Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topic
Better lossless compression?, a hybrid fractal/wavelet audio compr
post Oct 9 2003, 19:43
Post #1

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 29-May 03
Member No.: 6883

Greetings All,

The idea came to me during a meeting about multifractal analysis of clinical EEG data with my professor, but he mentioned this guys name... and paper.

R.A. Wannamaker and E.R. Vrscay, Fractal Wavelet Compression of Audio Signals, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, Nos. 7-8, pp. 540-553 (1997).


Now i know people are working on different kinds of wavelet compressors, but haven't seen anything published that shows them having better compression (or coming close) as the current lossless formats [for cds].

Now, i am not a professonal in audio codecs design but from my limited understanding, looks promissing..... just wanted to see some "professional" opinion (or anyones for that matter)

Is it worth pursuing?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 9 2003, 21:04
Post #2

Neutrino G-RSA developer

Group: Developer
Posts: 852
Joined: 8-May 02
From: Geneva
Member No.: 2002

Possibly, yes.

It all depends on the shape of your signal, and how fast you can approach it with what you have.

For a pure tonal signal a Fourier or (M)DCT is very good, and probably for more agressive sounds the wavelet approach is better.

The impressive wavelet results I've seen, are in lossless compression of photographic images. For sound, it has to be tested more thoroughly.

If you want to have some fun, go ahead ! If I had a bit more time and more experience in wavelets I'd do it too !

Best Regards

This post has been edited by NumLOCK: Oct 9 2003, 21:05

Try Leeloo Chat at http://leeloo.webhop.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 9 2003, 21:58
Post #3

Group: Members
Posts: 77
Joined: 16-February 03
Member No.: 5030

Compression ratios above 6:1 should ultimately be attainable with good fidelity signal reconstruction

The theory seems promising INDEED, usable in lossless compresors as well as in lossy ones. Pity my lack of math knowledge, I can't understand as much as I wish.

EDIT - Upppssss. The paper is from 1997. IMO anything worth to test has already been tested and discarded. Not so promising sad.gif

This post has been edited by glauco: Oct 9 2003, 22:14

Just a thought...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Oct 15 2003, 15:06
Post #4

Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 16-May 03
From: nsk.su
Member No.: 6653

QUOTE (NumLOCK @ Oct 10 2003, 03:04 AM)
The impressive wavelet results I've seen, are in lossless compression of photographic images.

Really? Could you share a link?
I saw impressive wavelet results only in lowbitrate area. Best lossless results I saw were still worse than of JPEG-LS.


The greatest programming project of all took six days; on the seventh day the programmer rested. We've been trying to debug the !@#$%&* thing ever since. Moral: design before you implement.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Dec 29 2003, 20:06
Post #5

Group: Members
Posts: 494
Joined: 28-December 03
From: Melbourne, Aus
Member No.: 10767

lossless jpeg2000... works better than lossless JPEG. typically it'll give a slightly larger result to lossy JPEG at "full quality" (like q 100 in photoshop).

search for the "kakadu" jpeg2000 encoder. aptly named after a vast wilderness with too much uranium for it's own good unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Dec 29 2003, 20:53
Post #6

FLAC Developer

Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408

At the last SCALE I talked a little with Monty about this. He has some ideas for using wavelets in lossless coding but not much time to try them. Ditto for me.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pinky's brain
post Jan 10 2004, 04:15
Post #7

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 7-January 04
Member No.: 11037

JPEG2000 lossless beats lossless-JPEG, but on average it under-performs JPEG-LS. The state of the art lossless image coders generally dont use transforms.

See http://itohws03.ee.noda.sut.ac.jp/~matsuda/mrp/

All in my opinion :

Quantization reduces intercoefficient correlation, that is why transforms work well for lossy coding. With lossless coding you cannot afford to ignore the intercoefficient correlation, but when you stop doing that the transform really isnt worth it anymore ... it actually makes modelling harder.

On the other hand music has more long range repetition than images ... but that cant really be efficiently used by fixed transforms AFAICS.

Some type of matching/basis pursuit with online training (slowwwwww) followed by lossless coding of the residual might work. You could try cutting up the music a couple of times in sections who's size is determined by major peaks in the autocorrelation function, then for each size applying PCA or something to get "atoms" for basis pursuit. That's getting really really complex though.

This post has been edited by Pinky's brain: Jan 10 2004, 17:43
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 29th November 2015 - 11:47