Format: lossless
Highest BPS mode supported: 24

all the best with your transcodes

[Nexin]

Could be better optimized for cpu threads use task manager to view cpu's. Then try option -tc1 (default) next replace 1 for higher values 2, 3, or 4. It defaults to -tc1 with no option set for -tc I'll leave it like that and watch for updates.

Have been comparing becomes a pointless task double encodes where tak always are smaller files by many mb's. Thanks sajara pointing me in tak direction it is what I was looking for :)

[sajara]

Could be better optimized for cpu threads use task manager to view cpu's. Then try option -tc1 (default) next replace 1 for higher values 2, 3, or 4. It defaults to -tc1 with no option set for -tc I'll leave it like that and watch for updates.

Have been comparing becomes a pointless task double encodes where tak always are smaller files by many mb's. Thanks sajara pointing me in tak direction it is what I was looking for :)

You're welcome Nexin. Threading in Foobar is pointless if you're encoding several files at the same time since Foobar is more efficient at that. It simply puts a exe runtime running on each core + ht. So in the case of a i7 it would be encoding 8 files at the same time and scales far better than internal program threading. The only benefit I see about internal program MT is encoding single file. I've never tinkered with it because I never use Tak for lossless, because of compatibility issues but it's a efficient compressor indeed.

[Nexin]

Have been using Tak max compression now for a while. For archiving and and playing there is no difference to using Flac or any other lossless compressor. Sure Tak has an ugly buggy gui that no one would ever want to use and maybe is something the Tak developers should look at. Street appeal is key to gaining new users. Foobar2000 or other software that can encode using Tak console cli .exe is ideal instead of using Tak gui.

Optical Image Audio Backups.
Compression gains of -1.2GB compare to Flac +1.2GB and more for DVDA image backup is one reason to use Tak.
For smaller CD Audio images there is often only 60MB to 200MB gains to be made here I use Flac. Only because Flac compresses faster if Tak compression speed increased I would probably use only Tak for everything.

Still waiting on Monkeys Audio (.ape) to be improved for capabilities that all other audio encoders now are capable of. Then I guess ape will give Tak a run for it's money on compression speed alone. I don't think compression itself will be any gains but the speed is what it is also about if Monkeys compressed in half the time of Tak then I would be using Monkeys Audio (ape) only.

Flac for smaller audio files.
Tak for larger audio files (1GB or 2GB and over).
Monkeys Audio for all audio when it is updated to do all audio. (If Monkeys Audio compression speed is a lot faster than Tak)

[Ghitulescu]

The only sensible space reduction over FLAC is to use a lossy codec.

[Nexin]

This comment would infer to mean it depends on one persons ability to hear what others cannot. So need to use lossy audio. About space reduction that is now a problem now available for many years terrabyte hard drives. Even large capacity optical discs when need backup data.

The only caveat to this SACD DSD vs 16 bit CD lossless where one is far superior to the other (16bit CDs RIP). Hope that in time the same technology is used for SADVD DSD and SABR DSD then everyone is happy.

Yes there are always those that aren't so happy. But you can buy music lossy or buy the CD, DVD or BR disc. Then convert it to lossy afterwards throw or give the disc away since you don't require lossless audio thereafter.

Still think the same look again at the first paragraph in this post. No further reply is needed.

[Atak_Snajpera]

You may try LossyWav in order to increase flac's compression. Ofcourse encoded wav by flac won't be mathematically lossless anymore. ;)

[tormento]

I just read of True Audio Codec (https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=TTA).

Experiences?

[tebasuna51]

TTA is a open source codec with a ratio compression like flac but you can see other features here (https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison)

[SeeMoreDigital]

Unlike flac, I doubt TTA will ever get any hardware playback support, so I'm out ;)

[tormento]

I am just changing from flac to some other format, at least when editing video, as flac can't be split with mkvmerge.

My choice, at least when working, to save space is now ALAC.