IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
LossyWav: average filesize reduction
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 00:35
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



Yes, I think I got that. My question ("how ? I used the --longhelp switch, but I couldn't find a parameter for setting the blocksize.") is still relevant though, or not?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Mar 13 2010, 09:25
Post #27


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1813
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



The codec-block-size is automatically defined within lossyWAV dependent on the sample-rate of the material being processed. There is no reason to change it manually.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 12:17
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



the reason would be to serve a lossless codec, which you can't manually set to bocksize 512. So instead of adapting the codec to the needs of lossyWav, you would adapt adapt lossyWav to the needs of the codec.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Mar 13 2010, 12:41
Post #29





Group: Developer
Posts: 3467
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



IIRC the only codec that is compatible with LossyWAV but doesn't have blocksize option is WMA Lossless.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 13:08
Post #30





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Mar 13 2010, 12:41) *
IIRC the only codec that is compatible with LossyWAV but doesn't have blocksize option is WMA Lossless.

well that would be a field of application then. Plus, I'd like to test for myself with different lossless codecs.

So...

QUOTE
how ? I used the --longhelp switch, but I couldn't find a parameter for setting the blocksize.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Mar 13 2010, 13:30
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 1797
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



[sarcasm]
Oh, there's a very easy way you can do that: Get the source code, the compiler, modify it at your pleasure and taste, and do not come here asking why it doesn't improve the result
[/sarcasm]


You know... you start to be nitpicking..

This post has been edited by [JAZ]: Mar 13 2010, 13:31
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 13:41
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Mar 13 2010, 13:30) *

[sarcasm]
Oh, there's a very easy way you can do that: Get the source code, the compiler, modify it at your pleasure and taste, and do not come here asking why it doesn't improve the result
[/sarcasm]


your sarcasm is inappropriate.
Nick.C himself said:
QUOTE
For lossless encoding, the blocksize can be set to anything that you want,

So I was merely asking : HOW ?

I don't see why this is nitpicking. I was just asking for an element of information that was missing in his statement.

I was expecting a parameter in lossywav.exe,
e.g.

--blocksize 1024

but since I couldn't find any such parameter, ... well I asked.

This post has been edited by chrizoo: Mar 13 2010, 13:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Mar 13 2010, 13:51
Post #33





Group: Developer
Posts: 3467
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



QUOTE
So I was merely asking : HOW ?


He means a switch in a lossless encoder, not in LossyWAV.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Mar 13 2010, 14:39
Post #34


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1813
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (chrizoo @ Mar 13 2010, 11:17) *
the reason would be to serve a lossless codec, which you can't manually set to bocksize 512. So instead of adapting the codec to the needs of lossyWav, you would adapt adapt lossyWav to the needs of the codec.
Which lossless codec, that makes use of the "wasted bits" feature, does not allow you to change the blocksize of the encoder? If the blocksize of the lossless encoder is different from that of the lossyWAV processing then all that will happen is that the output will be encoded slightly less efficiently by the lossless codec. There will not be a switch in lossyWAV (unless forked) which allows the user to select a processing codec-block-size. A larger codec-block-size results in less bits removed as the effect of a low bin result for one of the FFT analyses will affect the bits-to-remove from more samples when blocks are longer.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Mar 13 2010, 14:54
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 2446
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



@chrizoo:

Judging from your numerous posts in numerous threads you initiated you're obviously very interested in audio compression.
BUT: It would be very welcome if you slow down a bit and appreciate a bit more the many answers you get and really try to understand them.
If - like in this thread - you're asking things again and again that have been answered JAZ's kind of an answer is going to start being adequate.

This post has been edited by halb27: Mar 13 2010, 14:55


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 15:29
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Mar 13 2010, 13:51) *
QUOTE
So I was merely asking : HOW ?

He means a switch in a lossless encoder, not in LossyWAV.


sorry, yes I see you are right. I was asking if and how the blocksize of 512 can be changed in lossyWav and when Nick.C answered "the blocksize can be set to anything that you want" I thought he would answer my question, whereas he actually talked about something else.

This post has been edited by chrizoo: Mar 13 2010, 15:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 15:42
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Mar 13 2010, 14:39) *
Which lossless codec, that makes use of the "wasted bits" feature, does not allow you to change the blocksize of the encoder?


according to lvqcl:

QUOTE (lvqcl @ Mar 13 2010, 12:41) *
IIRC the only codec that is compatible with LossyWAV but doesn't have blocksize option is WMA Lossless.


Not that I would use WMA though. I'd just would be like to make my own tests. Theory is good. Practice is better.




QUOTE
If the blocksize of the lossless encoder is different from that of the lossyWAV processing then all that will happen is that the output will be encoded slightly less efficiently by the lossless codec.

that's why I was trying to find out how to match the blocksize and if the only way to do so was for the encoder to accomodate lossyWAV's blocksize or if the reverse would also be possible.

QUOTE
There will not be a switch in lossyWAV (unless forked) which allows the user to select a processing codec-block-size. A larger codec-block-size results in less bits removed as the effect of a low bin result for one of the FFT analyses will affect the bits-to-remove from more samples when blocks are longer.

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

This post has been edited by chrizoo: Mar 13 2010, 16:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Mar 13 2010, 15:50
Post #38





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (halb27)
Judging from your numerous posts in numerous threads you initiated you're obviously very interested in audio compression.
BUT: It would be very welcome if you slow down a bit and appreciate a bit more the many answers you get and really try to understand them.

Not to mention trying some research by yourself before asking another umpteen questions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 15:55
Post #39





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



QUOTE (halb27 @ Mar 13 2010, 14:54) *
It would be very welcome if you ... appreciate a bit more the many answers you get and really try to understand them. If - like in this thread - you're asking things again and again that have been answered ...


I do genuinely appreciate all answers I get here (I actually observed that I say like 2-3 times more often "thank you" than most folks whose questions are answered) and I really try to understand them.

And if I'm "asking things that have been answered" (assuming you mean "answered to me" and not in general, somewhere, someplace), then obviuously only because I lack intelligence or knowledge for a better comprehension of the answers. Either that or the answers given don't answer the questions asked, which sometims happens to be the case, too.

But that's not a big deal. In the latter case I try to rephrase my question and if someone is kind and patient enough to bear with me, I always reached a point where I understood the answers (or the answerer my - maybe badly phrased - question).

This post has been edited by chrizoo: Mar 13 2010, 16:01
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
chrizoo
post Mar 13 2010, 15:56
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 345
Joined: 25-March 08
Member No.: 52274



QUOTE (dv1989 @ Mar 13 2010, 15:50) *
Not to mention trying some research by yourself before asking another umpteen questions.

well I actually do both
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: 22nd December 2014 - 11:18