Hi list users, Is there a comparison somewhere of the efficiency of decoding flac files, with respect to some benchmark related to cpu processing? As compared to, say, ape files? I ask because I have recently switched my entire archive from ape to flac. I have an old 400 mhz laptop in my office running xubuntu, which I run into a receiver. Works great. Since switching to flac, I notice the (rather loud) system fan on the laptop running much less of the time during playback. I see on this page http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison that a flac advantage is "Very fast decoding" while monkey's audio boasts "High efficiency", and I was hoping for something a little more concrete. -- Chris
On 4/2/07, Christopher Brown <c-b@asu.edu> wrote:> Hi list users, > > Is there a comparison somewhere of the efficiency of decoding flac > files, with respect to some benchmark related to cpu processing? As > compared to, say, ape files? I ask because I have recently switched my > entire archive from ape to flac. I have an old 400 mhz laptop in my > office running xubuntu, which I run into a receiver. Works great. Since > switching to flac, I notice the (rather loud) system fan on the laptop > running much less of the time during playback. > > I see on this page > http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison > > that a flac advantage is "Very fast decoding" while monkey's audio > boasts "High efficiency", and I was hoping for something a little more > concrete."High efficiency" usually means "better compression". Flac decode is VERY fast: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm For one multiple format comparison.
Hi Gregory, GM> Flac decode is VERY fast: GM> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/hvdh/lossless/lossless.htm Thank you for the link. Although I switched to flac for other reasons, these data appear to support my switch, given the hardware limitations I have. As I mentioned, I use a 400 mhz laptop in my office, and at home a qnap ts-101 running slimserver software. While quite usable, neither is exactly a processing powerhouse. So it appears that flac is an easy choice for me. Thanks again. -- Chris
--- Christopher Brown <c-b@asu.edu> wrote:> Hi list users, > > Is there a comparison somewhere of the efficiency of decoding flac > files, with respect to some benchmark related to cpu processing? As > compared to, say, ape files? I ask because I have recently switched > my > entire archive from ape to flac. I have an old 400 mhz laptop in my > office running xubuntu, which I run into a receiver. Works great. > Since > switching to flac, I notice the (rather loud) system fan on the > laptop > running much less of the time during playback. > > I see on this page > http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison > > that a flac advantage is "Very fast decoding" while monkey's audio > boasts "High efficiency", and I was hoping for something a little > more > concrete.the comparison on the FLAC site is done with a p2-333 which is pretty close to your laptop: http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html oh, and the next version will be faster :) Josh ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html