INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: FLAC Settings UI misleading...  (Read 3234 times)

AlexS

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« on: November 16, 2013, 10:32:35 pm »

Media Center 19.0.74

Hello again :)

Tools -> Options -> Encoding - > FLAC encoder Settings.

Here we have a UI Bug for your tracker - Please change "quality" to "compression ratio" within the UI, currently this is misleading and wrong :) FLAC compression ratio does not improve quality as it is loss-less!

Also...

Please indicate which is high and which is low compression here (replacing the dropdown with a slidebar widget could help ), numbers mean nothing to the average Joe (although they still should be displayed if relevant).

Thanks

Alex
Logged

Vocalpoint

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2007
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2013, 10:17:06 am »

Media Center 19.0.74

Hello again :)

Tools -> Options -> Encoding - > FLAC encoder Settings.

Here we have a UI Bug for your tracker - Please change "quality" to "compression ratio" within the UI, currently this is misleading and wrong :) FLAC compression ratio does not improve quality as it is loss-less!

Also...

Please indicate which is high and which is low compression here (replacing the dropdown with a slidebar widget could help ), numbers mean nothing to the average Joe (although they still should be displayed if relevant).

Thanks

Alex


+1 This has bothered me for a long long time.

VP
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2013, 12:43:14 pm »

+1

I think at one time the reference encoder from xiph.org used this kind of terminology for the -0 through -8 options.  But they don't now (they call it compression level).

I agree it should be changed.  It occasionally causes questions.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Matt

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 42344
  • Shoes gone again!
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2013, 12:47:13 pm »

Look at the APE encoder in MC for an example of how I like lossless compression levels to be presented.
Logged
Matt Ashland, JRiver Media Center

Vincent Kars

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2013, 03:27:57 pm »

Look at the APE encoder in MC for an example of how I like lossless comrpession levels to be presented.

Excellent, should avoid the common misconception that compression in FLAC means lossy
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2013, 03:28:47 pm »

Look at the APE encoder in MC for an example of how I like lossless comrpession levels to be presented.

I think this would be fine.

Or just remove the setting altogether.  No one needs it anyway with modern hardware, and it just generates support questions.  If people insist upon doing something odd with their Flac encoder, just use an external CLI encoder.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

AlexS

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2013, 06:07:00 pm »

Settings are extremely important people want to be able to adjust their encoding when ripping. People need to know what it is gong on at that level when they are ripping 1000's of their CD's onto hard drive.

If the settings were be removed from the media player just because it "generates support questions" (you are joking I hope) I guess this reason would be justification enough to remove the whole media player or even remove Microsoft Windows ;).
Logged

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2013, 06:39:16 pm »

Or just remove the setting altogether.  No one needs it anyway with modern hardware, and it just generates support questions.  If people insist upon doing something odd with their Flac encoder, just use an external CLI encoder.
I was under the impression that Level 5 was optimal for portable devices, which don't have much power to decode the audio. Is that not the case?

Obviously encoding speed is probably not going to be an issue if you were to use level 8 on a modern computer.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2013, 07:24:33 pm »

Settings are extremely important

Not that setting.  It is essentially useless in the modern era.  The file size differences are relatively small.  It is like setting the ZIP compression level.  Back when you were worried about differences in file sizes measured in K, okay, I'm with you.  But...

The differences in encoding and decoding speed would be impossible to notice on any modern computer, and wouldn't make a difference on ay remotely competent hardware player either.  The differences here are very slight.

Maybe, the only thing I can see it being useful for is if you are worried about bandwidth for streaming files.  Even then, the differences are going to be pretty small.  I'm skeptical about any substantial real world impact between 5 and 0 or 5 and 8.

But, in any case, I don't care if it is removed.  But the wording/display should be changed.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

mwillems

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5233
  • "Linux Merit Badge" Recipient
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2013, 08:40:49 pm »

Not that setting.  It is essentially useless in the modern era.  The file size differences are relatively small.  It is like setting the ZIP compression level.  Back when you were worried about differences in file sizes measured in K, okay, I'm with you.  But...

The differences in encoding and decoding speed would be impossible to notice on any modern computer, and wouldn't make a difference on ay remotely competent hardware player either.  The differences here are very slight.

Maybe, the only thing I can see it being useful for is if you are worried about bandwidth for streaming files.  Even then, the differences are going to be pretty small.  I'm skeptical about any substantial real world impact between 5 and 0 or 5 and 8.

But, in any case, I don't care if it is removed.  But the wording/display should be changed.

You got me thinking and I just ran some tests to see what the compression difference might be.  The difference between zero and eight is between 10 and 20% for me based on about twenty random albums converted.  That's not that big of a deal on one album, but over an entire collection that's not irrelevant.  For my collection that's between 50 and 100 gigs, and for some folks here I'm sure it's well into the hundreds of gigs.  The difference between 5 and 8 seems pretty small, most of the difference appears to be between 0 and 5.  

I agree that the decoding burden is probably trivial for most devices (I've never encountered a device that couldn't decode 8 ).
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2013, 11:06:15 pm »

Okay, I retract my argument.

When you said that, I decided I too would run a test (because I've seen wildly differing and vague numbers in public tests I've seen).  So, I just did two tests.  I took a completely random 500 file sampling of my library (a mix of sources from audiobooks to classical to jazz to ABBA), and converted them to FLAC three times.  Once to v6 (the default in MC) to start, and then from that "source" to FLAC -0 and FLAC -8.

I did this twice, with two sets of files.

On the first try, the resulting -8 files were 12.6% smaller than the -0 files.
On the second try, they were 18.4% smaller.

That's not totally insignificant with a large library, and was (even in the small case) a bit higher than I'd expected (which was between 4-9%), so I retract my argument.  They're worth leaving in for a 10-20% difference, since it is supported already anyway.

Just relabel them.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

MrC

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10462
  • Your life is short. Give me your money.
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2013, 12:13:26 am »

I've used the maximum FLAC "compression" (try harder) factor forever.  It costs me nothing, and a byte saved is a byte earned.
Logged
The opinions I express represent my own folly.

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2013, 12:44:36 am »

It seems I was mistaken - I had always been told that FLAC level 5 was the default because it was the best balance between encoding time and decoding speed.
It seems that this is not strictly true, and anything from 4-8 are so close that it really doesn't matter. (so you might as well use 8)

http://web.archive.org/web/20051016163102/http://people.ucsc.edu/~rswilson/flactest/index.html
Logged

MrC

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10462
  • Your life is short. Give me your money.
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2013, 01:10:59 am »

It probably mattered a lot in 2000 when FLAC was created and the vast majority of folks were running 800 Mhz Pentium IIIs.
Logged
The opinions I express represent my own folly.

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2013, 02:07:21 am »

It probably mattered a lot in 2000 when FLAC was created and the vast majority of folks were running 800 Mhz Pentium IIIs.
Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't matter for computer-based playback at all, though I do wonder if it still impacts battery life on portable devices.
Logged

BryanC

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2013, 11:54:36 am »

Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't matter for computer-based playback at all, though I do wonder if it still impacts battery life on portable devices.

I will point you to this report:  https://xiph.org/flac/comparison.pdf

Notably, this figure:



There does seem to be a small penalty > preset -5 but in the scope of the other codecs, it is nearly insignificant.

The Rockbox guys might have empirical tests.
Logged

Matt

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 42344
  • Shoes gone again!
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2013, 11:52:54 am »

Next build:
Changed: Revised FLAC encoder settings to be more clear that all modes are lossless.
Logged
Matt Ashland, JRiver Media Center

AlexS

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: FLAC Settings UI misleading...
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2013, 09:32:56 pm »

Thankyou for this... lovely.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up