Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0) (Read 80437 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #100 –
Internally, block size is determined by sample-rate, e.g. 512 samples for 44.1/48 kHz; 1024 samples for 88.2/96kHz; etc..

FLAC blocksize can be varied independently of lossyWAV processing block-size.

Recently I have been using foobar2000 to convert 44.1/16 FLAC to lossyFLAC - setting foobar2000 to output 24-bit as input to lossyWAV (and scaling by 0.5 to give the ANS "room" to work).

--static and --dynamic set the minimum-bits-to-keep for each sample from a fixed datum (--static) or a dynamic datum based on block noise (--dynamic).
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848| FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S-

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #101 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
Internally, block size is determined by sample-rate, e.g. 512 samples for 44.1/48 kHz; 1024 samples for 88.2/96kHz; etc..
Yes I've read about this; I was asking if it's possible to alter this to let LossyWAV use, for example, block size of 4096 samples for 44.1 kHz.

some ANC'd headphones + AutoEq-based impulse + Meier Crossfeed (30%)

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #102 –
Would this also work for MP3's? 
I ask because VBR MP3's could do either nicer or smaller if the sample rate (bitdepth) is reduced/optimized before encoding. 

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #103 –
It won't work for MP3.

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #104 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
It won't work for MP3.
Indeed.

@Max9000The method used by lossyWAV doesn't work with MP3 - and lossyWAV isn't competitive in terms of bitrate with MP3 either.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848| FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S-

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #105 –
Hi Nick.  And thanks!

I asked because the barrier to good small mp3 files was CD 44100 sample-rate spec (harms/exhausts small-rate mp3's); but, high quality small files can be had with 32000 sample rate, so long as it wasn't done with the mp3 codec's inbuilt fast-n-dirty resampler.   Foobar's PPHS set to Ultra will do much better than the codec's inbuilt resampler.

The trouble with non-adaptive sample rate reduction is noise floor (like a slower LP or tape). 

So, I'm curious about PPHS-ultra@32000 > LossyWAV > WavPack lossy@460 (also quality max) > GXlame -V30.

Basically, if a LAME variant can't toss the extra bits, then an interstage of WavPack might get it.  I'm just not sure if I got the chain right.  Where is the best spot for the 32000 conversion? 

P.S.  Application is internet radio. 
Could be really useful if:  Archive quality at smaller file size > also results in smaller production bandwidth consumption.  Is that feasible? 

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #106 –
Quote from: Max9000 on
The trouble with non-adaptive sample rate reduction is noise floor (like a slower LP or tape). 

I don't fully understand your idea, but LossyWAV increases noise floor, not decreases it. So this --
Quote from: Max9000 on
So, I'm curious about PPHS-ultra@32000 > LossyWAV > WavPack lossy@460 (also quality max) > GXlame -V30.
-- makes zero sense.

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #107 –
It would make more sense if I could use LossyWAV as an opportunistic resampler 44100 (or any) input, to 32000 (or lower) output. 
That would actually make smaller WAV files which could be used for smaller AAC, smaller MP3, etc...

Perhaps it is a prospective cool new feature for LossyWAV 1.5.0?
 

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #108 –
Quote from: Max9000 on
The trouble with non-adaptive sample rate reduction is noise floor
Aren't you confusing downsampling with bit depth reduction?

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #111 –
Wanted to report on the savings on my FLAC library.

I used the POSIX port [1], as I am on Linux. Compiled flawlessly at first try! I converted my lib to standard losswav and standard FLAC compression. Used the following line:

Code: [Select]
flac -d "$i" --stdout --silent|lossywav - --stdout --quality standard --stdinname -- |flac - -b 512 -o "${i%.*}.lossy.flac" --silent &&  metaflac --export-tags-to=- "$i" | metaflac --import-tags-from=- "${i%.*}.lossy.flac"

Savings: 279GB -> 125GB or about a 60% reduction. Not bad! Thanks to all involved!

[1] https://github.com/MoSal/lossywav-for-posix

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #112 –
Also, how's1.4.2/1.5.0 dev going? Things look a bit stalled ;)

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #113 –
Quote from: Brent on
Also, how's1.4.2/1.5.0 dev going? Things look a bit stalled ;)
It was released, here: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=112649.0 - just over five years ago.

It's not under development - as I haven't identified any required additions or modifications.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848| FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S-

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #114 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
Quote from: Brent on
Also, how's1.4.2/1.5.0 dev going? Things look a bit stalled ;)
It was released, here: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=112649.0 - just over five years ago.

It's not under development - as I haven't identified any required additions or modifications.

Hi,

I was wondering... Is it safe to turn off noise shaping (-s o) at higher settings (standard and higher /quality 2.5 and up)?
I've noticed huge increase in encoding speed and I didn't find issues on few critical samples that I've tested (in short: I've got fast encoding speed without obvious quality loss).
What is worst case scenario on disabled noise shaping at higher bitrate? I'm considering to use lossywav/flac at 450-480k.

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #115 –
Quote from: synclagz on
What is the worst-case scenario on disabled noise shaping at a higher bitrate? I'm considering using lossywav/flac at 450-480k.
dither/noise-shaping standing for truncation distortion noise artifacts. if you hear that you should turn on dither/noise shaping
Opus 96-192Kbps and Aac-lc 96-128Kbps
Source 32bit floating point is fine don't need dithering (dB noise -758dBFS that's a lot)
Source Fixed Point aka Integer should use dithering to prevent truncation distortion
Source is RAW

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #117 –
I find it interesting how it struggles when there's super low low-pass filter in music. For example lossyWav can't compress Diablo Swing Orchestra - Swagger And Stroll Down The Rabbit Hole album effectively - I get 700-800 kbps at standard preset. The reason seems to be the terrible sound on the album that is lowpassed at 13 khz.
Opus VBR 256 + SoX

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #118 –
Quote from: Eurobeat_fan on
The reason seems to be the terrible sound on the album that is lowpassed at 13 khz.
In this case you could use the "--limit <n>" option to reduce the upper frequency limit that the analysis uses. The minimum allowed value is 12.5kHz.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848| FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S-

Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)

Reply #119 –
This seems like something that could be circumvented by taking noise shaping into account during the analysis phase (if noise shaping is enabled, of course), because it seems as if the analysis assumes flat (white) noise.