Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

hydrogenaud.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#161

Post by HakanAbbas »

eternityforest wrote: post #159
karmakaze wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I was about to click and read and it occurred to me that this is only of possibly theoretical interest and I'll know about later if it comes to matter. There are some areas that I follow as-it-develops, but codecs and data compression is one that I'll use when ready. Still awaiting widespread av1 support/adoption. The area most needing improvements IMO is with Bluetooth, especially Apple's support of codecs (wh…

Pretty much any low level tech is at most a theoretical curiosity to me. I'll use it when it works in every browser and OS and average people recognize the file extension. Unusual tech seems to attract unusual bugs! Still really really impressive to beat an established standard as an individual, that doesn't happen much.

Thank you for your good thoughts

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#162

Post by HakanAbbas »

theandrewbailey wrote: post #160
HakanAbbas wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about this. But there are things I should add to Halic and Halac. When I complete them and realize that it will really be used by someones, it will of course be open source.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. If Linus didn't open source Linux until it was "complete", it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is.

Thank you for your valuable thoughts.

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#163

Post by redeeman »

adastra22 wrote: post #132
joshspankit wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it’s just me, but every lossless codec that’s: 1. Not FLAC 2. Not as open-source as FLAC comes across as a patent play. FLAC is excellent and widely supported (and where it’s not supported some new at-least-open-enough codec will also not be supported). I have yet to see a compelling argument for lossless audio encoders that are not FLAC.

FLAC’s compression algorithm was pretty much garbage when it came out, and is much worse now compared to the state of the art. Even mp3 + gzip residuals would probably compress better. FLAC doesn’t support more modern sampling formats (e.g. floating point for mastering), or complex multi channel compression for surround sound formats. There just isn’t something better (and free) to replace it yet.

what do you suggest instead?

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#164

Post by fbdab103 »

chungy wrote: post #141
fbdab103 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the world made a collective yawn about flac. Hard to imagine that would change much with a new format. I personally keep everything in flac, but Bandcamp is seemingly the only service where that is a given.

A yawn? Is there any alternative that even has 10% of the mindshare of FLAC?

Just that providers of flac are few and far between. The only reliable source of flac files are those you make yourself.

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#165

Post by system2 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #158
system2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am happy to hear everyone has plenty of free time to check all random internet open-source projects.

Citation needed. No one said that, and so if you heard it, then you should see a therapist about your hallucinations.

It is a new year, maybe you should try to be happy and calm this year.

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#166

Post by ericpruitt »

HakanAbbas wrote: post #153
Aurornis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I complete them and realize that it will really be used by someones, it will of course be open source There is a chicken and egg problem with this strategy: Few people will want to, or even be able to, use this unless it’s open source and freely licensed. The alternatives are mature, open or mostly open, and widely implemented. Minor improvements in speed aren’t enough to get everyone to put up with any diffic…

When I bring my work to a certain stage, I would like to deliver it to a team that can claim it. However, I want to see how much I can improve my work alone.

Being open source doesn't mean you have to accept contributions from other people.

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#167

Post by [deleted] »

HakanAbbas wrote: post #143
jcalvinowens wrote: post #139

There's no source? It's very hard to take this seriously without source code... He explicitly says it's not SIMD, which is nice because it rules out a way of cheesing it, but still...

At this stage, what is taken seriously is quite personal. If the source code is a requirement to take it seriously; MS Windows, MS Office, Adobe, Autodesk, Oracle, Winrar and thousands of more wonderful software should not be taken seriously. Some of the SIMD optimization make compilers automatically. The others can be manually. These speeds can be obtained without using SIMD. Then there may be more with manual SIMD.…

[deleted]

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#168

Post by kazinator »

HakanAbbas wrote: post #148
jcalvinowens wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MS Windows, MS Office, Adobe, Autodesk, Oracle, Winrar and thousands of more wonderful software should not be taken seriously. Apples and oranges. I don't need word processing software to be open source to understand how it works. A proportedly novel compression algorithm is a different story... I can be totally honest with you: FLAC being open source is more valuable to me than any performance benefit you could ev…

Hmm. Of course, we don't need to know how Oracle is fast and secure, why Autodesk is a monopoly in the industry, winrar is still used a lot despite being paid, and how Adobe's artificial intelligence-powered filters work. I am developing HALAC and HALIC as a hobby and I don't expect everyone to use them. I'm happy when I can get good results, and it's bad when I can't. I say this as someone who has been dealing with…

Autodesk has a monopoly because, oh, web browsers don't have to open Autocad drawings.

The amount of media playback and serving software out there is innumerable. If most of it doesn't handle some obscure format, that format is screwed.

Getting a new format everywhere is a difficult battle; the adoption barriers are high. Even if the thing is completely royalty free, and comes with a great, open source reference implementation.

Something that is closed, and has no backing of some corporate consortium or ITU type body or whatever, is basically fucked.

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#169

Post by lifthrasiir »

throw0101d wrote: post #103
aingisni_del wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>uses the world's most notorious domain extension doesn't inspire confidence, to put it mildly. What does this mean? Why or how is this TLD the world’s most notorious?

> The .su TLD is known for usage by cybercriminals.[4][5][6] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su I would think that ICANN/whomever would have mandated its retirement / de-orbit, but a special exception was asked for: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#Exceptional...

All three references are 10 years old (or only have a secondary reference that is 10 years old). More recent analyses give much more diverse set of TLDs---.ga, .tk, .us, .ru, .ml, .pw and so on [1]. In fact, at this point we should be much more concerned about .us than .su.

[1] https://www.interisle.net/PhishingLandscape2023.pdf#page=18

Re: New Ultra Fast Lossless Audio Codec (HALAC)

#170

Post by adastra22 »

CharlesW wrote: post #137
adastra22 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FLAC’s compression algorithm was pretty much garbage when it came out, and is much worse now compared to the state of the art. Even mp3 + gzip residuals would probably compress better. FLAC doesn’t support more modern sampling formats (e.g. floating point for mastering), or complex multi channel compression for surround sound formats. There just isn’t something better (and free) to replace it yet.

> There just isn’t something better (and free) to replace it yet. Apple's ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) format is an open-source and patent-free alternative. I believe both ALAC and FLAC support up to 8 channels of audio, which allows them to support 5.1 and 7.1 surround. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless_Audio_Codec#His... These are distribution formats, so I'd be surprised if there were demand for fl…

When FLAC compresses stereo audio, it does a diff of the left and right channels and compresses that. This often results in a 2x additional compression ratio because the left and right channels are tightly correlated.

Unless things have changed substantially and I missed it, FLAC does not do similar tricks for other multichannel audio modes. Meaning that for surround sound, each channel is independently compressed and it is unable to exploit signal correlation between channels.

Proprietary formats like Dolby on the other hand do support rather intelligent handling of multichannel modes.

FLAC is not solely a distribution format. Indeed as a distribution format it sucks in a number of ways. It is chiefly used as an archival format, and would in fact be ideal as a mastering format if these deficiencies Could be addressed.

Post reply on HN