IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Upload forum rules

- No over 30 sec clips of copyrighted music. Cite properly and never more than necessary for the discussion.


- No copyrighted software without permission.


- Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

50 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 18 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
lossyWAV Development, WAV bit reduction by 2BDecided
Josef Pohm
post Oct 24 2007, 23:18
Post #376





Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 2-April 06
Member No.: 29099



Comparison of 0.3.18 and 0.3.15 on my SetF.

Bits to remove table.

CODE
------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|      |       0.3.15       |       0.3.18       |      18 vs 15      |
|       ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
|      |   1  |   2  |   3  |   1  |   2  |   3  |   1  |   2  |   3  |
------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
|  512 | 5,13 | 5,64 | 5,93 | 5,22 | 5,36 | 5,88 |  ,09 | -,28 | -,05 |
| 1024 | 4,88 | 5,25 | 5,48 | 4,84 | 4,93 | 5,44 | -,04 | -,32 | -,04 |
| 2048 | 4,48 | 4,93 | 5,17 | 4,40 | 4,52 | 5,11 | -,08 | -,41 | -,06 |
| 4096 | 4,11 | 4,55 | 4,78 | 3,91 | 4,05 | 4,71 | -,20 | -,50 | -,07 |
------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------


TAK 1.0.2b1 -p3m bitrate table (lossless 862kbps).
CODE
------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
|      |  TAK on 0.3.15  |  TAK on 0.3.18  |    18 vs 15     |
|       ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
|      |  1  |  2  |  3  |  1  |  2  |  3  |  1  |  2  |  3  |
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
|  512 | 465 | 426 | 405 | 458 | 447 | 409 | - 7 |  21 |   4 |
| 1024 | 470 | 441 | 424 | 472 | 465 | 426 |   2 |  24 |   2 |
| 2048 | 492 | 457 | 439 | 498 | 488 | 443 |   6 |  31 |   4 |
| 4096 | 517 | 482 | 465 | 532 | 521 | 470 |  15 |  39 |   5 |
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 24 2007, 23:59
Post #377





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Well, I got a lot of work left (will have to do it the day after tomorrow as I'll be busy tomorrow), but I can report about my first findings which I think show pretty much the way to go to a rather large extent.

I took 12 full tracks of regular music and 8 samples that are suspected to be problematic for LossyWav and went thru a lot of tests. Here's an extract which shows up the way to go in a rather consequent way:

I used only the new -spf parameter, so I drop the spreading values for 2048 here.

a) I started with 23345-23345-23345 as this was the reference setting for a long time yielding good results. => regular tracks: 425 kbps on average, problem tracks: 481 kbps.
Quite a good differentiation already.

b) With the critical band approach it's most vital to have a spreading length of 1 at the low frequency edge.
13345-13345-13345 => 428 kbps (regular) vs. 499 kbps (problems).
So obeying to the critical band principle is nearly for free here, and we get an improved differentiation regular vs. problems.

c) Looking at the next frequency range at the low edge spreading length should be 1 for FFT length=64 and 256, and can be up to 4 with a 1024 bin FFT.
11345-11345-13345 => 434 kbps (regular) vs. 512 kbps (problems).
A pretty acceptable bitrate increase IMO and an improved spread between regular and problematic tracks.
Using 2 instead 3 for the 1024 bin FFT provides nearly the same result (435 vs. 512 kbps).

d) For a FFT length of 64 spreading length should be 1 for the frequency range next lowest. This however increases bitrate significantly. Should only be done with -1 IMO.
So let's make compromise and use a spreading length of 2 here. With a FFT length of 64 in the next frequency range spreading length should be 3. So we got 11235 for the 64 bin FFT if we stick with 5 for the spreadinig length at the HF end.
With 256 FFT bins spreading length should be 3 for the 3.4...8.3 kHz range. With anything else left we arrive at 11235-11345-13345, and this yields 437 kbps (regular) vs. 515 kbps (problems).
Corresponds closely to c).

e) With those digits in spreading formula d) that are not bold we are free to do some variations on them trying for instance cautiously a rather long spreading length, especially at the high frequency edge, but - more cautiously - also with the 8.3..12.4 kHz range.
Remember changing spreading strategy to 23345 brought down bitrate significantly due to this small increase in spreading length at the HF end.
I'm just trying these things and will report about them. I think this is a good area of differentiation among the different quality modes.
Just a promising candidate for -2: 11235-11357-13379 => 416 kbps (regular music) vs. 512 kbps (problems).

Not bad, isn't it? I'll try to get it a bit more defensive for -2 while keeping these good properties to a large extent.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 26 2007, 07:56
Post #378





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Spreading strategy for -2 settled:

11235-11336-1234D for 64-256-1024 FFT length.

Yields 420 kbps (regular music) resp. 514 kbps (problem samples) on average with my sample sets.

This is roughly the same bitrate as that of v0.3.15 (using 23345-23345-23345), but with a significantly improved security against problems.
Up to 12.4 kHz the spreading length is lower than or equal to that of the v0.3.15 strategy.
For the 12.4+ kHz range and an FFT length >=256 the longer spreading length shouldn't be an issue with so many bins in this range (each of the averages covers only a small frequency range). Moreover our ears' sensitivity drops quicikly in this area, and this is especially true for our sensitivity towards noise which peaks at around 6 kHz.

Just a bit strange looking at an FFT length of 1024 and the 12.4+ kHz range:
If I lower the 'D' to '5', average bitrate for regular music increases to 436 kbps.
So noise behavior in the 12.4+ kHz range has an influence on deciding between '5' and 'D'.
But that's a bit of a contradiction towards the fact that the 23345 setting yields a bitrate of 425 kbps.
I know these things can happen in a world of averages, but this behavior is a bit strong and I wonder whether there may be another issue causing it.

Anyway I suggest to use 11235-11336-1234D-1245F as an internal default (with 1245F having to be refined later).

I'll find a spreading strategy for -3 next.

Thanks, Nick, for your wisdom of using HEX values for the spreading length. When I was thinking about a spreading length parameter I had only spreading lengths of up to 9 in mind.

@Josef Pohm: Do you mind trying your setF with option -spf 11235-11336-1234D-1245F (just quality -2)?

@Nick: As I'll be working with -3 for the first time the codec block size question comes to me. Guess from your and Josef Pohm's results for -3 it makes sense to use a smaller codec blocksize. As I'm using FLAC guess 576 is the most welcome blocksize for -3.
How I can achieve this?
Brings back the question of blocksize control how to. For experimenting your former codec blocksize option wasn't bad.
But we can go a bit more into the final direction I think. Could be something like:
Default blocksize without special codec options (like -tak): 1024 as a general default (current behavior).
-tak behavior: 1024 for -1 and -2, 512 for -3.
-flac behavior: 1024 for -1 and -2, 576 for -3.
-wv behavior: IIRC David Bryant said wavPack doesn't like small blocksizes. Ideally he can say what's best. Right now I think we should just stick to the default blocksize of 1024.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 26 2007, 12:02


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 26 2007, 10:50
Post #379


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5142
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



In regular lossless coding, the choice of most efficient block length depends on the content.

The same is true of lossy/lossless coding, but the sweet spot is probably a shorter block length.

Unless some adaptive block length switching is employed (I don't suggest this!) then the optimum block length should be judged on a wide range of content, and possibly judged on different genres separately and the results published.

With the block length tied to the encoding quality pre-set, you risk the bizarre (though possibly inevitable) situation of certain content giving a higher bitrate at lower quality, because the short block length is inappropriate for that content.

Just a thought. I don't have an answer!

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 26 2007, 11:54
Post #380





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 26 2007, 11:50) *
... With the block length tied to the encoding quality pre-set, you risk the bizarre (though possibly inevitable) situation of certain content giving a higher bitrate at lower quality, because the short block length is inappropriate for that content. ...

Hopefully there will be progress for a long time covering more and more special situations, but at the moment I'm very content if we'll arrive at a very good average bitrate.
I wouldn't care much about certain 'unnatural' bitrate increases as long it's restricted and as long as average bitrate is good.
I am more worried about 'bizarre' quality drops, that's why I didn't want to consider a lower block size than 1024 until recently. But I think with -3 it's okay. On one hand I don't see a real a priori danger that we'll run into trouble, and on the other hand -3 users do want relatively low bitrate while keeping up excellent quality - but they accept that they expose their encodings a bit more to the risk that quality is suboptimal. Within this framework to me it's okay to use a blocksize in the 5xx range for -3.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josef Pohm
post Oct 26 2007, 16:03
Post #381





Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 2-April 06
Member No.: 29099



QUOTE
@Josef Pohm: Do you mind trying your setF with option -spf 11235-11336-1234D-1245F (just quality -2)?

Great work Halb! Comparison of 0.3.18-Halb and 0.3.18 on my SetF. While I was at it, I tried your settings also on -1 and -3.

Bits to remove table.
CODE
------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|      |       0.3.18H      |       0.3.18       |     18H vs 18      |
|       ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
|      |   1  |   2  |   3  |   1  |   2  |   3  |   1  |   2  |   3  |
------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
|  512 | 5,69 | 5,92 | 6,21 | 5,22 | 5,36 | 5,88 | 0,47 | 0,56 | 0,33 |
| 1024 | 5,40 | 5,55 | 5,80 | 4,84 | 4,93 | 5,44 | 0,56 | 0,62 | 0,36 |
| 2048 | 4,99 | 5,19 | 5,46 | 4,40 | 4,52 | 5,11 | 0,59 | 0,67 | 0,35 |
| 4096 | 4,57 | 4,78 | 5,07 | 3,91 | 4,05 | 4,71 | 0,66 | 0,73 | 0,36 |
------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------


TAK 1.0.2b1 -p3m bitrate table (lossless 862kbps).
CODE
------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
|      |  TAK on 0.3.18H |  TAK on 0.3.18  |    18H vs 18    |
|       ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
|      |  1  |  2  |  3  |  1  |  2  |  3  |  1  |  2  |  3  |
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
|  512 | 423 | 406 | 385 | 458 | 447 | 409 | -35 | -41 | -24 |
| 1024 | 430 | 418 | 401 | 472 | 465 | 426 | -42 | -47 | -25 |
| 2048 | 453 | 437 | 418 | 498 | 488 | 443 | -45 | -51 | -25 |
| 4096 | 481 | 465 | 443 | 532 | 521 | 470 | -51 | -56 | -27 |
------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----


QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 26 2007, 11:50) *
... With the block length tied to the encoding quality pre-set, you risk the bizarre (though possibly inevitable) situation of certain content giving a higher bitrate at lower quality, because the short block length is inappropriate for that content. ...


I had a short test session on that matter in the early days of LossyFLAC.

From my post here a frame size of 512 (and also 256) SEEMS to offer better compression ratios for all codecs but wavpack. That said, WavPack SEEMS to work well with a frame size of 1024, where it performs, in any case, slightly better than Flac.

Frame size of 128, on the other hand, SEEMS to result in generalized loss of compression performance for all codecs.

Moreover, David Bryant unveiled here a couple of quite promising news for possible further optimizations...

So I agree on using a frame size 1024/512 for TAK, 1152/576 for FLAC (though -1:1024/-2:512/-3:256 may also be tempting, even if in the past I heard use of smaller frames is not considered completely safe) and to better clarify WV status.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 26 2007, 17:28
Post #382





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Thanks a lot. Looks good.

So you suggest a codec blocksize of 1152/576 for FLAC.
Does anybody see a problem in that this is not in correspondance with the FFT lengths?


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Josef Pohm
post Oct 26 2007, 22:13
Post #383





Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 2-April 06
Member No.: 29099



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 26 2007, 18:28) *
...So you suggest a codec blocksize of 1152/576 for FLAC...

No, sorry for I wasn't clear enough, but I didn't mean that. Actually I don't have an ultimate opinion whether to go for <1152;576>, <1024;512> or a mixed solution, concerning FLAC.

I only meant I agree that [1152 (or 1024) for <-1;-2>] and [576 (or 512) for <-3>], should be okay for FLAC. I wanted to keep it simple and ended up being inaccurate. Sorry again.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 26 2007, 22:15
Post #384





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



No problem, thank you for clarification.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 26 2007, 22:29
Post #385





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Spreading strategy for -3 settled:

11236-1246E for 64-1024 FFT length.

Yields 390 kbps (regular music) resp. 493 kbps (problem samples) on average with my sample sets (using FLAC with a blocksize of 1024).

Quite remarkable is the difference of 103 kbps between regular and problematic samples.
This is more than the 94 kbps difference of the -2 setting I found. So maybe in combination with a more defensive value for -nts or another option this setting may be a better basis for -2. Will try later when I have found out more about the other options.

Everbody who wants to try this -3 setting may use the options:-3 -spf 11236-FFFFF-1246D-FFFFF.

Before finding an adequate setting for -1 I will try to analyze the effects of -skew and -snr.
My regular and problematic sample sets seem to be quite adequate to find out about differentiating behavior of option values in this respect.

As I said before my heart is pretty much with skew, but after having thought about your remark, Nick, that -snr strengthens the effect of skew I'm curious learning about the behavior of both of these options.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 26 2007, 22:32


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mitch 1 2
post Oct 27 2007, 08:03
Post #386





Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 3-October 06
From: Australia
Member No.: 35904



Out of curiosity, I processed a whole album with lossyWAV, and encoded it to Windows Media Audio 9.2 Lossless (WMALSL).
For comparison, I used FLAC -5 (default), and used lossyWAV -spf 11235-11336-1234D-1245F with both codecs.

CODE
Comparison of FLAC and WMALSL, with and without lossyWAV pre-processing

Format      | Total Size        | % of WAV Size | % of Unpreprocessed Size | Avg. Bitrate
        WAV | 691 905 184 bytes | 100.00        |                          | 1411 kbps
       FLAC | 384 957 786 bytes | 55.64         |                          |  785 kbps
  lossyFLAC | 233 040 957 bytes | 33.68         | 60.54                    |  475 kbps
     WMALSL | 373 569 806 bytes | 53.99         |                          |  822 kbps
lossyWMALSL | 208 287 236 bytes | 30.10         | 55.76                    |  448 kbps


Clearly, WMA Lossless benefits significantly from lossyWAV pre-processing.


--------------------
lossyFLAC (lossyWAV -q 0; FLAC -b 512 -e)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 27 2007, 08:26
Post #387





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



QUOTE (Mitch 1 2 @ Oct 27 2007, 17:03) *
Out of curiosity, I processed a whole album with lossyWAV, and encoded it to Windows Media Audio 9.2 Lossless (WMALSL).
For comparison, I used FLAC -5 (default), and used lossyWAV -spf 11235-11336-1234D-1245F with both codecs.

CODE
Comparison of FLAC and WMALSL, with and without lossyWAV pre-processing

Format      | Total Size        | % of WAV Size | % of Unpreprocessed Size | Avg. Bitrate
        WAV | 691 905 184 bytes | 100.00        |                          | 1411 kbps
       FLAC | 384 957 786 bytes | 55.64         |                          |  785 kbps
  lossyFLAC | 233 040 957 bytes | 33.68         | 60.54                    |  475 kbps
     WMALSL | 373 569 806 bytes | 53.99         |                          |  822 kbps
lossyWMALSL | 208 287 236 bytes | 30.10         | 55.76                    |  448 kbps



Clearly, WMA Lossless benefits significantly from lossyWAV pre-processing.


Nice. Good work Nickc, halb27, 2bdecided and everyone else involved.

This post has been edited by shadowking: Oct 27 2007, 08:26


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 27 2007, 11:10
Post #388





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



I finished my analysis of -skew and -snr:

Results for -3 -spf 11236-FFFF-1246E-FFFF -skew x -snr y (encoded with FLAC using a blocksize of 1024)
Results are given as bitrate in kbps for regular / for problematic tracks:

CODE
        | -skew 0 | -skew 12| -skew 20| -skew 24| -skew 36
-snr 0  |389 / 483|390 / 493|393 / 504|398 / 514|435 / 551
-snr 12 |         |390 / 493|         |398 / 514|435 / 551
-snr 24 |         |397 / 500|         |407 / 524|439 / 560

Looking at the first row (-snr 0):
Nick's default -skew 12 yields a significant security margin practically for free!
-skew 20 increases it, and it's still more or less for free.
From roughly -skew 24 on there's a price to pay: bitrate of the problematic samples increases, but so does the bitrate for regular music. The relation is still favorable at around -skew 24, but we're starting getting diminishing returns concerning the relation of the bitrate increase of problematic vs. regular tracks.

Looking at the other rows:
-snr 12 yields the same results as -snr 0 and thus is not interesting.
Loooking at -snr 24 there is something going on. Roughly speaking however it's more of a general bitrate increase as can be achieved more directly via -nts. It's not exactly true with -skew 36 -snr 24 where bitrate increase is higher for the problematic tracks, but -skew 36 isn't very interesting (see below).

-skew has an astoshing effect on security, and it's more or less for free (for -skew <~ 24).
However we have to face the fact that it covers improved security only in the frequency range below 3.5 kHz (and most of the effect goes into the 1.5- kHz region).
So IMO it wouldn't be a balanced strategy to use a large -skew value. We would pay for benefits restricted to this frequency area. It's okay to pay a little bit, but if we want to pay much, IMO we should do it more generally (use a more defensive -nts value).

I thought -3 is based on a codec blocksize of 1024 but I was wrong: it's 512. So it's wise to use this blocksize with FLAC as well.
For -2 of course I used FLAC wirh a blocksize of 1024.

So my final settings for -2 and -3 and the results for my test sets are:

-3 -spf 11236-FFFFF-1246E-FFFFF -skew 24 -snr 0 => 386 kbps (regular music) / 508 kbps (problem samples)

-2 -spf 11235-11336-1234D-FFFFF -skew 24 -snr 0 => 426 kbps (regular music) / 534 kbps (problem samples)

Now that we've reached the 3xx kbps region hopefully some nice guys come up and do some listening tests.
It's not about just problem samples, also regular music may be harmed by our rather simple method when in the 3xx kbps range.

I'll work on the -1 setting within the next days, but first will give me some rest.

Edited: -skew 20 changed to -skew 24 in the final setting. IMO that's better relation security vs. price.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 27 2007, 12:20


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 27 2007, 23:23
Post #389





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Spreading strategy for -1 settled.

To put everything in one place:

-1 -spf 11124-11225-11236-12347 -skew 24 -snr 0 (yielding 488 / 560 kbps on avg. for my regular resp. problem sample set)
-2 -spf 11235-11336-1234D-FFFFF -skew 24 -snr 0 (yielding 426 / 534 kbps on avg. for my regular resp. problem sample set)
-3 -spf 11236-FFFFF-1246E-FFFFF -skew 24 -snr 0 (yielding 386 / 508 kbps on avg. for my regular resp. problem sample set)

Even -1 yields a bitrate below 500 kbps (with my set).

Looks pretty well graduated with respect to resulting bitrate as well as the degree to which average building is done defensively within the 5 frequency regions obeying the critical band criterion.

Nick, what do you think about putting this into fixed software and leave the -nts option as the only quality related option for the user? Not right now but after a certain time giving room for improvement.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 28 2007, 16:10


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Oct 29 2007, 08:54
Post #390


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1791
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 27 2007, 22:23) *
Spreading strategy for -1 settled.

To put everything in one place:

-1 -spf 11124-11225-11236-12347 -skew 24 -snr 0 (yielding 488 / 560 kbps on avg. for my regular resp. problem sample set)
-2 -spf 11235-11336-1234D-FFFFF -skew 24 -snr 0 (yielding 426 / 534 kbps on avg. for my regular resp. problem sample set)
-3 -spf 11236-FFFFF-1246E-FFFFF -skew 24 -snr 0 (yielding 386 / 508 kbps on avg. for my regular resp. problem sample set)

Even -1 yields a bitrate below 500 kbps (with my set).

Looks pretty well graduated with respect to resulting bitrate as well as the degree to which average building is done defensively within the 5 frequency regions obeying the critical band criterion.

Nick, what do you think about putting this into fixed software and leave the -nts option as the only quality related option for the user? Not right now but after a certain time giving room for improvement.
I don't know - my home broadband goes down on Friday morning, I have no access to the internet for 3 days - and all hell breaks loose on the thread!!! wink.gif

@Halb27 - Many thanks for the *extensive* testing to get the spreading function parameters fixed. I will implement your latest as default (including -skew 24).

@Mitch 1 2 - Excellent find! Should extend the userbase of David's method......

As an aside, I noticed a bug in v0.3.18: -snr was not working correctly. I have amended and will post.

In the interim, I've been playing with assembler and have optimised the code somewhat, so it should run faster. I only have Intel C2D platforms for testing, so (selfishly?) the optimisations are for this chip.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 29 2007, 10:03
Post #391





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Hi Nick,

I've really worried what has happened to you as you've always been so busy with this thread and we haven't heard of you for so long. Just an internet breakdown - not too bad giving place for other things to do.

Well, as -snr wasn't correctly in place with v0.3.18 I'll try again -skew/-snr combinations as soon as you can provide a fixed version.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Oct 29 2007, 10:16
Post #392


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1791
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 29 2007, 09:03) *
Hi Nick,

I've really worried what has happened to you as you've always been so busy with this thread and we haven't heard of you for so long. Just an internet breakdown - not too bad giving place for other things to do.

Well, as -snr wasn't correctly in place with v0.3.18 I'll try again -skew/-snr combinations as soon as you can provide a fixed version.
lossyWAV alpha v0.3.19 attached: Superseded; faster, -snr now working "correctly", -spf now allows 1..9;A..Z input to allow up to 35 bin averaging(!).

Having no broadband at home is really tedious......

[edit] My 52 sample set (default parameters other than -1, -2 & -3): WAV: 121.53MB; FLAC: 68.2MB / 791.9kbps; -1: 50.15MB / 582.3kbps; -2: 44.09MB / 512kbps; -3: 39.5MB / 458.7kbps [/edit]

This post has been edited by Nick.C: Nov 7 2007, 22:42


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 29 2007, 12:44
Post #393





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Looking at your result I guess you include already the -spf values for -1, -2, -3 which I found.

Your sample set is to a large extent a set of hard samples. I think for bitrate consideration it is good to have a hopefully representive set of full length tracks from your collection on one hand, and a set of sample tracks supposed to require a very high bitrate on the other hand.
As you can consider your 52 sample set to be more or less a set of the second kind, an additional set with regular music would be most welcome IMO. Bitrate of this set will be considerably lower.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Oct 29 2007, 13:01
Post #394


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1791
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 29 2007, 11:44) *
Looking at your result I guess you include already the -spf values for -1, -2, -3 which I found.

Your sample set is to a large extent a set of hard samples. I think for bitrate consideration it is good to have a hopefully representive set of full length tracks from your collection on one hand, and a set of sample tracks supposed to require a very high bitrate on the other hand.
As you can consider your 52 sample set to be more or less a set of the second kind, an additional set with regular music would be most welcome IMO. Bitrate of this set will be considerably lower.
Yes, I forgot to mention that the revised -spf defaults are per your testing. I will start to transcode a selection from my archive and revert.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Oct 29 2007, 18:04
Post #395


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1791
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



Following testing of alpha v0.3.19 on a few albums:
CODE
lossyWAV alpha v0.3.19

| Artist - Album                                    | Lossless; FLAC -8 |    -2; FLAC -8    |    -3; FLAC -8    |

| AC-DC - Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap               |  220MB / 781 kbps |  122MB / 435 kbps |  112MB / 399 kbps |
| B-52's - Good Stuff                               |  398MB / 993 kbps |  184MB / 459 kbps |  169MB / 423 kbps |
| China Crisis - Flaunt The Imperfection            |  238MB / 774 kbps |  132MB / 431 kbps |  121MB / 394 kbps |
| Chris Isaak - Chris Isaak                         |  227MB / 878 kbps |  114MB / 441 kbps |  104MB / 404 kbps |
| Climie Fisher - Everything                        |  308MB / 910 kbps |  149MB / 440 kbps |  137MB / 406 kbps |
| Dave Stewart and the Spiritual Cowboys - Honest   |  330MB / 835 kbps |  172MB / 436 kbps |  157MB / 397 kbps |
| Fish - From The Mirror                            |  274MB / 854 kbps |  136MB / 425 kbps |  125MB / 390 kbps |
| Gary Moore - Out In The Fields (The Very Best Of) |  495MB / 976 kbps |  226MB / 447 kbps |  208MB / 412 kbps |
| Gerry Rafferty - City To City                     |  307MB / 802 kbps |  165MB / 431 kbps |  150MB / 392 kbps |
| Iron Maiden - Can I Play With Madness             |  206MB / 784 kbps |  118MB / 45O kbps |  110MB / 419 kbps |
| Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygene                       |  219MB / 773 kbps |  143MB / 506 kbps |  130MB / 459 kbps |
| Marillion - Real to Reel (Live)                   |  305MB / 821 kbps |  172MB / 464 kbps |  158MB / 425 kbps |
| Mike Oldfield - Discovery                         |  237MB / 804 kbps |  129MB / 438 kbps |  118MB / 399 kbps |
| Mike Oldfield - QE2                               |  243MB / 855 kbps |  133MB / 469 kbps |  121MB / 425 kbps |
| Scorpions - Best of Rockers'N'Ballads             |  451MB / 922 kbps |  225MB / 460 kbps |  209MB / 428 kbps |
| The Shamen - Boss Drum                            |  433MB / 922 kbps |  220MB / 470 kbps |  202MB / 431 kbps |
| Van Morrison - Astral Weeks                       |  255MB / 757 kbps |  148MB / 440 kbps |  136MB / 404 kbps |
| Voice of the Beehive - Honey Lingers              |  213MB / 938 kbps |   99MB / 434 kbps |   92MB / 402 kbps |

| Average                                           | 5369MB / 863 kbps | 2796MB / 449 kbps | 2567MB / 412 kbps |


This post has been edited by Nick.C: Oct 29 2007, 18:13


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
user
post Oct 29 2007, 18:25
Post #396





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



Congratulations to your great development of all the nice people involved !

Cool to see these results and the team spirit !

(though on a side note, I question myself, if I will apply and try out it in future, if i should get a flac capable device or if many people will use it, and not only some tech HA experienced.
As it would mean another transcoding or parallel encoding step and additional space for storage, as the true lossless is kept anyways, as i think (by myself also), that people interested that in quality to consider using 400 kbit/s, they have true Loslsess interest anyways.
Though it is possible to lower Lossless bitrates by 50% from eg. 860 kbit/s down to 400-450 kbit/s now, it isn't lossless anymore, and still way above eg. the "standard 320 kbit/s bitrate" which is considered by most either as overkill or as already nearly transparent in most cases dependent on the codec and the point of views. <-- uu, long sentence.
I think, lossy wavpack eg. could have similar bitrates and probably same transparency at these bitrates (as lossy wavpack is tested down to only ca. 200 kbit/s). Nevertheless only tech experienced guys, even only few at HA, use lossy wavpack (or other modern codecs at highest quality settings, consider ogg, mpc, aac at such bitrates).
Of course, for flac it is interesting due to increasing hardware/portable support to offer a space limit orientated bitrate solution. (well, still, who uses seriously eg. 320 k mp3 for portable usage?)
For home HiFi usage, you have nearly unlimited space due to big and quite cheapo HDs or DVD+-R as even cheaper storage, so it doesn't matter really if the bitrate is 400-450 or averaged between 800-1000 like for Lossless (flac).)


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 29 2007, 20:05
Post #397





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Oct 29 2007, 19:04) *
Following testing of alpha v0.3.19 on a few albums:
CODE
lossyWAV alpha v0.3.19
...
| Artist - Album                                    | Lossless; FLAC -8 |    -2; FLAC -8    |    -3; FLAC -8    |
| Average                                           | 5369MB / 863 kbps | 2796MB / 449 kbps | 2567MB / 412 kbps |

Nice results - though I'm a bit disapointed about the -3 result which I had expected to have of lower bitrate.

Should we try to go a bit deeper in bitrate with -3?
But maybe once I was busy a lot with -3 I'm sporting too much to achieve a bitrate below 400 kbps on average with regular music.

Feedback welcome.

This post has been edited by halb27: Oct 29 2007, 20:07


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 29 2007, 20:27
Post #398





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (user @ Oct 29 2007, 19:25) *
... As it would mean another transcoding or parallel encoding step and additional space for storage, as the true lossless is kept anyways, as i think (by myself also), that people interested that in quality to consider using 400 kbit/s, they have true Loslsess interest anyways. ...

The practical use of this procedure is certainly limited to rather few people. mp3, vorbis, aac or mpc make nearly everbody happy for portable use or even for home hifi use. For archiving purposes storage technology is thus that most of us can afford archiving lossless. But there are niches where people might find it useful. I personally want to use it as a space saving alternative to a lossless codec on my DAP. With my 40 GB DAP and selective collection I can afford using a codec which requires an average bitrate in the 400 kbps range. Using it this way can be done right now. Another interest may be to use the -1 quality level for archiving which can be useful even today for owners of huge musical collections. In this case however it may be wise to wait until some more feedback is available regarding quality.

As for that everybody is highly welcome to share practical experience. Using -3 I guess there is a chance to prove the current state of this approach as worth improving.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Oct 29 2007, 21:35
Post #399


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1791
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (halb27 @ Oct 29 2007, 19:05) *
QUOTE (Nick.C @ Oct 29 2007, 19:04) *
Following testing of alpha v0.3.19 on a few albums:
CODE
lossyWAV alpha v0.3.19
...
| Artist - Album                                    | Lossless; FLAC -8 |    -2; FLAC -8    |    -3; FLAC -8    |
| Average                                           | 5369MB / 863 kbps | 2796MB / 449 kbps | 2567MB / 412 kbps |
Nice results - though I'm a bit disapointed about the -3 result which I had expected to have of lower bitrate.

Should we try to go a bit deeper in bitrate with -3?
But maybe once I was busy a lot with -3 I'm sporting too much to achieve a bitrate below 400 kbps on average with regular music.

Feedback welcome.
User error I'm afraid - I forgot to FLAC recode at -b 512...... amended results as follows:
CODE
lossyWAV alpha v0.3.19

| Artist - Album                                    | Lossless; FLAC -8 |    -2; FLAC -8    |    -3; FLAC -8    |

| AC-DC - Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap               |  220MB / 781 kbps |  122MB / 435 kbps |  110MB / 391 kbps |
| B-52's - Good Stuff                               |  398MB / 993 kbps |  184MB / 459 kbps |  162MB / 404 kbps |
| China Crisis - Flaunt The Imperfection            |  238MB / 774 kbps |  132MB / 431 kbps |  117MB / 382 kbps |
| Chris Isaak - Chris Isaak                         |  227MB / 878 kbps |  114MB / 441 kbps |  101MB / 392 kbps |
| Climie Fisher - Everything                        |  308MB / 910 kbps |  149MB / 440 kbps |  131MB / 387 kbps |
| Dave Stewart and the Spiritual Cowboys - Honest   |  330MB / 835 kbps |  172MB / 436 kbps |  152MB / 385 kbps |
| Fish - From The Mirror                            |  274MB / 854 kbps |  136MB / 425 kbps |  120MB / 377 kbps |
| Gary Moore - Out In The Fields (The Very Best Of) |  495MB / 976 kbps |  226MB / 447 kbps |  202MB / 400 kbps |
| Gerry Rafferty - City To City                     |  307MB / 802 kbps |  165MB / 431 kbps |  147MB / 383 kbps |
| Iron Maiden - Can I Play With Madness             |  206MB / 784 kbps |  118MB / 45O kbps |  106MB / 405 kbps |
| Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygene                       |  219MB / 773 kbps |  143MB / 506 kbps |  127MB / 450 kbps |
| Marillion - Real to Reel (Live)                   |  305MB / 821 kbps |  172MB / 464 kbps |  154MB / 414 kbps |
| Mike Oldfield - Discovery                         |  237MB / 804 kbps |  129MB / 438 kbps |  115MB / 390 kbps |
| Mike Oldfield - QE2                               |  243MB / 855 kbps |  133MB / 469 kbps |  118MB / 416 kbps |
| Scorpions - Best of Rockers'N'Ballads             |  451MB / 922 kbps |  225MB / 460 kbps |  203MB / 415 kbps |
| The Shamen - Boss Drum                            |  433MB / 922 kbps |  220MB / 470 kbps |  190MB / 405 kbps |
| Van Morrison - Astral Weeks                       |  255MB / 757 kbps |  148MB / 440 kbps |  133MB / 395 kbps |
| Voice of the Beehive - Honey Lingers              |  213MB / 938 kbps |   99MB / 434 kbps |   88MB / 385 kbps |

| Average                                           | 5369MB / 863 kbps | 2796MB / 449 kbps | 2484MB / 399 kbps |


This post has been edited by Nick.C: Oct 29 2007, 21:35


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Oct 29 2007, 21:47
Post #400





Group: Members
Posts: 2435
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Wonderful. Something like this is what I expected.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

50 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 18 > » 
Closed 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: 22nd September 2014 - 19:40