Different loose mid side algorithm compatible with multithreading #675
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current loose mid-side algorithm is not compatible with multithreading, because frames depend on the channel ordering of the last frame.
To solve this, a different loose mid-side algorithm is introduced.
very large set of tracks.pdf
From top left to bottom right presets 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4. There is quite a bit of variability in the results (flac-1.4.3.exe should have had the same results as flac-multithreading-v6.exe, and results for presets 0, 2 and 3 should have been the same for all three), but it seems as if the new algorithm is faster for preset 4 and slower for preset 1. This has probably to do with block size. Compression seems pretty much the same.