IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
lossyWAV 1.2.0 released, Added noise WAV bitdepth reduction method
halb27
post Jan 30 2010, 23:29
Post #76





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Just an idea about how to name the intermediate quality level -q 3.75 (--altpreset): --economic (as a short term for: a quality demand very close to that of --standard, but with a more economic bitrate).


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jan 31 2010, 09:04
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Average bitrate for my standard test set of various old and new pop music:

-P --altpreset: 379 kbps
-q 3.75 --altpreset: 415 kbps
-S --altpreset: 445 kbps

Looks nice to me.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
johnb
post Jan 31 2010, 15:42
Post #78





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 15-November 03
From: Munich
Member No.: 9858



Could you please answer this for clarification (on my side):

For a given quality level (e.g. --standard), is --altpreset aiming to be more conservative quality-wise or is it aiming at reducing the required bitrate without perceived quality loss?

As for me, I currently use --standard for archiving (and possibly for later transcoding to lossless e.g. lame -V4) and mpc -standard for my DAPs.

Thanks for your answers.

Regards
johnb

This post has been edited by johnb: Jan 31 2010, 15:50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Jan 31 2010, 16:16
Post #79





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



There's two things coming with the --altpreset quality scheme:

a) For quality levels up to --standard --altpreset makes lossyWAV behave more conservative (for --standard it's nearly the same, difference is the more essential the lower the -q value). Above --standard lossyWAV reduces the overkill quality demand a bit.

b) The frequency limit of the noise analysis is lowered a bit compared to the old scheme (from 16 kHz to 15.2 kHz).
Noise analysis must be limited because otherwise in many situations no or low energy would be found in a tiny frequency region driving lossyWAV to keep all or nearly all of the bits for no good reason.
--altpreset has the effect here to make lossyWAV more efficient.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Jan 31 2010, 21:00
Post #80





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



Hi,

I was "playing" around with converting some tracks with lossyWAV v1.2.0 because I'd like to transcode my music library.
Two problems I noticed with the processed tracks in Winamp v5.572:

1. The basic spectrum analyzer next to the duration display is staying "flat".
2. The milkdrop visualization plug in is not usable because the graphics are not moving anymore.

They are connected and go back to the nonresponsing spectrum analyzer I guess.
I would like to use lossyWAV but I also like to use the milkdrop visualization. Any tips or thoughts about this?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 31 2010, 21:07
Post #81


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



Does this plug-in work with FLAC?


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Feb 1 2010, 01:25
Post #82





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



Yes, it works codec independent.
I used it for years and it worked flawless. Is it possible that lossyWAV cuts certain frequencies? I'm not into that subject but I know the plugin analyses the music and generates movements depending on the music. But with the lossyWAV files it just stays "flat".

This post has been edited by gottkaiser: Feb 1 2010, 01:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Feb 1 2010, 15:51
Post #83





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



I tried converting the lossyWAV tracks to mp3 (vbr). Then the visualization responses normal again.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Feb 1 2010, 17:10
Post #84


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



How does the visualisation deal with the unprocessed WAV? Similarly, the decoded WAV from the lossyFLAC file?


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Feb 1 2010, 17:31
Post #85





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



I decoded the lossyFLAC file to WAV with and without "--keep-foreign-metadata". Both files work fine with the plug-in.
So I guess the problem seems to be with Winamp.

Thanks for your help and sorry for the hustle.

This post has been edited by gottkaiser: Feb 1 2010, 17:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
benski
post Feb 1 2010, 18:44
Post #86


Winamp Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 670
Joined: 17-July 05
From: Brooklyn, NY
Member No.: 23375



QUOTE (gottkaiser @ Feb 1 2010, 11:31) *
I decoded the lossyFLAC file to WAV with and without "--keep-foreign-metadata". Both files work fine with the plug-in.
So I guess the problem seems to be with Winamp.

Thanks for your help and sorry for the hustle.


This will be fixed for Winamp 5.573/5.58/5.6 (whatever the next version is smile.gif It happens when FLAC frame sizes areless than 576.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Feb 1 2010, 20:55
Post #87


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



Thanks very much, Benski.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gottkaiser
post Feb 2 2010, 03:17
Post #88





Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-January 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 18891



great. Thanks fro me as well! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Feb 2 2010, 11:02
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 29 2010, 22:11) *
I'll have a think and try to come up with a possible name for the parameter. .... oh - I would probably prefer -q 3.75 rather than -q 3.5 as the quality component of the preset.


How about lowering --extreme to 6.25 then and --insane to 7.5? Guess 10 is über-insane anyway... regarding that even portable is almost transparent (it certainly is for my ears). Great work btw! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Feb 2 2010, 11:28
Post #90





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Overkill quality demand of a minor degree can also be done by giving the -q values beyond 5 a less defensive meaning.
Nick does exactly this with the --altpreset scheme, but IMO there can be more to it.
Nick doesn't want to change the quality scale 0...10, and in fact there is no need for it as -q 10 can be configured internally to yield a significantly lower bitrate than with the old scheme.

This post has been edited by halb27: Feb 2 2010, 11:31


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Feb 2 2010, 12:49
Post #91





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



Personally, i like the old scale as its simple and what I'm used to.

We could split into two categories for different people and their requirements :

Compact file sizes:

Q0 -- zero - lower quality , high chance of artifact
Q1 -- medium - medium quality, some chance of artifact
Q2 -- portable / compact - high quality, normally transparent (with small risk of artifact)

Larger files, suitable for archiving and transcoding:

Q3 -- standard - very high quality - transparent on most test samples.
Q5 -- extreme - Very high quality. Transparent with slight overkill
Q6 -- insane - Extreme high quality. Transparent with more overkill
Q7 -- Ultra - Extreme high quality. Transparent with lots of overkill


Now its clearer that a portable switch should belong to catergory 1 and a 'standard' or default to catergory 2.
Q1 or 2 are contenders for --portable and like wise Q3 could be the lossywav default and Q5 renamed to --extreme
However, Q5 is also okay as the default if we take a paranoid stance.


To simplify further with a few switches using my alternative scale;

--portable / compact = Q2
--normal / standard = Q3
--extreme = Q5

This post has been edited by shadowking: Feb 2 2010, 13:20


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Feb 2 2010, 14:25
Post #92





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (shadowking @ Feb 2 2010, 12:49) *
Q0 -- zero - lower quality , high chance of artifact
Q1 -- medium - medium quality, some chance of artifact
Q2 -- portable / compact - high quality, normally transparent (with small risk of artifact)

I don't think that such lq presets are necessary. LossyWAV isn't designed to deliver reasonable quality at Q1 or Q0. I suggested the presets stretching from 2.5 to 7.5 because it seems to me that the existing quality scale is too wide to be covered by resonable presets - too low at the bottom, too exesssive at the top. If this is too narrow it could be like --portable 2, --economic 3.5 --standart 5, --extreme 6.5 -- insane 8. Anyway, I think Nick should know best which presets/scale-equation is most appropriate.

This post has been edited by Northpack: Feb 2 2010, 14:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Feb 2 2010, 15:53
Post #93





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



The 2 groups you built, shadowking, are essential IMO:
Group 1 targeting at HQ lossy encoding, group 2 targeting at an efficient alternative to lossless.
As for the 2nd group IMO it shouldn't start below -q 5, because in this area there is the definite demand for transparency, and -q 5 is what is in line with the basic lossyWAV principle.
For group 1 there is a wide variation of quality demand what people think is acceptable. At the moment there is just 1 named quality level here (--portable), but a more stronger one (call it --economic or whatever) is in discussion.
With the --altpreset scheme there is room for a named quality level below --portable, too (call it ultra-portable or whatever).
What exact -q values to correspond with the named quality levels is a matter of taste of course, but what's done so far is quite alright for me, especially if we should get a namerd quality level below --portable.

This post has been edited by halb27: Feb 2 2010, 15:55


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Feb 2 2010, 16:13
Post #94





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



A slight revision taking into account your input;

Category 1 - smaller files HQ lossy [ quality 2 ~ 4 ]

--compact / economy -Q2
--portable -Q2.5 -t
--high -Q3 .. 3.75

or:

--portable1 - p1 = q2
--portable2 - p2 = q2.5t
--portable3 - p3 = q3.x


Category 2 - lossless alternative [ quality 5 ~ 7 ]

--standard -Q5
--extreme -Q6
--insane -Q7

This post has been edited by shadowking: Feb 2 2010, 17:01


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GeSomeone
post Feb 2 2010, 18:52
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 921
Joined: 22-October 01
From: the Netherlands
Member No.: 335



Thanks all involved for the listening tests. cool.gif

My 2ct, for what it's worth:
I exclusively use the --altpreset scale, I never use lower than -q 3 (when the --impuls setting first was introduced I thought it was needed but I'm sorry not to back that up with ABX evidence). I use always the -q and not the names for presets.

You can come up with whatever names you like, just a suggestion: don't put to much meaning in those names, except where they are on the scale (low, standard-low, standard, standard-hi, hi) or something like that. What to use it for, is more or less a personal preference. (Even if it's transparent or not can be different from person to person)

QUOTE (halb27 @ Feb 2 2010, 16:53) *
Group 1 targeting at HQ lossy encoding, group 2 targeting at an efficient alternative to lossless.

It is the same thing really. smile.gif


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Feb 2 2010, 23:02
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (GeSomeone @ Feb 2 2010, 18:52) *
QUOTE (halb27 @ Feb 2 2010, 16:53) *
Group 1 targeting at HQ lossy encoding, group 2 targeting at an efficient alternative to lossless.

It is the same thing really. smile.gif

I should have been more precise:
Group 1 targeting at HQ lossy encoding for listening purposes, group 2 targeting at an efficient alternative to lossless for archiving purposes.

This post has been edited by halb27: Feb 2 2010, 23:02


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Feb 14 2010, 13:16
Post #97





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



I decided to try again today .

q1.5 - 7/8
2.0 - 7/8
2.0 - 8/8
3.0 - 9/10

--altpreset

q1.0 - 7/8
q2.0 - 5/10


overall --altpreset has a positive effect - but is it for all samples ?


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0
2010/02/14 22:36:44

File A: C:\windows\profiles\ng\My Documents\music\abx\ha\submit\09 - Dear Sir-sm.flac
File B: C:\windows\profiles\ng\My Documents\temp\q3- 09 - Dear Sir-sm.lossy.flac

22:36:44 : Test started.
22:36:56 : 01/01 50.0%
22:37:04 : 02/02 25.0%
22:37:16 : 03/03 12.5%
22:37:32 : 04/04 6.3%
22:37:58 : 04/05 18.8%
22:38:57 : 05/06 10.9%
22:39:28 : 06/07 6.3%
22:40:04 : 07/08 3.5%
22:40:16 : 08/09 2.0%
22:40:55 : 09/10 1.1%
22:45:32 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 9/10 (1.1%)


foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.0
2010/02/14 22:50:01

File A: C:\windows\profiles\ng\My Documents\music\abx\ha\submit\09 - Dear Sir-sm.flac
File B: C:\windows\profiles\ng\My Documents\temp\q2-t- 09 - Dear Sir-sm.lossy.flac

22:50:01 : Test started.
22:50:35 : 01/01 50.0%
22:50:41 : 02/02 25.0%
22:51:02 : 03/03 12.5%
22:51:11 : 03/04 31.3%
22:51:23 : 03/05 50.0%
22:51:33 : 04/06 34.4%
22:51:42 : 04/07 50.0%
22:51:49 : 04/08 63.7%
22:52:24 : 05/09 50.0%
22:52:41 : 05/10 62.3%
22:52:47 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 5/10 (62.3%)










--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Feb 14 2010, 14:07
Post #98





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



Also playing around with this interesting new --altpreset. I tried more samples and Q1 -t is hard to abx and bitrate is similar to old q2.

This post has been edited by shadowking: Feb 14 2010, 14:24


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Feb 14 2010, 15:21
Post #99





Group: Members
Posts: 2429
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (shadowking @ Feb 14 2010, 13:16) *
... overall --altpreset has a positive effect - but is it for all samples ? ...

Nobody knows for sure, but it should be like that.
Quality demand is higher below -q 5, very significantly higher at the very low quality levels so inappropriate results for lossyWAV shouldn't exist even for low -q values.
At the --portable quality level general quality demand is still higher compared to the old scheme though bitrate is more or less the same.
The bitrate saving feature comes from the restriction of the noise analysis which stops at roughly 15.1 kHz compared to 16 kHz with the old scheme.
Low energy in small frequency areas in these high frequency regions drives the lossyWAV mechanism to save only few bits if at all for no good reason.
So in a sense the --altpreset variant takes care of quality for the better reasons - at least it is expected to do so.

This post has been edited by halb27: Feb 14 2010, 15:24


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2E7AH
post Feb 15 2010, 12:41
Post #100





Group: Validating
Posts: 2424
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 53675



If I could edit my posts, I would add this warning on posts #38 and #57:

Correction file won't be created if filename name is Unicode (or contains character not in user code page): link
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
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: 31st August 2014 - 05:37