IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

27 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread, Added noise WAV bitdepth reduction method
Nick.C
post Jan 24 2009, 09:58
Post #126


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1789
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (sidewalking @ Jan 23 2009, 17:01) *
Nick.C: Is an option to specify output file name in the plans for the future, or do you want to stay with just the output directory option?
It was never an intention as I prefer to automatically have the output file have the .lossy.wav extension. However with the advent of piped encoding it might be an idea. I'll have a think about it.

QUOTE (UED77 @ Jan 23 2009, 22:45) *
Yes, I understand the need for the FACT chunk (see this post of yours) wink.gif but I'm thinking there could be a way of noting in some tag that the file was processed by LossyWAV.

The FACT chunk should still be added to the lossyWAV-processed WAV file.
But upon losslessly compressing the lossyWAV, perhaps add a tag to the output file that contains the same information as the FACT chunk would. Of course, there is nothing to stop the user from removing this tag later, but that's his fault, so to speak. biggrin.gif

Of course, it could be more trouble than it's worth, and ultimately you never know how "lossless original" a PCM file is, but if the technical capability exists, we might decide to let the user know in good faith that his file is no longer "pristinely original".
If the FACT chunk is stored as a tag on the file instead then it can more easily (i.e. deliberately) be removed. The FACT chunk can of course be removed by simply transcoding a lossyFLAC file to FLAC without keeping the additional metadata.

QUOTE (sauvage78 @ Jan 24 2009, 08:21) *
Is it possible yet to use lossywav with multichannel lossless Dolby True HD & DTS Master ?
I haven't tried personnaly but I am more & more interested in it ... I am specially scarred by this:

1.2.0: Checking of S (=L-R) channel for matrix surround content

should i wait for 1.2.0 to give it a try ?
I would imagine that if any Dolby True HD or DTS Master content was contained within an integer multi-channel WAV file then lossyWAV would be able to cope with it.

I have made no progress with matrix surround content due to a total lack of information as to how it works.

Obviously no beta last night - time availability problems - should be some time next week.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sauvage78
post Jan 24 2009, 10:25
Post #127





Group: Members
Posts: 677
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 53282



ok np, I asked because nowadays a wonderfull soft called eac3to demux & transcode these streams directly from blu-ray to flac ... it already strips useless 0 bytes from 24bits to 16bits automatically so I had the idea of trying lossywav on it to do various bitdepth directly but I didn't knew if it would work.

One day I would like to try to put together these streams (x264 1080p+lossyflac 5.1+sup) in an mkv, it could rock !

This post has been edited by sauvage78: Jan 24 2009, 10:53


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 28 2009, 08:47
Post #128


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1789
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV 1.1.2 attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gregory S. Chudo...
post Jan 28 2009, 13:19
Post #129





Group: Developer
Posts: 695
Joined: 2-October 08
From: Ottawa
Member No.: 59035



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 28 2009, 10:47) *
lossyWAV 1.1.2 attached to post #1 in this thread.

Am i the only one who's getting an error trying to download it?
Seems like the new forum engine has some unclear new rules concerning attachments.


--------------------
CUETools 2.1.4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 28 2009, 14:10
Post #130


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1789
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



I have managed to download both of them - however those were the first download for each, so maybe others are indeed having issues.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Jan 28 2009, 14:24
Post #131





Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (Gregory S. Chudov @ Jan 28 2009, 13:19) *
QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 28 2009, 10:47) *
lossyWAV 1.1.2 attached to post #1 in this thread.

Am i the only one who's getting an error trying to download it?
Seems like the new forum engine has some unclear new rules concerning attachments.

I haven't been able to download either. I used the email link to report a problem and that bounced back as an invalid address. As a final attempt to report the problem I PM'd Garf on the asumption that it's to do with the server upgrade. I notice that the number of downloads is "1" so it looks like Nick is the only person to have any luck so far (not that I have any idea how many people may have tried)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dynamic
post Jan 28 2009, 19:50
Post #132





Group: Members
Posts: 803
Joined: 17-September 06
Member No.: 35307



QUOTE (botface @ Jan 28 2009, 14:24) *
I haven't been able to download either.


It worked for me with Flashgot in Firefox 3.x and thew downloads was already up to 12, so it appears to be resolved.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Jan 28 2009, 20:05
Post #133





Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (Dynamic @ Jan 28 2009, 19:50) *
QUOTE (botface @ Jan 28 2009, 14:24) *
I haven't been able to download either.


It worked for me with Flashgot in Firefox 3.x and thew downloads was already up to 12, so it appears to be resolved.

Yep, I've got it now.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post Jan 28 2009, 20:08
Post #134





Group: Members
Posts: 355
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 28 2009, 08:47) *
lossyWAV 1.1.2 attached to post #1 in this thread.

Well done Nick. Another smooth release. It's working a treat
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 29 2009, 05:21
Post #135





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Aug 25 2008, 06:36) *
Some questions:
  • Do we need dither?
  • Do we need 32-bit integer processing?
  • Do we need the capability to create correction files?
I ask as these all add to the time taken to process files (even if the options themselves are not selected).


Hello.

Thank you for the great idea & Work youre doing here, I have downloaded 1.1.1 and did some tests but first:
[*]Do we need 32-bit integer processing?
Dont think so as reference material probably will not be compressed in a lossy way.

[*]Do we need the capability to create correction files?

Absolutely.

The Option to Compress this way for a Media Library Playback, & Archive WITH the correction File,
is probably the best use of it, So the Files can always be reconstructed to Original.


Request / Question :
It would be great if LossyWav has a built in Flac Decoder/Encoder so the pcm data will be piped directly without internediate Wav Files So the whole process can be done faster , Like using Flac -F on existing Flac Files to reencode etc. (Did I miss something .. ? )

About quality ,I did a few blind tests here ,& could tell the difference, ( with 90% success),
So while I would not call it transparent, it's good.

all test were encoded with -I.

Thanks again

This post has been edited by B0RK: Jan 29 2009, 05:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 29 2009, 07:09
Post #136


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1789
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV does indeed pipe output so there is no need for an intermediate WAV file when encoding to a lossless codec which accepts piped input.

--insane (I assume) is the upper quality limit (-q 10). Please supply ABX logs. And samples which you were able to ABX.

This post has been edited by Nick.C: Jan 29 2009, 07:11


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jan 29 2009, 08:43
Post #137





Group: Members
Posts: 2425
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (B0RK @ Jan 29 2009, 06:21) *
... About quality ,I did a few blind tests here ,& could tell the difference, ( with 90% success), ...

What was your lossyWAV setting? As Nick.C wrote samples which you can ABX 9/10 or similar are of very high interest. Please share them.

This post has been edited by halb27: Jan 29 2009, 08:45


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jan 29 2009, 14:45
Post #138





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Since v1.1x I cannot run lossywav with WINE, v1.0 works:

@p550:~/downloads/win32$ wine lossywav
wine: Unhandled exception 0x0eedfade at address 0x0000:0x7b845c60 (thread 002d), starting debugger...
First chance exception: 0xc0000025 in 32-bit code (0x7bc3c91e).
Register dump:
CS:0073 SS:007b DS:007b ES:007b FS:0033 GS:003b
EIP:7bc3c91e ESP:0032fa34 EBP:0032fa98 EFLAGS:00000282( - 00 - -IS1)
EAX:0032fa40 EBX:7bc8f4c4 ECX:00110054 EDX:00000000
ESI:0032fe20 EDI:0032faa4

Backtrace:
=>0 0x7bc3c91e __regs_RtlRaiseException+0x4e() in ntdll (0x0032fa98)
1 0x7bc7d79a in ntdll (+0x6d79a) (0x0032fdfc)
2 0x7bc3badc RtlUnwind() in ntdll (0x0032fe78)
3 0x0041629b in lossywav (+0x1629b) (0x0032fec0)
4 0x00404c4f in lossywav (+0x4c4f) (0x0032fee4)
5 0x00404cb7 in lossywav (+0x4cb7) (0x0032ff08)
6 0x7b878b58 in kernel32 (+0x58b58) (0x0032ffe8)
7 0xb7e35b07 wine_switch_to_stack+0x17() in libwine.so.1 (0x00000000)
Runtime error 216 at 00ADC248


This post has been edited by shadowking: Jan 29 2009, 14:45


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 29 2009, 20:48
Post #139





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 29 2009, 00:09) *
lossyWAV does indeed pipe output so there is no need for an intermediate WAV file when encoding to a lossless codec which accepts piped input.

--insane (I assume) is the upper quality limit (-q 10). Please supply ABX logs. And samples which you were able to ABX.


yeah I guessed this ability exists but I failed to figure it out ,
was eager to try this .

If anyone can tell me what's the proper way of doing it that is acceptable ,
please lmk.

I want to make sure my output files are of the same standard / quality as yours.

Also - if there is an agreed upon ABX test method here , please direct me to it so I can help.

My background is in Pro Audio Retail , so have access to different testing Hardware & environments , so I think I need to first Line up with the methods used here ,
If anyone can advise Id be grateful.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 29 2009, 20:54
Post #140





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



QUOTE (halb27 @ Jan 29 2009, 01:43) *
QUOTE (B0RK @ Jan 29 2009, 06:21) *
... About quality ,I did a few blind tests here ,& could tell the difference, ( with 90% success), ...

What was your lossyWAV setting? As Nick.C wrote samples which you can ABX 9/10 or similar are of very high interest. Please share them.


This format Is new for me, So the only switch I used was "-I".
As I said if there's a 'Correct' or better settings I need to use, please advise.

once I line up with the acceptable standard methods here, I will supply my Test files if theyre needed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 29 2009, 20:55
Post #141


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1789
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



-I == --insane == -q 10 = the highest available quality setting.

If you go to post #1 in this thread you will find the foobar2000 converter settings for lossyWAV processing piped to FLAC, Tak & Wavpack.

foobar2000 also has an ABX capability.

Others are more knowledgeable regarding acceptable ABX methodology.

If you could upload some representative samples (up to 30 seconds each) of the track(s) which you managed to ABX in the Uploads forum it would be greatly appreciated.

This post has been edited by Nick.C: Jan 29 2009, 20:57


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 29 2009, 21:02
Post #142





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 29 2009, 13:55) *
-I == --insane == -q 10 = the highest available quality setting.

If you go to post #1 in this thread you will find the foobar2000 converter settings for lossyWAV processing piped to FLAC, Tak & Wavpack.

foobar2000 also has an ABX capability.

Others are more knowledgeable regarding acceptable ABX methodology.

If you could upload some representative samples (up to 30 seconds each) of the track(s) which you managed to ABX in the Uploads forum it would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks Nick C.
will try & use it ,( I do not use Foobar , but will delve into it.)
I will look for the Upload Forums & upload files as you request. (did not know they exist).

This post has been edited by B0RK: Jan 29 2009, 21:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jan 29 2009, 21:34
Post #143





Group: Members
Posts: 2425
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (B0RK @ Jan 29 2009, 21:54) *
... the only switch I used was "-I". ...

'-I' means 'insane quality' (the best quality available, 2 steps better than 'standard quality' ['-S'] which so far was considered transparent).
So your sample(s) are of very high interest, cause if you can really ABX the -I results it means there has more development to be done.

As Nick.C wrote the probably easiest way to do ABXing is to use foobar2000. Just take care when installing to have the ABX tool marked.
You add the two files to be abxed to the playlist, mark them both, use the context menu 'Utils' > 'ABX Two Tracks'.
In the dialogue that pops up you can listen to the two files by pressing the 'A' resp. 'B' button.
Listen to them several times in order to get familiar with the supposed differences.
Then start the blind test which means pressing the 'X' and 'Y' button. 'X' can be 'A' (in whch case 'Y' is 'B') or vice versa.
You are allowed to press the 'X', 'Y', 'A' and 'B' button as often as you like. Finally you have an opinion whether 'X is A, Y is B' or 'Y is A, X is B'.
You press the corresponding button. At this time you can still change your mind in case you pressed the wrong button.
You finish this trial by pressing 'Next Trial' which will show you your result and brings you the next trial, that is a new 'A' or 'B' mapping to 'X' resp. 'Y'.
You continue until you finisghed 10 trials.

Someone who is only guessing will arive at a total score of ~5/10 (5 hits out of 10). So in order to have really identified a problem your score should be a lot better.
If you arrive at 10/10 you have defintely abxed a problem. When your score is 9/10 probality still is very high that there is an issue. A result of 8/10 still yields evidence for
this though the result cannot totally be trusted. In this case (and I'd say also in the case of a 7/10 result) best thing to do is to do more ABX tests. In case you always get at a 7/10
or better result evidence is very strong that there is an issue.
Opinion about the right way to do ABXing varies, but in order to get a strong evidence for lossyWAV insane being not transparent IMO this should do.

This post has been edited by halb27: Jan 29 2009, 21:36


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 29 2009, 21:37
Post #144


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1789
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



.... or, in the event of 7/10 or 8/10, try dropping down to --extreme or even --standard and ABX that output against the original instead.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 29 2009, 21:58
Post #145





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



Thanks for the informative replies !
I will get to it , this should prove to be a more reliable test !

This post has been edited by B0RK: Jan 29 2009, 21:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 29 2009, 23:54
Post #146





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



QUOTE (B0RK @ Jan 29 2009, 14:58) *
Thanks for the informative replies !
I will get to it , this should prove to be a more reliable test !


OK Finally set it up , the Foobar conversion did not work for me ,
but I have found the script version.

now trying to get to the ABX test , Is A always A & only mapping to X Y changes >?
or the whole mapping changes ?? (turning it into an ABCD test)

This post has been edited by B0RK: Jan 30 2009, 14:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 30 2009, 01:01
Post #147





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



nm took me a while (new to this Foobar app ..)
kinda figured this out now , ran a 1st 20 try test here, for the 1st (hardest for me)
single test file, so fatigue will become a factor as well, log included in archive.

Didnt continue testing the 2 others with Foobar as my 1st test file provided enough input for me,have a look.
(& I will be the first to say my ears are not what they used to be :/ )

put the file on rapidshare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/191350600/TEST_FILES.rar.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Jan 30 2009, 05:54
Post #148





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



Very interesting. I can't test lossywav ATM, but I failed with wavpack lossy --dns 256k (hx). abx 6/8 then 3/8
I concentrated on the cymbal crash. I had the feeling of a slight hf noise on the 1st abx run but its a bit noisy in my apartment.


@bork - The problem should be magnified with lower quality setting like --portable - Do you mind testing ?

This post has been edited by shadowking: Jan 30 2009, 05:59


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jan 30 2009, 09:13
Post #149





Group: Members
Posts: 2425
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (B0RK @ Jan 30 2009, 02:01) *
... my 1st test file provided enough input ...

Really, especially as you were using '-I', didn`t you?
What come to my mind is that '-I' uses noise shaping to the max, meaning all the added noise is collected in the 13+ kHz range.
This is not expected to be a problem, but who knows for sure?
Do you mind testing with the additional switch '-s 0' which disables noise shaping, or a low noise shaping setting like '-s 0.3'?
As '-S' is wanted to yield transparent results I'd prefer to have this setting tested. shadowking's proposal of using '-P' is of course intersting too. As a positive side effect for you using '-S' and '-P' testing should be easier.

Can you tell a bit about what is wrong with the lossyWAV result?

This post has been edited by halb27: Jan 30 2009, 09:14


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B0RK
post Jan 31 2009, 00:36
Post #150





Group: Banned
Posts: 60
Joined: 24-December 08
Member No.: 64805



QUOTE (halb27 @ Jan 30 2009, 03:13) *
QUOTE (B0RK @ Jan 30 2009, 02:01) *
... my 1st test file provided enough input ...

Really, especially as you were using '-I', didn`t you?
What come to my mind is that '-I' uses noise shaping to the max, meaning all the added noise is collected in the 13+ kHz range.
This is not expected to be a problem, but who knows for sure?
Do you mind testing with the additional switch '-s 0' which disables noise shaping, or a low noise shaping setting like '-s 0.3'?
As '-S' is wanted to yield transparent results I'd prefer to have this setting tested. shadowking's proposal of using '-P' is of course intersting too. As a positive side effect for you using '-S' and '-P' testing should be easier.

Can you tell a bit about what is wrong with the lossyWAV result?


halb27 - Thanks again for helping me set this up , would not be able to without your help.

As I hinted above , Im the first to say that I do NOT have Reference ears anymore.
On the other hand , I have been a musician most of my life, & have had experience with sound systems of different levels throughout, (& a music fan of course).

with the last test (log included with the test files above)
I used the script Nick C. provided that uses --standard.

I cannot tell what's wrong with lossywav itself,
but I can highlight key points in my uploaded test files, that helped me tell them apart.


In the track called 'Country Roads' , what gave it away for me was noise.
Once locked in on it ,you can notice it quite clearly , until fatigue gets you (me).

on The 'Rock With You' Track what gave it away for me was the reduced overtones in the ambience of the lead synth line.

On The 'Oleo' track , the one with the log included in the test files,
it was the midrange thickness of the organ.

Sharp-eared experienced users (with some level of decent gear),
(not to mention experienced pros /true Audiophiles)
should have a way higher percentage of noticing the differences,
more then my somewhat tired although experienced ears can hope for.

Here is an example:

I saved the log for 'Rock With You' - one look is enough to tell when fatigue has set in on me ,(or maybe i lost my focus ?!) & how long it took me to snap out of it ,
but the results still have meaning.

CODE
foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/01/30 03:22:51

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\Michael Jackson - Rock With You.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\Michael Jackson - Rock With You.lossy.flac

03:22:51 : Test started.
03:23:54 : 01/01  50.0%
03:24:27 : 02/02  25.0%
03:25:55 : 03/03  12.5%
03:26:43 : 04/04  6.3%
03:27:25 : 05/05  3.1%
03:27:59 : 06/06  1.6%
03:29:53 : 06/07  6.3%
03:32:13 : 07/08  3.5%
03:33:25 : 08/09  2.0%
03:34:21 : 09/10  1.1%
03:35:03 : 10/11  0.6%
03:36:10 : 11/12  0.3%
03:37:25 : 11/13  1.1%
03:39:02 : 12/14  0.6%
03:41:12 : 12/15  1.8%
03:41:57 : 12/16  3.8%
03:43:20 : 12/17  7.2%
03:44:31 : 12/18  11.9%
03:46:05 : 13/19  8.4%
03:47:28 : 13/20  13.2%
03:49:05 : 14/21  9.5%
03:49:28 : 15/22  6.7%
03:50:07 : 16/23  4.7%
03:51:37 : 17/24  3.2%
03:52:22 : 17/25  5.4%
03:52:31 : 17/26  8.4%
03:53:15 : 18/27  6.1%
03:54:34 : 19/28  4.4%
03:55:42 : 20/29  3.1%
03:57:12 : 20/30  4.9%
03:57:41 : 21/31  3.5%
04:00:12 : 21/32  5.5%
04:01:43 : 21/33  8.1%
04:01:57 : 22/34  6.1%
04:04:18 : 23/35  4.5%
04:05:48 : 23/36  6.6%
04:07:36 : 23/37  9.4%
04:09:56 : 24/38  7.2%
04:10:49 : 25/39  5.4%
04:11:55 : 26/40  4.0%
04:12:04 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 26/40 (4.0%)


This post has been edited by B0RK: Jan 31 2009, 05:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

27 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
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: 20th August 2014 - 23:51