Hi all, The past few weeks I've been busy comparing lossless audio codecs to update the comparison.html page on the FLAC website (and because I wrote a comparison for Hydrogenaudio in the past) and its ready now. Because the patch is pretty large, I've placed it here: http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/update-comparison-and-fix-IE-news.patch.zip The reason to do this is because the current test is outdated and to me it did not seem impartial. The patch gets rid of a lot of files on the FLAC website because the in-depth comparison is now a PDF instead of a lot of loose pages. I've tried to make comparison.html as short and as readable as possible. The table has been expanded with other codecs (like WMA Lossless and Realaudio Lossless) and the graphs have been made more readable. The second (small) patch fixes the big newsbox on index.html for IE, which now displays the news the way it does in the 'other' browsers. I hope you like it.
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 06:12:41PM +0100, Martijn van Beurden wrote:> Hi all, > > The past few weeks I've been busy comparing lossless audio codecs to > update the comparison.html page on the FLAC website (and because I wrote > a comparison for Hydrogenaudio in the past) and its ready now. Because > the patch is pretty large, I've placed it here: > http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/update-comparison-and-fix-IE-news.patch.zipVery nice. I'd like to see the comparison page updated too. I've just few questions on the pdf. Was the comparison done on a 32 or 64-bit system? Doesn't using wine negatively affect the performance? Wouldn't it be better to use a logarithmic scale in the graphs for encoding/decoding times and speeds? Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar
On 11-01-13 15:26, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:> Very nice. I'd like to see the comparison page updated too. I've just > few questions on the pdf. Was the comparison done on a 32 or 64-bit > system?All comparisons were done on a 64-bit system. However, I did not see much deviation from tests in the past, so I guess there are no codecs that take much advantage of it.> Doesn't using wine negatively affect the performance?It might indeed affect performance, but theoretically it shouldn't: Wine is only an emulation layer for system calls, and as lossless codecs usually don't need a lot of system calls compared to raw processing power, this should not affect encoding or decoding time much. Josh did his comparison on Windows, but on Windows there is no easy way to create a ramdisk, which is a problem as current CPUs are much to fast for any (non-SSD) harddisk to keep up. I also can't time CPU-time used, only real time> Wouldn't it be better to use a logarithmic scale in the graphs for > encoding/decoding times and speeds?Yes, it would give a much clearer and fairer picture and I have created graphs with logarithmic scales in the past, but I found out that most people find it very hard to read those scales and are used to the 'distorted' view of the linear scale. Things like 1x or 300x speed are easier to understand than 1*10^0 and 3 * 10^2, while it is exactly the same. To compensate for this I added 'inverse' graphs to the PDF which show CPU usage instead of times realtime speed, but I think that two graphs are enough for the "summary" on the website. 4 graphs are too confusing I think.
Thanks Martijn, excellent work. Applied. Cheers, Erik Martijn van Beurden wrote:> Hi all, > > The past few weeks I've been busy comparing lossless audio codecs to > update the comparison.html page on the FLAC website (and because I wrote > a comparison for Hydrogenaudio in the past) and its ready now. Because > the patch is pretty large, I've placed it here: > http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/update-comparison-and-fix-IE-news.patch.zip > > The reason to do this is because the current test is outdated and to me > it did not seem impartial. The patch gets rid of a lot of files on the > FLAC website because the in-depth comparison is now a PDF instead of a > lot of loose pages. I've tried to make comparison.html as short and as > readable as possible. The table has been expanded with other codecs > (like WMA Lossless and Realaudio Lossless) and the graphs have been made > more readable. > > The second (small) patch fixes the big newsbox on index.html for IE, > which now displays the news the way it does in the 'other' browsers. > > I hope you like it. > _______________________________________________ > flac-dev mailing list > flac-dev at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/