IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Alternative/Supplement to listening test, Can we compare files sample by sample?
salvator
post Feb 16 2004, 17:03
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 16-February 04
Member No.: 12041



I'm new to this forum and I spent a bunch of time reading posts yesterday and today trying to absorb what I could from past discussions. In light of the comments by other newbies about their difficulties hearing artifacts in some of the listening tests, I was thinking maybe there is a way to quantitatively compare files.

This may already have been done and discussed to death. If so, if someone could direct me to such discussions, I would appreciate it.

Otherwise, this is how I imagine such a system working. You start with some reference wave file. You encode that into whatever format you are interested in and then decode it back into a wave file. The comparison program you've written then compares the waveforms of the two files and creates some kind of measure for the deviation of the encoded file from the reference.

The first and simplest measure that comes to mind is simply some kind of mean squared deviation per sample. In this case, you read in the value of both waveforms at each sample and subtract one from the other and square this difference to avoid positive and negative deviations from summing to zero. You sum all these differences over the length of your file and at the end you divide it by the number of samples in the file you used.

At this point, it's not clear to me that this would be a meaningful metric. There may be more meaningful, though more complicated ways to measure the deviation of the encoded file from the reference. The ideal would obviously be if a metric could be defined such that there was a clear correlation between numerical deviation from the reference and listener-perceived deviation from the reference.

I know that ultimately, what we are looking for from a codec is not necessarily complete faithfulness in terms of reproduction of reference waveform, but rather psychoacoustic equivalence: we just want the encoded file to sound the same as the reference. So, this type of analysis is not a replacement for a listening test, but it could be an interesting additional piece of information to have.

I don't feel like I have the expertise or the time to write such a program myself (at least not right now) but please let me know your thoughts on this.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
rjamorim
post Feb 16 2004, 17:18
Post #2


Rarewares admin


Group: Members
Posts: 7515
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Brazil
Member No.: 81



QUOTE (Garf @ Feb 16 2004, 02:11 PM)
PEQUAL (sp?)

The utility is called EAQUAL. And the algorithm is called PEAQ smile.gif

http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/others.html


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2014 - 06:15