Hi all, With the patch I mailed earlier today, I found out a few adjustments could be made to the compression level settings.This retuning speeds up the encoding and improves compression, while not changing anything decoding-wise. Currently, compression settings are as follows -5, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 5 -A tukey(0.5) -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 -5, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 5 -A tukey(0.5) -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) See this graph for comparison: http://www.audiograaf.nl/misc_stuff/setting-visualisation.pdf This data was acquired with a reasonably large dataset (one track from each album with which the comparison on http://xiph.org/flac/comparison.html was made, so 43 tracks from 43 different CDs), which I think is quite nicely balanced. It looks like -6 will be almost as good as -8 is now, but much faster. -7 will be a bit slower and -8 will be a bit faster, but both will compress beter than -8 does now. I dropped -e because it's compression improvement isn't worth the slowdown, but it is easy for the user to add this anyway. Would this be a good idea? Any comments?
Martijn van Beurden wrote:> With the patch I mailed earlier today, I found out a few > adjustments could be made to the compression level settings.This > retuning speeds up the encoding and improves compression, while > not changing anything decoding-wise. > > Currently, compression settings are as follows > > -5, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 5 -A tukey(0.5) > -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 > > -5, -l 8 -b 4096 -m -r 5 -A tukey(0.5) > -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) > > See this graph for comparison: > > http://www.audiograaf.nl/misc_stuff/setting-visualisation.pdf > > This data was acquired with a reasonably large dataset (one > track from each album with which the comparison on > http://xiph.org/flac/comparison.html was made, so 43 tracks from > 43 different CDs), which I think is quite nicely balanced. > > It looks like -6 will be almost as good as -8 is now, but much > faster. -7 will be a bit slower and -8 will be a bit faster, but > both will compress beter than -8 does now.This all sounds great!> I dropped -e because > it's compression improvement isn't worth the slowdown, but it is > easy for the user to add this anyway.I think we should keep -e but may print a warning. The reason to keep it is so that we do not break some random flac frontend that has this as an option. Cheers, Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:39:43PM +1000, mle+la at mega-nerd.com wrote:> Martijn van Beurden wrote: > > > I dropped -e because > > it's compression improvement isn't worth the slowdown, but it is > > easy for the user to add this anyway. > > I think we should keep -e but may print a warning. The reason to keep it > is so that we do not break some random flac frontend that has this as > an option.I think what Martijn meant was that -e is no longer part of the numbered preset levels, not that the -e option is being deprecated. Any deprecated options should of course print a warning instead of causing an error, because of so many frontends and home-brew scripts that could be still passing them to the command line. -- -Dec. --- (no microsoft products were used to create this message) "Mosaic is going to be on every computer in the world." - Marc Andreessen, 1994
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.