Some test results of mp3 to .pa .pa experimental

  • Alpha Testers

    ° at job status 100% the .zip closed almost instantly, pa needs a lot of extra time to finish the job…
    ° in speed, the classic zip is still the best choice
    ° PA experimental is incredible in compression but it is in the actual stage a time consumer…

    ° other users reported this too : PA interfaces are slower to open now.
    In explorer shell it takes time too, before the ‘settings’ window opens ?

  • conexware

    @pirrbe can you set it to ZSTD, Normal and see how fast is that? Thanks!

  • Alpha Testers

    Zstd/normal or fast decrease the timing but increase the compress volume. But now the job status 100% is reached slower but the ‘after writing’ is decreased !!
    Before 100% at 0.07 + 0.05 , now 100% at 0.09 + 0.02 recording.
    But ZSTD improves the results. To increase the differences, I should use a more volume mp3 collection…

  • conexware


  • Alpha Testers

    Hereby a test of one of my mp3 collection folders.
    Conclusion … ? 12.10% decrease with .pa experimental but the time needed is unrealistic to use this frequently… or I have to invest in a state to the art PC…
    But .zip still beats the .pa on heavy volumes…


  • conexware

    @pirrbe yes, keep in mind that this works best with at least 4t cpus and 64bit. But it scales well to 8t too. But in your case for instance, speed can be optimized for optimized fast modes, where we can gain a lot of speed to be the same as zstd fast.

    Just right now, a lot of effort goes into optimizing stronger modes since thats where the compression is.

    With modern i7/Ryzen cpu, people can easily get 8MB/s speed and >20% on 320kbs MP3s.

    I need to test it on our dual core thats on x64. My i7 with limit to 2 threads still does 5 MB/s, while your dual core does 1.1 MBs. I am sure we can optimize it with some settings.

Log in to reply

  • 1
  • 1
  • 21
  • 3
  • 6
  • 2
  • 5
  • 7