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: Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation (Read 42767 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #25
To what i understand by the post. The are so many limitation to what Frank wants to do with his idea.

Then why not frank just free his mind and create a super douper Audio Codec Mpc sv8. Departing from sv7, mp2 mp3... etc.. A completely different thing to what we have seen b4.

Or may be that is too much work.

To be honest, We have already got the best and near perfect phy model here. We could fit it in to other codec as stated. However, i personally like Vorbis but their organisation is some what wired and I don't like them as a whole. AAC is not good if there are no patent issues around it.

( Yes i am waiting for Roberto opinion as well    )

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #26
Quote
I am just waiting for Roberto to show up in this thread and add his 2 cents to the discussion


Quote
( Yes i am waiting for Roberto opinion as well  )


Nope. According to one of HA's admins, I'm not supposed to have opinions on MPC's future. Or, at least, it seems I'm not supposed to post them.

I won't say who is this admin either because I'm not allowed to say his name.

So there.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #27
Quote
Quote
I am just waiting for Roberto to show up in this thread and add his 2 cents to the discussion


Quote
( Yes i am waiting for Roberto opinion as well  )


Nope. According to one of HA's admins, I'm not supposed to have opinions on MPC's future. Or, at least, it seems I'm not supposed to post them.

I won't say who is this admin either because I'm not allowed to say his name.

So there.

Ha...

And the drama ensues....

Not that it will matter much to those who are quick to make assumptions, but this is really pretty much nonsense.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #28
Quote
Nope. According to one of HA's admins, I'm not supposed to have opinions on MPC's future. Or, at least, it seems I'm not supposed to post them.

I won't say who is this admin either because I'm not allowed to say his name.

So there.

I was really surprised by this, so I contacted Roberto. Turns out that he's angry at CiTay because of what he said in this thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=14741
Quote
Actually i was waiting for a comment from you... what would such a thread be without the ever-sceptic rjamorim letting everyone know of his doubts about MPC?  >_<

Quote
I was talking more generally. It's evident that you often post in MPC threads to inform people of your doubts about this format. And i asked you before to call me CiTay here.


CiTay asks Roberto not to use his real name, not to cover "who gave the order" like one could think from the Roberto's message above. Also in the thread above CiTay in no way says that Roberto is not supposed to post to the MPC threads anymore. Roberto also bases his claim only on this thread, there were no other "orders".

Roberto told me that he even got support email based on the missunderstanding he creates in his message and sympathy that admins silence him here... I asked Roberto to clarify his message several times, nicely, but he refused, so he gave me no choice but to explain this publicly.

Obviously, since I'm recently working quite hard to make HA even better place, I'm not very amused to see this from Roberto, especially because imo he gives simply wrong information and bad image of us. 
Juha Laaksonheimo

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #29
Fwiw, I just got the feeling Roberto was being sarcastic -- I didn't get a feeling like he's giving HA (and/or admin) a bad image.  IMHO it wasn't strong enough a statement that it feels that way.

As far as incorrect information, that part's open to interpretation anyway...

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #30
Quote
Fwiw, I just got the feeling Roberto was being sarcastic -- I didn't get a feeling like he's giving HA a bad image.  IMHO it wasn't strong enough a statement that it feels that way.

As far as incorrect information, that part's open to interpretation for sure...

This goes off-topic so I hope nobody continues this here anymore.

I do consider allegations that he's instructed by one of the admins not to post to MPC threads anymore wrong information.
Considering that he started getting support emails against the "HA admins who silence him" few minutes after his post, there are surely lots of people who didn't see his message only as sarcastic. It's also funny how soon people start sending support mails after incidents like these to Roberto, but I have no hope of getting any support or simple unprompted thanks PMs pretty much ever. All I get is messages which mean work for me, for the benefit of the members or forum.

Try to be admin of this big forum yourself, and see what you think when some of the regulars imply that you possibly gave this kind of "orders".

Anyway, no more about this. Back to the topic, please.
Juha Laaksonheimo

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #31
I'd love to be able to add something more on topic, but I do have to point out that it should be pretty obvious why Frank doesn't like posting to this place, because of "whatever his choice of words were", mine would be "full of unconstructive drama queens". 

Anyway, I agree with Frank on everything he says.  And he has generated an excellent amount of good idea's, it seems to me.  I am feeling positive - and, like many here, have no understanding of, but an unbelievable amount of respect for, the newest holy grail, MPC's psymodel

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #32
i am a MPC fan (the only one i use)
i think that robertos's posts are based on facts clear and objective
this forum has been using scientific statisticals tests to evaluate the codecs
opinions are always welcome, (freedom of speech), but the conclusion can only made on the ABX tests protocols

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #33
The most interesting thing in this thread (for me) is the idea that subband codecs are not automatically superior to transform codecs. Not that there's a reason why they should be, but I think that it's been an unwritten assumption around HA for a while?

I can imagine that a transform codec could be made perfectly transparent with an intelligent psy model. Just like a sub band codec, this would mean dramatically increasing the bitrate on very difficult signals.

Could it be that, if equal attention is given to ironing out the problems of each, then both would be roughly equal in terms of bitrate/quality? I doubt we'll ever find out - not for many years, by which time codec design may have changed beyond recognition.

So, the users just have to use what's available. This is currently mpc. However, if AAC can be tuned so that we can trust it as much, it's the obvious choice. I wonder what Frank sees as the problems with AAC?

Cheers,
David.

P.S. JohnV and the other mods: you do a very difficult and very good job. I'll email to tell you, if you really want some fan email! But hopefully "Thanks" will do, so thank you.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #34
Quote
The most interesting thing in this thread (for me) is the idea that subband codecs are not automatically superior to transform codecs. Not that there's a reason why they should be, but I think that it's been an unwritten assumption around HA for a while?

Unwritten assumption? Not necessarily. As far as I kept track of things, the general idea was that 1) transform codecs are more efficient in low-bitrate scenarios (~<130kbps?) while 2) subband codecs scale better at higher bitrates and 3) it is easier to avoid pre-echo issues with subbanding. (but maybe it's just me. )
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #35
Quote
The most interesting thing in this thread (for me) is the idea that subband codecs are not automatically superior to transform codecs. Not that there's a reason why they should be, but I think that it's been an unwritten assumption around HA for a while?

I can imagine that a transform codec could be made perfectly transparent with an intelligent psy model. Just like a sub band codec, this would mean dramatically increasing the bitrate on very difficult signals.

Could it be that, if equal attention is given to ironing out the problems of each, then both would be roughly equal in terms of bitrate/quality? I doubt we'll ever find out - not for many years, by which time codec design may have changed beyond recognition.

So, the users just have to use what's available. This is currently mpc. However, if AAC can be tuned so that we can trust it as much, it's the obvious choice. I wonder what Frank sees as the problems with AAC?

Cheers,
David.

P.S. JohnV and the other mods: you do a very difficult and very good job. I'll email to tell you, if you really want some fan email! But hopefully "Thanks" will do, so thank you.

Is it along the lines of transform codecs being more complex that means tweaking is more critical to get decent quality? In which case, i'd stick with mpc as we're still tweaking the hell out of mp3 and aac, and with both these codecs quality is incredible variable between implementations. MPC as a subband codec gives me more confidence that the compressed version will sound decent, i'd be wary of moving to aac regardless of who is working on it.

And yes, I agree the mods do a great job, but am guilty of assuming my continued presence on the boards is proof enough of how much I appreciate it  - thanks to all of them.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #36
Well, if Musepack development really completely stalls, then let me suggest that a group of ambitious developers from HA pick up AAC or Vorbis as it is, iron out the stupidities in the specs, and create a new derivative codec, exactly like what Andree Buschmann (I hope the preliminary spelling is correct) did with mp2 and gave HA its most cherished codec. It would be a very interesting challenge tweaking a transform codec, as some of you have stated. Then add some assembly optimisations to it, and we get a codec superior to any other, with the same patenting muddle as Musepack.
It's.... just an idea.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #37
That's what I was thinking sld.

But if the result is a codec with similar performance to mpc, what is the point - apart from as an interesting academic exercise?


As for transform vs sub-band. Let me point out something that a very clever person pointed out to me:

A sub band codec is based around a filter bank. A transform codec is based around a time to frequency transform. But the two can be mathematically identical. It can be two different ways of performing the same process. It's not necessarily two different processes...

So, you can (theoretically) make a very high resolution filter bank (say, 1024 bands or filters). If you decimate the output of this filterbank (throw away redundant samples), you can be left with an output equivalent to the output of an FFT of those same samples. How? well, the only important information is the amplitude and phase of the output of each filter - if you know this every 1024 (or 512) samples, you can predict (calculate) what the time domain waveform is. So the only useful information at the output of each filter is the same as the information which comes out of a time>frequency transformation: amplitude and phase, every 1024 (or 512) samples.

Here's an opposite example: In place of a very fine bank of filters (e.g. the 2000 or 8000 that are used in COFDM digital broadcast systems) you can just use an FFT to split the signal into 2000 or 8000 bands.


However, it's perfectly possible to design a filter bank which isn't equivalent to a simple time to frequency transformation. And each real world time to frequency transformation has its own little quirks. Still, it's worth getting your heard around this issue to understand what's involved (and I don't claim to have thought it through completely!).


Cheers,
David.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #38
Why is there a "MPC ist dead, no shut up, MPC lives" debate?  Its close enough to 'perfection' that any additional code isn't going to achieve a great deal.

The mentioned interest in AC3 as a starting point sounds much more interesting.  Thinking of the improvements that went from MP2 -> MPC, I wonder what APC would end up sounding like for high bitrate 5.1?  All things going well you could have something that DTS was meant to be, I couldn't imagine what Widescreen Review would write about it, the authors would all spontaneously combust with joy
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #39
Quote
[Frank] is of
the opinion that musepack's only advantage is the psy model he made, or
the lack of there-of in the other codecs.
Not even in the decoding speed does he see a big advantage in subband
coding, he is convinced all of the other decoders could be optimized a
lot, especially with improvements in the lookup of the huffman tables,
with a proper indexing system as he has done with musepack once, gaining
a speed advantage of factor 9 compared to buschel's code.
.
.
.
It was maybe a better idea to make a good, free and
opensource AAC encoder, ..., if Frank ever finds the motivation again to invest
serious work into making a new audio codec. ... Frank told me that in his opinion the AAC
standard has a couple of quirks in it, and we could maybe make a new
compression format, still call it musepack and MPC, overcoming those
problems, but on the other hand staying decoder compatible with AAC ??

WOW, I think this would be the best option, assuming it can be done. An MPC compatible with AAC decoding!!! There are already AAC decoders so if we can get the benefit of wide industry support and the quality of MPC (or MPC's psy model) on standard players, that would be amazing.

Maybe Nero would even be willing to pay him?? I doubt apple would but it would be worth looking in to.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #40
This is a good news for MPC fans!!

Christian keep us updated and tell us if the community can do something (for e.g. beta testing, ABXing, etc.)!

Fr4nz

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #41
Quote
Here lies MPC.
The best damn audio codec that almost was.
                           RIP

I have to agree. Amen.
I am just a normal person trying to live a normal life.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #42
Quote
Quote
Here lies MPC.
The best damn audio codec that almost was.
                           RIP

I have to agree. Amen.

Your point being? I'm very happy with my personal 100 GB of mpcs... RIP on my HD Drive  Or RIP every CD you can put your hand onto?

Sorry, but as dead as it is, its the best codec out there (no HW support but you can't have it all...)

edit: ok, not dead, it's more like a zombie case here

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #43
Quote
WOW, I think this would be the best option, assuming it can be done. An MPC compatible with AAC decoding!!! There are already AAC decoders so if we can get the benefit of wide industry support and the quality of MPC (or MPC's psy model) on standard players, that would be amazing.

IIRC, Franks biggest rant about AAC was its inability to store a decent encoder latency time, making it difficult to append 2 AAC tracks into one. Other than that, i may not have understood what he was trying to tell me.

I dont know if this would require a huge change, but maybe it could be done on the container level even, so the raw frames were identical and all existing decoders could be used for decoding MPAAC ?


Quote
Maybe Nero would even be willing to pay him?? I doubt apple would but it would be worth looking in to.


Why should they be interested in this ? They are pushing AAC and the MPEG4 Standard, so their bigger interest was in a better tuned AAC encoder i bet  ....

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #44
Quote
I dont know if this would require a huge change, but maybe it could be done on the container level even, so the raw frames were identical and all existing decoders could be used for decoding MPAAC ?

You can put whatever you want into an MP4 - all you need to do is decide where to put it  AFAIK the QuickTime file format has full support for metadata on both files and tracks.

Quote
Why should they be interested in this ? They are pushing AAC and the MPEG4 Standard, so their bigger interest was in a better tuned AAC encoder i bet  ....

Reading from your original post, isn't this what Frank was talking about - more or less? Creating an AAC encoder using his superior psycho-acoustic model?

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #45
Quote
Quote
Here lies MPC.
The best damn audio codec that almost was.
                           RIP

I have to agree. Amen.

A few days later, and a few more glasses of wine...

I only said that because, from what I was able to determine from that conversation, it sounded like Frank was not going to work on MPC at all, but rather, turn it over to others. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

I was always under the impression that Frank (and probably Andree) were the only ones that understood MPC enough to actually improve it.  Maybe I'm wrong about that as well.

Some would argue that it's already good enough, and therefore, does not require any improvement. I can almost agree with that, but not quite.

Anyway, If Frank is done working on MPC, and nobody understands it as well as him, then I think that's not a good thing.

On the other hand, maybe I misunderstood the conversation, and if so, my apologies.
flac>fb2k>kernel streaming>audiophile 2496>magni>dt990 pro

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #46
Quote
Quote
WOW, I think this would be the best option, assuming it can be done. An MPC compatible with AAC decoding!!! There are already AAC decoders so if we can get the benefit of wide industry support and the quality of MPC (or MPC's psy model) on standard players, that would be amazing.

IIRC, Franks biggest rant about AAC was its inability to store a decent encoder latency time, making it difficult to append 2 AAC tracks into one. Other than that, i may not have understood what he was trying to tell me.

I dont know if this would require a huge change, but maybe it could be done on the container level even, so the raw frames were identical and all existing decoders could be used for decoding MPAAC ?


Quote
Maybe Nero would even be willing to pay him?? I doubt apple would but it would be worth looking in to.


Why should they be interested in this ? They are pushing AAC and the MPEG4 Standard, so their bigger interest was in a better tuned AAC encoder i bet  ....

I think many of us understood the original post as just this. If it were to be compatible with AAC decoding (basically appling his psy model and a few tweaks to AAC I presume) then why wouldnt nero be interested. They currently pay a number of developers to work on projects like this an maybe with a little money frank could dedicate a little time to at least help the nero developers (menno, ect) to implement his work. And if he does have an increased interest in video maybe he could find a niche with nero for that too. He is clearly extremely talented and it would be shame to loose his talent.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #47
An open source high-quality AAC encoder focussing on transparency, using Frank's great psymodels would be WONDERFULL! MPC is a great format except for the hardware support.... this would be damn near perfect!

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #48
Now, be careful here. As clever as Frank is, some of these posts almost sound like they're suggesting that Frank is God, and current AAC encoder developers are stupid!

The idea that Frank can port is psy model to AAC, and magically it'll be perfect sounds a little strange. I'm sure the friendly AAC encoder developer we know is already doing a good job. 


I agree it would be cool for Frank to get (re)involved with any audio coding project - I was just a little worried that some of the comments in this thread might offend the people who are already working on a certain codec. Though they've probably got better things to do than be offended by such gentle comments.

Cheers,
David.

Protocol of my 2+ hrs telephone conversation

Reply #49
Quote
Now, be careful here. As clever as Frank is, some of these posts almost sound like they're suggesting that Frank is God, and current AAC encoder developers are stupid!

The idea that Frank can port is psy model to AAC, and magically it'll be perfect sounds a little strange. I'm sure the friendly AAC encoder developer we know is already doing a good job. 


I agree it would be cool for Frank to get (re)involved with any audio coding project - I was just a little worried that some of the comments in this thread might offend the people who are already working on a certain codec. Though they've probably got better things to do than be offended by such gentle comments.

Cheers,
David.

You put the words right out of my mouth! I can´t agree more 

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021