Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:>> Currently, compression settings are as follows >> >> -6, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 6-A tukey(0.5) >> -7, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -e -r 6-A tukey(0.5) >> -8, -l 12 -b 4096 -m -e -r 6-A tukey(0.5) >> >> I suggest the following, in case my previous patch is accepted >> >> -6, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0.5);partial_tukey(2) >> -7, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0.5);partial_tukey(2);punchout_tukey(3) >> -8, -l 12 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0.5);partial_tukey(2);punchout_tukey(3) >> > This all sounds great!And I also suggested to consider a different setting for -7 preset: -7 == -l 12 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0.5);partial_tukey(2) see <http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=106545&view=findpost&p=871797> But it will decrease decoding speed for this preset.
> And I also suggested to consider a different setting for -7 preset: > -7 == -l 12 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0.5);partial_tukey(2) > see <http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=106545&view=findpost&p=871797> > > But it will decrease decoding speed for this preset.Yes, that is another thing to consider. My proposal keeps the decoding speed for all presets the same, but I don't think there is a problem in shifting things a little bit more. The above setting would make the decoding of -7 as CPU-intensive as -8 is now. Seeing that all FLAC-capable hardware that I know of has been decoding -8 without problems for years, there's probably no harm done with changing this too. Any thoughts?
Martijn van Beurden wrote:>> And I also suggested to consider a different setting for -7 preset: >> -7 == -l 12 -b 4096 -m -r 6 -A tukey(0.5);partial_tukey(2) >> see <http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=106545&view=findpost&p=871797> >> >> But it will decrease decoding speed for this preset. > > Yes, that is another thing to consider. My proposal keeps the > decoding speed for all presets the same, but I don't think there > is a problem in shifting things a little bit more. The above > setting would make the decoding of -7 as CPU-intensive as -8 is > now. Seeing that all FLAC-capable hardware that I know of has > been decoding -8 without problems for years, there's probably no > harm done with changing this too. > > Any thoughts?From <http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/CodecPerformanceComparison> it seems that the decoding of -8 is about 6% slower than -5. Sometimes the difference is bigger but doesn't exceed 10%. The only exception is "Freescale i.MX21 (454MHz ARM926EJ?-S, Fuze+)": 43x vs 35x realtime. But the decoding time is so small (4 sec vs 5 sec) that it can be some measurement error.