similar to: Retuning FLACs compression levels

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

Martijn van Beurden wrote: > This patch changes the settings associated with compression > levels 6, 7 and 8. With this patch, -e is no longer used, but > instead apodization functions are added. This should improve > compression with at least 95% of all material. Independent tests > show that this is probably the case. But your patch changes only two last presets (-7 and -8) so

Op 20-10-14 om 16:36 schreef Martijn van Beurden: > Op 20-10-14 om 16:31 schreef lvqcl: >> But your patch changes only two last presets (-7 and -8) so >> -6 stays unchanged. ( IIRC it should have >> "tukey(5e-1);partial_tukey(2)" as its apodization string >> instead of current "tukey(5e-1)" ). > > .... okay, I really don't know how it is

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

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)

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

I don't think you guys should worry too much about messing up old decoders, but no matter what you choose to do FLAC MUST REMAIN LOSSLESS. On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM, <flac-dev-request at xiph.org> wrote: > Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to > flac-dev at xiph.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

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

> 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

As I haven't heard any complaints concerning the proposal for retuning compression levels which I posted a few months ago, here's the patch that enables them, with the change proposed by lvqcl. This patch changes the settings associated with compression levels 6, 7 and 8. With this patch, -e is no longer used, but instead apodization functions are added. This should improve

On 7 February 2012 21:59, Martijn van Beurden <mvanb1 at gmail.com> wrote: > AFAIK, FLAC uses a fixed block length so block boundaries are just put > somewhere a block ends. Flake, another FLAC-encoders can use variable > block length and has a algorithm to decide the length, but this is > outside of the -0 to -8 presets, as these are all fixed block length. Aha. Thanks for

On 02/08/2012 11:49 AM, Ralph Giles wrote: > On 7 February 2012 21:59, Martijn van Beurden <mvanb1 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> AFAIK, FLAC uses a fixed block length so block boundaries are just put >> somewhere a block ends. Flake, another FLAC-encoders can use variable >> block length and has a algorithm to decide the length, but this is >> outside of the -0 to

Okay, I was thinking it may have been something to do with the header, but I wasn't sure how to verify that. thanks guys. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM, <flac-dev-request at xiph.org> wrote: > Send flac-dev mailing list submissions to > flac-dev at xiph.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Op 07-02-12 19:50, Ralph Giles schreef: > Basically the audio is chopped into a blocks and each block is coded > either uncompressed, as a constant value (good for silence), or with > linear predictive coding plus a rice-coded residual. I don't know how > the encoder decides where to put the block boundaries. AFAIK, FLAC uses a fixed block length so block boundaries are just put

To me the real question is not whether that portion of the spec has been implemented by any existing encoders/decoders but whether the spec is broken (i.e. cannot be implemented as written). I don't know the rationale for making the LPC shift explicitly signed. In C a negative shift is undefined and it does seem in FLAC__lpc_restore_signal() for example that the LPC shift is used as the

Martijn van Beurden <mvanb1 at gmail.com> ?????(?) ? ????? ?????? Thu, 13 Nov 2014 17:47:53 +0300: > Apparently the new presets are triggering an invalid free in > some code. I was running the test suite on ARM, and it gets > stuck with small blocksizes. > >> Testing blocksize variations... >> noise8m32 (--channels=1 --bps=8 -8 -p -e -l 0 --lax >>

Hi Martijn Thank you for the link. Could those old installers be taken down or at least moved to a 'old' folder ? I'm new to this, so I am a good example of how a new user works. I use google, or I visit the homepage, and then I download and install. As that installer version doesn't work at all, it cant convert WAV files, I suggest to delete it completely. Regards, Jonny On

Moving them will break links, and they should be kept for future reference. The installer works properly on Windows XP and earlier, it was broken because of the UAC introduced in Vista. Op 16-09-14 om 15:56 schreef Notes Jonny: > > Ping > > On 3 Sep 2014 10:29, "Notes Jonny" <jongmob at gmail.com > <mailto:jongmob at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi

Hi Martjn, and everyone, Apologies if I have missed the reply, but I think I have not got any comment so far on this. That means our new ID request is accepted? What should I do next to proceed?? Apparently this is my first time here, so appreciate any advice assistance. Best regards, Taku From: Kurosawa, Taku Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:41 PM To: 'Martijn van Beurden'

I am also philosophically opposed to changing the specification. That said, there's nothing wrong with adding a note to the specification about the common implementations, particularly the reference library. Then, future developers will know both the precise specification and still have the warning that they risk incompatibility by deviating from the reference implementation. I own devices