Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread (Read 308824 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #575 –
@halb27:

is --limit a lowpass as in MP3 --lowpass ?
Is noiseshaping used to just lower bitrate, improve quality or both ?  - i understand its non-adaptive ATM

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #576 –
--limit isn't a lowpass. lossyWAV doesn't do any lowpassing.
--limit is a limit to the noise analysis. Noise analysis is looking for low energy in the spectrum, and the lossyWAV principle is targeting at keeping added noise (by removed bits) below this energy.
At very high frequency there's the problem that energy can be very low at a certain frequency range which makes lossyWAV keep nearly all the bits for no good reason. That's why there was always a --limit of 16 kHz to the analysis. --limit is a bit lower now when using --altpreset.

Noise shaping is meant to improve quality. Bitrate goes up a bit when using it, especially at the low quality levels. (Part of the) Noise is shifted this way into the roughly 13+ kHz region IIRC.
Nick can certainly tell more about the details.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #577 –
Nick, can you please tell about --altpreset's limit default for the portable and standard quality when encoding 44.1 kHz sampled music? (I didn't really understand your formula).
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #578 –
The following table shows the target frequencies and calculated resultant for each quality level. Shaping is appended in the last column.
Code: [Select]
     +--------------------------------+
     | --hilimit target and outcome(s)|
+----+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| -q | Target | 32000 | 44100 | 48000 |Shaping|
+----+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| -4 | 14000  | 14000 | 13781 | 14250 | 0.000 |
| -3 | 14000  | 14000 | 13781 | 14250 | 0.000 |
| -2 | 14000  | 14000 | 13781 | 14250 | 0.000 |
| -1 | 14000  | 14000 | 13781 | 14250 | 0.000 |
|  0 | 14000  | 14000 | 13781 | 14250 | 0.000 |
|  1 | 14200  | 14000 | 14470 | 14250 | 0.051 |
|  2 | 14400  | 14500 | 14470 | 14250 | 0.108 |
|  3 | 14600  | 14500 | 14470 | 14250 | 0.172 |
|  4 | 14800  | 15000 | 14470 | 15000 | 0.247 |
|  5 | 15000  | 15000 | 15159 | 15000 | 0.333 |
|  6 | 15200  | 15000 | 15159 | 15000 | 0.434 |
|  7 | 15400  | 15500 | 15159 | 15750 | 0.549 |
|  8 | 15600  | 15500 | 15848 | 15750 | 0.681 |
|  9 | 15800  | 16000 | 15848 | 15750 | 0.831 |
| 10 | 16000  | 16000 | 15848 | 15750 | 1.000 |
+----+--------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #579 –
Thanks a lot Nick.  I think the --altpreset settings are a clever step forward in the development/tuning of lossyWAV/lossyFLAC. At last (with the new settings) the bit rates are well below that of 1.1.0 again and, so far, still without audible problems, even as low as --portable --altpreset.

I hope we can trust the mechanisms enough to let these replace the standard setting after a while (maybe in 1.2?  )

Now, can we think of a use for --lolimit ? I was under the impression that noise is not masked as good by low frequenties, but that may not be the point at all. Be aware that most playback systems hardly output anything below 40Hz, but some do.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #580 –
At the low end of the spectrum the noise analysis is different from the high end.
At the high end the frequency resolution of noise measurement is very fine as there are very many FFT bins the energy of which is evaluated. Chance is pretty high this way that low or no energy is found in a small frequency range driving lossyWAV to remove no or few bits only.
At the low end however the energy of a pretty large frequency range is concentrated in just 1 bin. IMO there is no need for a low frequency limit to the noise analysis.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #581 –
I'm glad that --altpreset is working - it's thanks to your proposal (GeSomeone & halb27) that it happened.

I agree that --lolimit is redundant - it will be removed for v1.2.0.

Is anyone using --alpha? If not then I will remove the parameter which varies it (thus simplifying the code).
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #582 –
I just did a short listening test using -P --altpreset with Atem-lied, badvilbel, bibilolo, bruhns, herding_calls, under the boardwalk, keys_1644ds, triangle-2_1644ds, and everything was fine.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #583 –
I transcoded my whole collection (4wk 3d 15:56, 10826 tracks) in just over 4 hours on my AMD 940 / 4GB DDR2-800 / 1TB Samsung HDD from my server : 358kbps using --portable --altpreset.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #584 –
I've been off the forums for a while (relatively), but I just have to say, the development is really astonishing...

Nice work, Nick.C!

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #585 –
With recent threads here and here regarding transcoding from lossyWAV output and multiple lossyWAV processing, I am seeking feedback regarding shaping.

Should shaping be on automatically (at whatever level, either q/10 or --altpreset)?

Should shaping be off unless enabled?
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #586 –
Is it possible to have more noise at lower frequencies than at higher? (WavPack lossy often does noise shaping this way)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #587 –
I must admit I've always been a bit confused about the noise shaping in LossyWav. As I understand it the higher the quality setting the more noise shaping is applied. Since the lower quality settings produce the most added noise it always seemed to me that shaping should be applied the other way round IE shaping being applied in an inverse relationship to quality setting. Having said I've never found noise to be a problem without noise shaping. Or, to put it another way. If I ever found noise to be noticeable I simply increased the quality setting to get rid of it. I probably should have done some comparisons of various quality settings with and without shaping but it's never really mattered that much to me as I'm happy to use higher bitrates if necessary.

In answer your question however, I would say leave it as it is. That's only because I have command lines set up in Foobar and EAC that rely on the current approach and I'd rather not have to change them. I don't feel particularly strongly about either way

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #588 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
With recent threads here and here regarding transcoding from lossyWAV output and multiple lossyWAV processing, I am seeking feedback regarding shaping.

Should shaping be on automatically (at whatever level, either q/10 or --altpreset)?

Should shaping be off unless enabled?



I have better (flawless) results transcoding WV lossy, Lossywav -P to mp3 *without* NS. I took me a very long time to figure it out and i suspected something along those lines. A few weeks ago i tested again several samples . transcoding from WV and lossywav with default NS produced abxable results. Using flat white noise (S 0) fixed every sample with each encoder. This time around i am more convinced. Florin Ghido told me a few years back that for best transcoding results he prefers flat noise regulated by some quality model (dualstream VBR , lossywav). Also bitrate with mp3 inflates because the bad SFb21 issue - more so with lossywav -P + NS (flat noise is close to native bitrate). This makes some sense as NS is pushing noise more into HF and mp3 is already HF handicapped.

For encoders with a quality model the default should be flat noise. For WV lossy current ABR mode i think the default NS is the way to go. Around 400k it can be turned off as long as one is using slow compression (-hhx4 or better) as the encoder reaches very high quality.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #589 –
Firstly, I think that I've finally got to the bottom of deriving a formula for the amount of noise added during bit-removal - the results of the formula match even more closely with actual bit-removal noise from random data. I've modified the code to adopt this revised method and as a bonus the resultant FLAC bitrate is reduced a bit.

Secondly, taking on board what Shadowking said, I've run some tests on my 55 problem sample set and 10 album test set and arrived at the following resultant FLAC -b 512 -5 bitrates:
Code: [Select]
55 Problem Sample Set
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|Version / Settings| FLAC -8  | --insane |--extreme |--standard|--portable|  --zero  | --nasty  | --awful  |
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| beta 1.1.4n      | 780kbit/s| 658kbit/s| 589kbit/s| 515kbit/s| 431kbit/s| 325kbit/s| 259kbit/s| 218kbit/s|
| --altpreset      | 780kbit/s| 652kbit/s| 578kbit/s| 504kbit/s| 419kbit/s| 316kbit/s| 254kbit/s| 216kbit/s|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| beta 1.1.4p      | 780kbit/s| 653kbit/s| 584kbit/s| 509kbit/s| 426kbit/s| 320kbit/s|----------|----------|
| --shaping 0      | 780kbit/s| 649kbit/s| 579kbit/s| 504kbit/s| 422kbit/s| 320kbit/s|----------|----------|
| --altpreset      | 780kbit/s| 647kbit/s| 572kbit/s| 498kbit/s| 414kbit/s| 311kbit/s|----------|----------|
| --altpreset -s 0 | 780kbit/s| 646kbit/s| 570kbit/s| 495kbit/s| 412kbit/s| 311kbit/s|----------|----------|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

10 Album Test Set
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|Version / Settings| FLAC -8  | --insane |--extreme |--standard|--portable|  --zero  | --nasty  | --awful  |
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| beta 1.1.4n      | 854kbit/s| 639kbit/s| 556kbit/s| 471kbit/s| 383kbit/s| 288kbit/s| 230kbit/s| 200kbit/s|
| --altpreset      | 854kbit/s| 624kbit/s| 534kbit/s| 451kbit/s| 363kbit/s| 275kbit/s| 224kbit/s| 198kbit/s|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| beta 1.1.4p      | 854kbit/s| 633kbit/s| 550kbit/s| 465kbit/s| 378kbit/s| 284kbit/s|----------|----------|
| --shaping 0      | 854kbit/s| 621kbit/s| 537kbit/s| 453kbit/s| 371kbit/s| 284kbit/s|----------|----------|
| --altpreset      | 854kbit/s| 617kbit/s| 527kbit/s| 445kbit/s| 359kbit/s| 272kbit/s|----------|----------|
| --altpreset -s 0 | 854kbit/s| 615kbit/s| 520kbit/s| 438kbit/s| 355kbit/s| 272kbit/s|----------|----------|
+------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+


lossyWAV beta 1.1.4p attached to post #1 in this thread.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #590 –
How would this be different from the previous one? I would like to know if the changes affected the --altpreset from before in any way.
Oh! 
Does this help with the re-coding of the same file through lossywav... 
--> i just read the post before the results 

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #591 –
Thanks, shadowking, for your findings.
Thanks, Nick, for your new version.

To me shadowkings findings are sufficient not to do noise shaping as a default. As a bonus bitrate decreases a tiny bit.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #592 –
Completed full collection transcode at --portable --altpreset --shaping 0 | flac -5 which results in 349kbps.

I am now more keen to get some critical feedback regarding the transparency (or not) of this setting.

I will change settings such that -s or --shaping (by themselves) will enable automatic shaping proportion and -s n or --shaping n will set the shaping proportion to n.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #593 –
Lately I didn't follow lossywav development closely but give me a week & I will test every new settings introduced since V1.1.3j (which is obviously the last version I tested as I still have the encoded files on my HDD) on my usual suspects (Abfahrt Hinwil-Fool's Garden-Therion).

This time I will take care of bitrate much more to avoid the misstake I did in the past. (Find plenty of setting intesting via ABXing just to realize in the end that increasing the bitrate without the new setting result in a comparable quality gain ... stupid me ...)

I must do some sorting on my HDD today, read the topic backward & encode the files, then I will probably run the test tomorrow after a good night of sleep.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #594 –
I'd welcome if you could test especially Nick's latest version using -P --altpreset --shaping 0.
This is a very attractive seetting IMO as for -P bitrate is lower compared to what we had before. Hopefully quality is still fine.

I will also do such a test within the next days.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #595 –
Testing of the latest agreed setting (per shadowking's experience) will be greatly appreciated gentlemen!

I am working up to 1.1.4q and expect that it will be the last beta before 1.2.0 - only tidying up of parameters and help text, no mechanism changes.

Acceptable (i.e. transparent) quality at --portable --altpreset --shaping 0 would be an excellent outcome.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #596 –
I didn't have the time yet to test -P -t -s 0 but it's still in the work.

First I tested V1.1.4p vs. lossless as a warm up round because I needed to re-train myself, then I tested V1.1.3j vs. V1.1.4p because I wanted to to know if there was any progression/regression with the basic presets (without  the -t -s 0 switches). It is a necessary step IMHO to be sure that I can test -t -s 0 separatly.

So far it is not very interesting, so here is a summary: all the settings that were not transparent with V1.1.3j are still not transparent with V1.1.4p & I cannot tell any difference neither good or bad between V1.1.3j /V1.1.4p.

Here are the logs:

Abfahrt Hinwil - Lossless Vs. V1.1.4p -q 1.0: Complete Success

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/10/29 16:26:03

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 1.0.lossy.flac

16:26:03 : Test started.
16:27:45 : 01/01  50.0%
16:28:05 : 02/02  25.0%
16:28:20 : 03/03  12.5%
16:28:34 : 04/04  6.3%
16:28:47 : 05/05  3.1%
16:29:01 : 06/06  1.6%
16:29:12 : 07/07  0.8%
16:29:32 : 08/08  0.4%
16:29:36 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


Abfahrt Hinwil - V1.1.3j  -q 1.0 Vs. V1.1.4p -q 1.0: Complete Failure

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/10/29 16:30:29

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.3j -q 1.0.lossy.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\01- Abfahrt Hinwil (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 1.0.lossy.flac

16:30:29 : Test started.
16:31:07 : 01/01  50.0%
16:31:41 : 01/02  75.0%
16:32:59 : 01/03  87.5%
16:34:01 : 01/04  93.8%
16:34:37 : 02/05  81.3%
16:35:38 : 02/06  89.1%
16:36:31 : 03/07  77.3%
16:36:54 : 04/08  63.7%
16:37:09 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 4/8 (63.7%)


Fool's Garden - Lossless Vs. V1.1.4p -q 1.5: Complete Success

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/10/29 16:41:22

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 1.5.lossy.flac

16:41:22 : Test started.
16:41:54 : 01/01  50.0%
16:42:11 : 02/02  25.0%
16:42:22 : 03/03  12.5%
16:42:40 : 04/04  6.3%
16:42:54 : 05/05  3.1%
16:43:04 : 06/06  1.6%
16:43:19 : 07/07  0.8%
16:43:37 : 08/08  0.4%
16:43:43 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


Fool's Garden - V1.1.3j  -q 1.5 Vs. V1.1.4p -q 1.5: Complete Failure

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/10/29 16:48:32

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.3j -q 1.5.lossy.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\02- Fool's Garden (Artefact Only) V1.1.4p -q 1.5.lossy.flac

16:48:32 : Test started.
16:49:04 : 00/01  100.0%
16:50:17 : 01/02  75.0%
16:50:37 : 01/03  87.5%
16:51:49 : 02/04  68.8%
16:52:40 : 03/05  50.0%
16:52:56 : 03/06  65.6%
16:53:21 : 03/07  77.3%
16:53:35 : 04/08  63.7%
16:53:38 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 4/8 (63.7%)


Therion - Lossless Vs. V1.1.4p -q 1.5: Complete Success

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/10/30 17:06:06

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) Lossless.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4p -q 1.5.lossy.flac

17:06:06 : Test started.
17:06:21 : 01/01  50.0%
17:06:34 : 02/02  25.0%
17:07:38 : 03/03  12.5%
17:08:04 : 04/04  6.3%
17:08:34 : 05/05  3.1%
17:09:02 : 06/06  1.6%
17:09:20 : 07/07  0.8%
17:10:06 : 08/08  0.4%
17:10:10 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 8/8 (0.4%)


Therion - V1.1.3j  -q 1.5 Vs. V1.1.4p -q 1.5: Complete Failure

Code: [Select]
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.9
2009/10/30 17:11:44

File A: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.3j -q 1.5.lossy.flac
File B: C:\01- Disque C\03- Save\08- Audio Temp\01- Samples For Encoding Test\01- Listening Test\07- Lossywav Test\03- Test\03- Therion (Artefact+Context) V1.1.4p -q 1.5.lossy.flac

17:11:44 : Test started.
17:12:04 : 00/01  100.0%
17:12:23 : 00/02  100.0%
17:12:48 : 00/03  100.0%
17:13:47 : 01/04  93.8%
17:14:21 : 01/05  96.9%
17:14:50 : 01/06  98.4%
17:15:34 : 02/07  93.8%
17:16:33 : 02/08  96.5%
17:16:37 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 2/8 (96.5%)


According to me V1.1.4p seems safe to use but without the new settings it doesn't seem to bring any improvement over V1.1.3j. (At least on these tree samples)

I will test -t -s 0 as soon as I get some time.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #597 –
Thank you for taking the time to test, however I am a bit confused as to why you are ABXing lossy vs lossy in three of the tests and also why you are using an old version of lossyWAV at all.

A more effective use of your time might have been:

Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 1.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 1.5;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 2.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 2.5;

That would have gone some way to assessing the transparency point of the revised settings.

If extra time was available then

Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 1.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 1.5;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 2.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 2.5;

would be greatly appreciated.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #598 –
I tested against this old version, because it was the last version which I previously tested so I knew how its artefacts sounded like, I only needed to refresh my memory.

This test wasn't made to test transparency but to test for improvement/regression, between v1.1.3j & v1.1.4p, before I can even start testing -t -s 0 itself.

Maybe it is not obvious for you but I needed to know what v1.1.4p had in the stomach before starting testing new settings. If I would have directly tested a setting with plenty of new parameters I wouldn't have known what improvement regression is due to what parameter.

This first test may seem useless but now I know that v1.1.4p itself is neutral, which is fundamental.

Testing
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 1.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 1.5;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 2.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -q 2.5;
is not very usefull IMHO, because my short test shows that there is no major improvement/regression, so the transparency point is (very) likely to be the same.

Furthermore I don't really understand why you're asking me to test this again because that's what I partially did: three tests are Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p, it shows that v1.1.4p -q 1.5 is clearly not transparent. With all logic, even if I didn't test them, -q 2.0 is very likely to be abxable but very hard & -q2.5 transparent with a reasonnable safety margin. With the basic scale, nothing seems to have changed since v1.1.3j. I'm sorry if you expected an improvement... I couldn't hear any & I know these samples by heart.

Testing
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 1.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 1.5;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 2.0;
Lossless vs lossyWAV v1.1.4p -t -s 0 -q 2.5;
is more interesting as it will help see if  -t -s 0 lower the transparency point.

I will test -t -s 0, I plan to test it soon but I couldn't directly test -t -s 0 because if I would have directly tested it I wouldn't have known if the improvement/regression were due to v1.1.4p or due to -t -s 0

As I said these first results are a boring but necessary step to test  -t -s 0 the right way.

-t -s 0 transpancy results will come later just gimme some more time.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #599 –
Okay - thanks very much for your continued contributions.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)