IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 16 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread, Added noise WAV bitdepth reduction method.
GeSomeone
post Apr 27 2011, 11:26
Post #326





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



QUOTE (Ljubo44 @ Apr 26 2011, 19:13) *
lossyWAV beta 1.2.3i have stronger supression noise in audible range.

QUOTE (Ljubo44 @ Apr 27 2011, 00:10) *
I using wavelab6 for audio compare between original and lossywav and gain for inverted difference +50db.

It seems to me that you only looked at the difference signal, this tells not all without showing the source signal. It could be that lossyWav(version i) is "hiding" the introduced noise better "behind" the source signal.
At the end of the day the only thing that counts is, whether the noise is (more) audible?


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ljubo44
post Apr 27 2011, 12:18
Post #327





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 16-January 11
Member No.: 87368



lossyWAV beta 1.2.3h is best codec ever. 1200kb/s from lossywav is Better than wavpack hybrid at 1600kb/s because in silence lossywav added noise , and, where audio signal is available, that is not changed. In wavpack hybrid situation is reversed. Silence is unchanged but audio peaks in higher band is changed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 2 2011, 08:25
Post #328





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



Back from holidays I see more development has been going on.
I just tried furious and eig with new i version using -Q X.

I'm sorry to say that this is a quality regression. furious is easily ABXable in the sec. 0 ... 0.8 range (and I wouldn't call it acceptable as I did with the previous versions tested). And I ABXed eig 9/10 though this wasn't easy for me as I'm pretty insensitive to temporal smearing. I must say though that also with version g I had a slight suspicion that eig wasn't totally fine but this belief could not be backed up at all by my ABXing, so it didn't have any meaning.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ljubo44
post May 2 2011, 14:28
Post #329





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 16-January 11
Member No.: 87368



The world need a codec to compress 24-bit audio in HR sample rates like QTAAC on 16-bit 44,1kHz (-tvbr 127). Where the silence is to add noise, Where the audio is to leave unchanged. No exist that codec yet. I hope in the next versions in LossyWav.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 3 2011, 16:48
Post #330





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



I'd like to try version b1.2.3h.
Can somebody give me a link to it, please?


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ljubo44
post May 3 2011, 16:52
Post #331





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 16-January 11
Member No.: 87368



http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28274728/...beta_1.2.3h.rar
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 3 2011, 19:55
Post #332





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



Thanks a lot.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 3 2011, 20:21
Post #333


lossyWAV Developer


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



@halb27:

Could I ask you to please test 1.2.3i using the --nodccorrect parameter? This would allow me to rule out (or in) the recent DC offset correction.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 4 2011, 10:01
Post #334





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



I just had a few minutes where it was quiet at my home (a problem at the moment) and tested version i -Q X --nodccorrect with furious. Again it was very easily ABXable 10/10.
The --nodccorrect version BTW has a lower bitrate by 20 kbps for furious.
I hope I get more quiet moments today and would like to test version h and other previous versions in direct comparison.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 4 2011, 10:02


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 4 2011, 17:23
Post #335





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



Finally it was quiet around here.
I tested versions c, f, g, h, i, i --nodccorrect for furious in an immediate sequence.
Quality of versions f, g, h, i, i --nodccorrect is about the same, so no regression from g to i. I'm just more sensitive to furious at the moment.
But version c of furious was harder to ABX for me than were the other versions.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 4 2011, 17:24


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 4 2011, 20:55
Post #336


lossyWAV Developer


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



lossyWAV beta 1.2.3j 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
halb27
post May 5 2011, 08:25
Post #337





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



Nick, you're great at creating heuristics for improving quality!

Version b1.2.3.j -Q X is excellent with furious (I ABXed it 7/10, and I compared it with the version i result which is real bad in comparison).
I could not ABX eig, though it would be great if someone else could try this (can't get rid of a slight suspicion but I am not the one to ABX it).

Average bitrate of b1.2.3.j -Q X for my standard test set is 303 kbps.


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 6 2011, 21:17
Post #338


lossyWAV Developer


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



lossyWAV beta 1.2.3k RC1 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
GeSomeone
post May 8 2011, 17:18
Post #339





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



I see some quick developments now.

Nick, in the version below you introduced --limit defaults to the (new) standard quality scale,
QUOTE (Nick.C @ Feb 11 2011, 23:26) *
lossyWAV beta 1.2.3a RC2

I was wondering if those values change depending on the sample rate? (common case 48kHz vs. 44.1kHz) and if that would make any significant difference.

BTW I will regard the current version RC6 myself smile.gif.


--------------------
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 8 2011, 19:34
Post #340


lossyWAV Developer


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



QUOTE (GeSomeone @ May 8 2011, 17:18) *
BTW I will regard the current version RC6 myself smile.gif.
Point taken wink.gif

The upper limit for determination of allowable bits-to-remove (i.e. noise-to-add) does not change with sample-rate, only quality preset. The user can opt to increase the upper limit to a maximum of 20kHz.

This post has been edited by Nick.C: May 8 2011, 19:35


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 9 2011, 08:12
Post #341





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



I just tried version 1.2.3k in direct comparison to 1.2.3j using -Q X on furious and eig, as usual.

For furious using version k I arrived at 6/6 which turned into a 7/10. With version j for comparison I arrived at 5/5 which turned into a 8/10.
I'd judge the two versions to be very good to the same degree on furious.

For eig using version k I arrived at 5/5 which turned into a 9/10. With version j for comparison I stopped at 1/4 as I clearly can't ABX it.
To me version j is clearly superior on eig.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 9 2011, 08:34


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 9 2011, 20:48
Post #342


lossyWAV Developer


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



@halb27 - thanks again. There was a "bug" in 1.2.3j - although it seems to be beneficial to eig.

lossyWAV beta 1.2.3l RC7 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
halb27
post May 10 2011, 08:24
Post #343





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



Using 1.2.3.l -Q X I couldn't ABX eig nor furious (6/10 in both cases).

Using version k for comparison I also couldn't ABX them (furious: 7/10, eig: 3/10).

Obviously I am less sensitive today to temporal smearing (varying sensitivity is gonna be a major problem for me) so this isn't very meaningful. I'll try again and report when I am able to ABX eig with version k again.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 10 2011, 08:25


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 11 2011, 22:33
Post #344


lossyWAV Developer


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



lossyWAV beta 1.2.3m RC8 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
Batman321
post May 12 2011, 00:08
Post #345





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



Sorry to ask, but why do we need lossy wav or lossy flac?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 12 2011, 08:53
Post #346





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



There's no such thing as 'we need or don't need lossyWav'.
If you want lossless encoding: use a lossless codec, you don't need lossyWav.
If you want lossy encoding: you can use any lossy codec according to your needs, quality is excellent even when using good old mp3 with high bitrates, so you don't need lossyWav either.

But lossyWav is an enrichment to the world of lossy encoding:

- other than the with usual transform codecs where the musical information is transformed from the time to the frequency domain with codec specific limitations and a lot of heuristic decision making with their potential flaws on specific occasion, the lossyWav signal path is very simple reducing just the number of bits per wave sample. However - though to a minor extent - heuristics is done too, and is relevant especially at the lowest quality settings.

- if you use the standard quality or above, probability of audible issues is extremely close to zero. In a sense you get lossyWav preprocessed FLAC files with the quality of lossless FLAC files but smaller file size. Again this is not totally different from the world of other lossy encoders where you find yourself in a similar or the same situation when using very high bitrates, especially if the codec allows for extremely high bitrates like AAC does.

- from the encoding principles lossyWav + a lossless codec cannot be compared well with a transform codec but much better with the lossy variant of a lossless codec, most notably wavPack lossy. The advantage of lossyWav here is that you have a choice of the final codec, and with FLAC a widely supported codec is available which works very well together with lossyWav. Moreover quality control is supposed to be better with lossyWav than with wavPack lossy, though at extremely high bitrate this isn't much of a concern.

- as lossyWav is a preprocessor to a lossless codec like FLAC, you can always losslessly transcode the say lossyWav + FLAC result to another losseless codec like say TAK some day later in case this turns out to be useful for whatever reason, for instance when the new codec is more widely supported on players, or if it is more efficient.

lossyWav just adds to your choices. And as it isn't just another of the many transform codecs it's a very welcome addition IMO.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 12 2011, 09:30


--------------------
lame3100m -V1 --insane-factor 0.75
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Batman321
post May 12 2011, 19:17
Post #347





Group: Members
Posts: 67
Joined: 28-December 09
Member No.: 76405



That's exactly what I wanted to know, thanks wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 13 2011, 18:07
Post #348


lossyWAV Developer


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



lossyWAV beta 1.2.3n RC9 attached to post #1 in this thread.

(I think this may just be the one....)


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 16 2011, 20:25
Post #349


lossyWAV Developer


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



lossyWAV beta 1.2.3o RC10(!) 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
halb27
post May 17 2011, 10:31
Post #350





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



I tested furious and eig using -Q X.

I ABXed 1.2.3o for furious 8/10 and eig 4/10. Quality is excellent, even furious testing was hard.
Results for 1.2.3m were the same in a practical sense (furious 7/10 [but I don't think version o is worse], eig 4/10).

For a comparison I tested version j on furious which came out fine in an earlier test: 7/10, but to me version 1.2.3o is a tiny bit better (with version j there were more situations when I was pretty sure I heard a difference and I was right, with version o it was more of a guessing throughout though successful most of the time).
For another comparison I tested version k on eig which I was able to ABX in an earlier test. Again I did not succeed: 5/10.


Nick, my impression is: lossyWav has matured so much that further minor modifications are not worth while, at least at the moment. What's really lacking is reassuring quality on a broader basis. Though this seems to be a problem anyway I think as long as there aren't very promising new ideas it's best to really stick to the latest version (or the next one if you have already something new in mind), and to clearly say so that this is the release candidate.
Hopefully this may invite more testers to participate.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 17 2011, 10:32


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

16 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 16 >
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: 23rd September 2014 - 12:53