search for: optimfrog

...y that, but some synths are oversampled, thus you have the "analog" problem of subsampled waveforms. > Anyway, right now I get what I wanted somewhat working, well enough > considering I've only spent a couple of hours. Excellent! > ..But sadly none of FLAC, WavPack or OptimFrog could compress the > pre-processed song better, or hardly. And considering you'd also > have to add > the pool of frames, it would end up worse. This surprises me. Have you tried aligning your frames to the standard FLAC frame size? As for the pool, it seems like the first occur...

On 14-03-13 20:02, Declan Kelly wrote: > The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have > a "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression. No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better than FLAC will with a -9 option. FLAC 1.0 had a -9 option and it was removed with a good reason: almost no gain with added decoding complexity.

Hello, What is nowadays lossless compression's limit (tested on a large library of music samples, because of course, it depends on the music we do the tests on) ? I often see 53% - 62% of original WAV file's size. ( https://xiph.org/flac/comparison.html ) Are there algorithms that can losslessly compress to, say 40% of original WAV file size (I don't mind about encoding time here) ?

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:12:14PM +0100, mvanb1 at gmail.com wrote: > No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even > LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better > than FLAC will with a -9 option. No. I want the tightest possible compression, while remaining 100% compatible with the subset that all known FLAC decoders can successfully stream or p...

On 14-03-13 21:24, Declan Kelly wrote: > No. I want the tightest possible compression, while remaining 100% > compatible with the subset that all known FLAC decoders can successfully > stream or play now in cars, Hi-Fi units, "MP3 players" and cell phones. > The out and out most widely supported lossless audio format could (and > should) have a better "bang for the

>> ..But sadly none of FLAC, WavPack or OptimFrog could compress the >> pre-processed song better, or hardly. And considering you'd also >> have to add >> the pool of frames, it would end up worse. > > This surprises me. Have you tried aligning your frames to the > standard FLAC frame size? > Not at all, because...

...ssion modes from Flake > On 14-03-13 20:02, Declan Kelly wrote: > >> The next official release of the FLAC command line should really have a >> "-9" option for absolute maxed-out big-memory CPU-burning compression. >> > > No. If you want such things, try TAK, OptimFROG, Monkey's Audio or even > LA, you'll lose hardware compatibility anyway and they do much better than > FLAC will with a -9 option. FLAC 1.0 had a -9 option and it was removed > with a good reason: almost no gain with added decoding complexity. > > > > > ---------- F...

Flake is a completely independent codebase. When I used it years ago, I remember it being not only better compression but significantly faster as well. I believe some of the techniques used in libflake were added to libFLAC in 1.1.4. However, some of the improved compression in flake was due to options that are outside the FLAC 'subset', such as larger blocksize, greater number of

On Aug 7, 2009, at 21:48, Didier Dambrin wrote: > FLAC doesn't preserve every chunk? I thought it did. I only gave a > quick try > but it seemed to have preserved even the most obscure chunks. > Let me check: it even seems to preserve "MIDI note associated to > marker", > which is a very unknown metadata used by SoundForge (& even defined > in a >

...ects the repeated drumloop, subtracts it, so that for some parts there's just the synth line alone, without the drumloop anymore. And of course it totally fails for other songs I tested. So I'm sure it could end up working well with a lot more time. ..But sadly none of FLAC, WavPack or OptimFrog could compress the pre-processed song better, or hardly. And considering you'd also have to add the pool of frames, it would end up worse. The problem is the discontinuities I think. Say you work with little, non-tempo-synced frames, and you find a matching frame, which you subtract from t...