Originally posted by ff123 For example, suppose that EAQUAL in general fails to properly penalize pre-echo artifacts (which seems to be a plausible hypothesis). Then, averaging over many different samples won't necessarily compensate for this failing. Yes the results will be more reliable, but they won't be more valid.ff123
Originally posted by Speek Alexander,I wonder why a test sample for EAQUAL should be at least 10 to 20 sec.?
For the analysis, a few seconds at beginning and end do not influence the result. This should be because the listeners are often less concentrated or may think artefacts like clicks etc are due to their playing equipment which is starting or stopping. Don't know if this is true or not. Perhaps there is another explanation too, but standards don't explain anything.
Just out of curiosity, could someone also give --r3mix a shot.
3.4.3 Advanced VersionCompared to the "basic" version, this model performs the time to frequency warping using a filter bank, thus grouping the signal into 40 auditory bands with a temporal resolution of approximately 0.66 ms. This allows for a very accurate modelling of backward masking effects.
Originally posted by Alexander Lerch For the analysis, a few seconds at beginning and end do not influence the result. Alexander
Originally posted by Alex Im in the middle of some testing, Id just like to confirm that 1024 is the correct offset for Psytel AAC, I`ll post the results later.
so with 2002-01-05 its 0 and pre-2002-01-05 its 1024?
So if I wanted to test a LAME encoded and decoded file I shouldn't set any offset?
Originally posted by ff123 There was another objective tool based on the work of Frank Baumgarte, which EarGuy implemented
Originally posted by JohnV Yeah, I hope Todd (Earguy) can come up with improved Baumgarte's digital ear model. Quoting his email: "I discovered a major mistake that I made. I can't read German, so I was using online translators to translate Frank's disertation to English. In his disertation, he gives two different sets of model parameters to use. I didn't understand what the difference was between the two until now (online translators have improved in the last two years). And of course I was using the wrong set of parameters! So the previous results are in error. I will definitely have something to show early next year so watch the forums for my posts."I hope that correctly working Baumgarte's digital ear will be better than PEAQ ITU-R BS.1387 basic model.
Its only weakness is 2048 sample length of the analysis window.
Originally posted by Speek Ivan, could you explain this a little bit more?Here's how imagine things:A = reference fileB = test filex = window where the attack/transient is (or begins)I suppose EAQUAL compares each window of B to the corresponding window of A. So when there's pre-echo in B either Bx or Bx-1 will not be the same as Ax or Ax-1. So EAQUAL will detect the pre-echo. But I guess things don't work as I imagine?
Originally posted by Ivan Dimkovic I also know that one state-of-the-art compressor (I won't tell which !)
Originally posted by ashok hello all have anybody have the free source code for ITU_R B.1387 or link to it( http://sourceforge.net/projects/eaqual/ this link does not contains any code.)If i have to purchase the eaqual source code what is the price and source for itu can contact me at [/a][/a][/a]