On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 11:50:12PM -0700, Josh Coalson wrote: > Interesting, looks like the best case is ~ 0.75% increase in > compression for 18% increase in encode time. The compression > increase is similar to my old brute force test but much faster. > The question is, is it worth it from the user's point of view?
Here is another test. I've rewritten my brute force util, it is much faster (these 2 albums took about 8 hours) and decrease of compression ratio isn't very big. First is one of "worse" albums, where previously was no improvement and second one is the "best" album from my previous test. tr. raw flac -8 flac-vbs -8 (bf) diff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 01 42465360 32921806 (0.7753) 32797052 (0.7723) 0.00294 02 49309680 35592614 (0.7218) 35360927 (0.7171) 0.00470 03 44892624 31174614 (0.6944) 30756995 (0.6851) 0.00930 04 48933360 35896765 (0.7336) 35544467 (0.7264) 0.00720 05 46223856 32552195 (0.7042) 31966877 (0.6916) 0.01266 06 54512304 38597716 (0.7081) 38183807 (0.7005) 0.00759 07 62233920 47307456 (0.7602) 47103582 (0.7569) 0.00328 08 50081136 35248709 (0.7038) 34802683 (0.6949) 0.00891 09 46722480 34866768 (0.7463) 34649209 (0.7416) 0.00466 10 105181440 66135505 (0.6288) 65403955 (0.6218) 0.00696 11 42140784 31847746 (0.7557) 31632150 (0.7506) 0.00512 12 39497136 26761582 (0.6776) 26599003 (0.6734) 0.00412 13 41717424 29667034 (0.7111) 29427846 (0.7054) 0.00573 14 60982656 41929582 (0.6876) 41659950 (0.6831) 0.00442 15 41465760 29593363 (0.7137) 29311228 (0.7069) 0.00680 1-15 776359920 550093455 (0.7086) 545199731 (0.7023) 0.00630 01 30964080 21620551 (0.6982) 21329002 (0.6888) 0.00942 02 38984400 26756131 (0.6863) 26376519 (0.6766) 0.00974 03 33831168 26303654 (0.7775) 26101924 (0.7715) 0.00596 04 56497392 37413032 (0.6622) 36704124 (0.6497) 0.01255 05 25756752 19550862 (0.7591) 19305960 (0.7495) 0.00951 06 30611280 15424648 (0.5039) 15245573 (0.4980) 0.00585 07 36637104 23893567 (0.6522) 23538606 (0.6425) 0.00969 08 35258832 24666148 (0.6996) 24323401 (0.6899) 0.00972 09 24587808 18761332 (0.7630) 18574225 (0.7554) 0.00761 10 29470560 21236888 (0.7206) 20987622 (0.7122) 0.00846 11 44111760 27948908 (0.6336) 27319813 (0.6193) 0.01426 12 23138976 18018696 (0.7787) 17821689 (0.7702) 0.00851 13 44027088 32130608 (0.7298) 31623073 (0.7183) 0.01153 14 49570752 34641760 (0.6988) 34184309 (0.6896) 0.00923 1-14 503447952 348366785 (0.6920) 343435840 (0.6822) 0.00979 So there is still big room for improvement. And i believe this test don't show us maximum, what we can get from variable blocksizes. If anyone want to help me to find the right procedure, my hacks are here: http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~lichvarm/flac-vbs/flac-bf.cc http://phoenix.inf.upol.cz/~lichvarm/flac-vbs/flac-vbs.patch -- Miroslav Lichvar ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Flac-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flac-dev
