lossyWAV Development
Reply #499 – 2007-11-13 17:41:06
Target b) for -3: OK, so we should think about the details. Just following you dialog here.. This seems the right basic choice, there has to be a benefit for offering a (little) bit of quality. IMO that means a significant lower bit rate for -3 (compared with -2). (Would -skew of -12 -18 -24 (for -3 -2 -1) be too agressive?)I am wondering about the clipping reduction method - at the moment, if it finds 1 or more sample which clips after rounding then it reduces bits_to_remove by one and tries again, until bits_to_remove=0 then it just stores the original values. Is 0 permissible clipping samples a bit too harsh? At the time thatthe iterative clipping was introduced, I put in an "allowable" variable, implying that a number of clipping (but rounded) samples may be permitted. I suppose you mean consecutive samples of the maximum (or minimum) value? To me in this case 0, 1 or 2 would make sense, only already badly clipping music would be affected by other values. And yes, the dither function is obsolete as you no longer opt to lower the amplitude.I also tried -3 [..] which yielded 420kbps [..] [edit]Maybe 400kbps for "real music" should be the target rather than approaching that for my problem set. [/edit] The problem with this is that from the offset this method aims for constant quality (I like that BTW) so the bit rate will vary. I found for example that music that already compresses well (lossless) like in the 600's will not get half the bit rates with the help of lossyWav but rather still around 420.