Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: A. C. Censi <accensi@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 12:10 am

--0016361e83c483ffe60489a75e5d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM, A. C. Censi wrote:

> There is no decompress code in the article ...

Alright, I've done some proper testing.

I encoded 105 seconds of 8 bit PCM audio.

Flac got a ratio of .240 on -0 (least compression) and a ratio of .230 on -8
(most compression)

The algorithm got a ratio of "2.7446", which is 0.36 if you convert it to
the way flac measures. (take the inverse).

So flac does better in terms of absolute compression, ignoring any
performance measures.

Jeremy

--0016361e83c483ffe60489a75e5d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM, A. C. C=
ensi <accensi@gma=
il.com
> wrote:

There is no decompress code in the article ...

Someone has to wright one to check.

The author and his company claim that it can operate in lossless mode
and it is already in use in some medical systems, so probably yes. But
the improvement, if any, when compared with established algorithms
used for sound, seems not sensible. I would not bet time in writing
the decompression code.

ACC

PS - Matlab compression code is attached. So anyone can try to decompress!<=
br>

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, =A0<fons@kokkinizita.net> wrote:

br>

--
A. C. Censi
accensi [em] gmail [ponto] com
accensi [em] montreal [ponto] com [ponto] br
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lis=
ts.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Alright, I've done some proper testing.<=
br>I encoded 105 seconds of 8 bit PCM audio.Flac got a ratio of=
.240 on -0 (least compression) and a ratio of .230 on -8 (most compression=
)

The algorithm got a ratio of "2.7446", which is 0.36 if you c=
onvert it to the way flac measures. (take the inverse).So flac does=
better in terms of absolute compression, ignoring any performance measures=
.

Jeremy

--0016361e83c483ffe60489a75e5d--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Gene Heskett, (Tue Jun 22, 2:55 am)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Jens M Andreasen, (Tue Jun 22, 6:37 am)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Gene Heskett, (Tue Jun 22, 10:38 am)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, drew Roberts, (Tue Jun 22, 1:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Adrian Knoth, (Tue Jun 22, 12:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Jeremy, (Tue Jun 22, 8:09 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, A. C. Censi, (Tue Jun 22, 9:18 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, A. C. Censi, (Tue Jun 22, 9:48 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Jeremy, (Wed Jun 23, 12:10 am)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, , (Tue Jun 22, 10:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, A. C. Censi, (Tue Jun 22, 10:53 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Jeremy, (Tue Jun 22, 9:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, A. C. Censi, (Tue Jun 22, 10:14 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Jeremy, (Tue Jun 22, 8:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Gene Heskett, (Tue Jun 22, 1:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Jens M Andreasen, (Tue Jun 22, 1:09 pm)
Re: [LAD] Better lossless compressions?, Philipp Überbacher, (Tue Jun 22, 9:01 am)