Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Wav Compression in Freearc, from TTA to TAK ?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Wav Compression in Freearc, from TTA to TAK ?

    Hello, I've heard from the folks at Hydrogenaudio that freearc uses a modified TTA encoder for wavefiles.

    Have you heard/ considered using TAK (Tom's Audio Kodec) maybe as part of the "powerpack" since the source isn't open?

    Speed is near-flac, compression is equal/better than monkey's audio using lvl 4 preset (called p4 which is maximum).
    But you can also use a bruteforce p4m mode that is 2x slower :3

    Link to official site http://thbeck.de/Tak/Tak.html
    Link to 2.0 release binaries : http://thbeck.de/Download/TAK_2.0.0.zip
    Last edited by eleria; 2nd February 2010 at 20:08.

  2. #2
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,507
    Thanks
    742
    Thanked 665 Times in 359 Posts
    it's hard to consider external programs as part of archiver

    if you wanna use tak, just use it as part of PP

  3. #3
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eleria View Post
    Speed is near-flac, compression is equal/better than monkey's audio using lvl 4 preset (called p4 which is maximum).
    Excuse me, but its not true. First of all regarding FLAC vs. TAK. You can feed em such options so FLAC will be faster then TAK and vice versa. But generally speaking TAK is faster than FLAC. For example look into the following test conducted using RAM disk and fastest switches. I used Chick Corea - The Ultimate Adventure album as one WAV image. Original size is 773 930 348 bytes.
    Code:
    TAK v2.0.0 -p0                        16.323     518 060 595
    FLAC v1.2.1 -0                        19.972     544 925 862
    FLAC v1.2.1 -l 0 -r 0 --no-mid-side   19.748     547 445 407
    Speed optimised compiles from RareWares.org don't help here. For some reasons they provide worser speed than usual compile.

    As for TAK vs. APE... You're wrong too. Compression ratio of TAK is not equal and moreover not better than APE. TAK never reaches the same ratio as APE. Look here please. Results given in form of time\size.
    Code:
       testfile          TAK v2.0.0 -p4m         MAC v4.06 -c4000
    --------------     -------------------     -------------------
    01_orbital.wav     260 |   478 748 550     143 |   477 052 628
    02_4hero.wav       558 | 1 008 998 880     298 | 1 006 754 612
    03_chick.wav       271 |   503 451 469     140 |   499 526 784
    It was also true with early versions of TAK called YALAC with possibility to almost completely control the codec internals. See attachment.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	009.png 
Views:	518 
Size:	19.6 KB 
ID:	1193  

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Haha gotta love semantics.
    Anyway from encoding/reencoding over 300Go of lossless music I always take the worse example in terms of speed, and flac happens to be faster on quite a few tracks.
    And yes I do use a ramdisk.
    (ofcourse I can run that fiber-pooled compile or that other optimized flac and have better speed than TAK at any setting)

    About APE, fair enough it compresses better most of the time but not always.
    I was kinda showing my love for TAK and looking down on APE for being old slow as hell close-sourced and completely discontinued.

    Afterall, I haven't seen many recent talk about TAK, and here is a Data Compression thread ... right ?
    Even TAK -p4 would compress more than any TTA setting, that is if source hasn't been much improved when merging it into Freearc

    But thanks for such a nice post O_o

  5. #5
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eleria View Post
    Haha gotta love semantics.
    Anyway from encoding/reencoding over 300Go of lossless music I always take the worse example in terms of speed, and flac happens to be faster on quite a few tracks.
    And yes I do use a ramdisk.
    (ofcourse I can run that fiber-pooled compile or that other optimized flac and have better speed than TAK at any setting)

    About APE, fair enough it compresses better most of the time but not always.
    I was kinda showing my love for TAK and looking down on APE for being old slow as hell close-sourced and completely discontinued.

    Afterall, I haven't seen many recent talk about TAK, and here is a Data Compression thread ... right ?
    Even TAK -p4 would compress more than any TTA setting, that is if source hasn't been much improved when merging it into Freearc

    But thanks for such a nice post O_o
    Monkey's Audio is open source. Though I remember sb. mentioning some licensing issues which prevented using the sources. It was something related to Matroska container.

  6. #6
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    Yup, read something like that on hydrogen-audio too (regarding the "(un)openness")

    TAK sometimes can be better than FLAC in at least some aspects, though since these comparisons about 5 new versions of TAK and 0 versions of FLAC were released, so it may have changed.

    The only problem is unwillingness of its author to at least produce binaries for some other OSs than win32, which stems from TAK being written in Pascal/Delphi.

    EDIT: Word goes around that TAK is faster than FLAC because of absence of MD5 checking, but I don't read about it often enough to be sure it's still true or ever was.
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

  7. #7
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Fox View Post
    Yup, read something like that on hydrogen-audio too (regarding the "(un)openness")

    TAK sometimes can be better than FLAC in at least some aspects, though since these comparisons about 5 new versions of TAK and 0 versions of FLAC were released, so it may have changed.

    The only problem is unwillingness of its author to at least produce binaries for some other OSs than win32, which stems from TAK being written in Pascal/Delphi.

    EDIT: Word goes around that TAK is faster than FLAC because of absence of MD5 checking, but I don't read about it often enough to be sure it's still true or ever was.
    It has a switch to create / check MD5, so it probably doesn't check it by default.
    And if you compare speed at similar strength (tak 1 ~= flac then TAK just blows FLAC away and MD5 won't change it.

  8. #8
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    Oh, so that's how it is with MD5, ok! I agree with the rest. Too bad Thomas wants to keep the codec his and the source closed, therefore limiting non-official encoders and supported non-Win32 OSs for playback to zero.
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

  9. #9
    Member Skymmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    681
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 168 Times in 84 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eleria View Post
    I was kinda showing my love for TAK and looking down on APE for being old slow as hell close-sourced and completely discontinued.
    I wouldn't say that. There were no official statement from Matthew about stopping the development. Last version of Monkey have been released on 17 Mar 2009 while last FLAC version have been released on 17 Sep 2007.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Fox View Post
    TAK sometimes can be better than FLAC in at least some aspects, though since these comparisons about 5 new versions of TAK and 0 versions of FLAC were released, so it may have changed.
    Better - is very relative term. If we talk about compression speed and ratio then TAK is definitely better. Shortly speaking. If we have some FLAC speed\ratio result then TAK will give better ratio while being faster. My brief test above clearly shows it and it happens on other options too.
    But I'm agree with you. Speed and ratio are the only advantages of TAK over FLAC. FLAC is open-source, very well known, ported to a lot of OSes, have a good software and hardware support, stable format. TAK is close-source and judging the following topic I think will never be, at least in near future. It has only official Winamp and unofficial foobar2000 plugins and basicly that is all. Authors of other software don't rush to include TAK support in their products although SDK is available. Furthermore author of TAK doesn't care about compatibility since new v2.0.0 breaks it. Forward at least.
    So, although TAK is very promising, Its author goes into the wrong way from my point of view.

  10. #10
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,611
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Skymmer View Post
    Speed and ratio are the only advantages of TAK over FLAC.
    And isn't it the main thing we're after on this forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skymmer View Post
    Furthermore author of TAK doesn't care about compatibility since new v2.0.0 breaks it. Forward at least.
    Just forward. And there is forward compatibility for everything except for playback.
    *EDIT* corrected, the second sentence said "backward".
    Last edited by m^2; 5th February 2010 at 10:18.

  11. #11
    Tester
    Black_Fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    [CZE] Czechia
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
    Skymmer: Ah, now I see what you meant. Well, yes, there are now many problems that one man cannot fix quickly. Since "nobody" uses TAK, its author can at least afford to improve codecs in incompatible ways We can hope he someday releases format specification if not source.
    I am... Black_Fox... my discontinued benchmark
    "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time? I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again." -- Bill Gates

Similar Threads

  1. FreeArc
    By Bulat Ziganshin in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 3160
    Last Post: 26th September 2019, 20:51
  2. FreeArc compression suite (4x4, Tornado, REP, Delta, Dict...)
    By Bulat Ziganshin in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 554
    Last Post: 26th September 2018, 03:41
  3. FreeArc 0.40 released
    By Bulat Ziganshin in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 301
    Last Post: 28th April 2008, 13:27
  4. FreeArc is becoming more and more interesting...
    By Vacon in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 9th December 2007, 21:41
  5. TTA - very promising lossless WAV packer
    By Bulat Ziganshin in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 27th March 2007, 14:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •