With all the respect, what's the sense of lossyWAV+WavPack encoding?... Why don't use WavPack in lossy mode?... As I understand it, it uses a similar compression... and maybe the encoding is a little less hassle... Or lossyWAV has some compression/size benefit over lossy WavPack file?...
With all the respect, what's the sense of lossyWAV+WavPack encoding?...
I don't know whether this addresses me.
Quote: Nick.C"My intention is to understand and implement SebastianG's new noise shaping method, but for that I will also have to introduce / find a PSY model of some kind."Do you have any clue of how long this will take ? 3 months, 6 months or a year ?
Is SebastianG giving you any accelerated private lessons ?
It's not that I want to hurry you or being rude in any way , but I care a lot for lossywav ... it's already my favorite lossy codec ... & I plan to convert tera of lossless to Lossy|Tak -P|-p2e ... (without lossless backup) so I care a lot for this new noise shaping method if it can make me save some kbps (& also for the new special Tak setting for lossywav )
without a 1.2.0 development thread I am asking myself everyday:1: is it a TODO thing that is already actively worked on in the shadows. 2: is it a TODO thing that is just an idea. 3: are you in vacation with wife & kids. so I'd rather simply ask ...
as I have been disapointed by vaporware feature from Christopher 'Monty' Montgomery in the past ... I am very suspicious about open source developers claims ... so excuse me if I sound rude I just want to test your determination to get lossywav to the max of its possible efficiency. (I don't want the "new noise shaping method" to become the "bitrate peeling" of lossywav)I know you just released V1.1.0 a month ago & that I shouldn't already be longing for more ... but now that you are a developer you'll have to learn that end-users are relentless vampires !!! LOL
I think that the advantage of lossyWAV is that there is *no* psymodel involved,
so that the compression stays robust and can be used for post-processing without revealing hidden artefacts.
...but that's exactly what psymodels do in all codecs - judge where noise can be added, such that it will (or should!) be inaudible.
I still think it's interesting to try this - for one thing, it creates a new type of audio codec but potential problems will be similar to some of those already faced by other psychoacoustic based codecs. It won't be a magic faultless codec, like lossyWAV without a psy model might be.
Quote from: 2Bdecided on 18 August, 2008, 07:55:23 AMI still think it's interesting to try this - for one thing, it creates a new type of audio codec but potential problems will be similar to some of those already faced by other psychoacoustic based codecs. It won't be a magic faultless codec, like lossyWAV without a psy model might be.In what way is the current lossyWAV faultless?
Are you sure this isn't entirely due to the "high bitrate headroom"?
I didn't claim it was. I said "might be", in reference to what others may believe or hope (from experience so far).
[...] The result is usually over coding at most frequencies [...] There's isn't much bitrate "headroom" though [...]
Let me turn the question around: what would be involved in making the error signal from, say, vorbis, Musepack or AAC [...] comparable to that from lossyWAV?
First of all, how would that be an advantage?
Sencond, what's your definition of "psymodel" ? Doesn't lossyWav's analysis stage qualify as "psymodel"?
I'm writing all this because I'm concerned that lossyWAV might be optimized for noise shaping in a way that non-shaped quality suffers as it is no longer of importance to the developer and those that are involved in the optimization process. It would reassure me to know that the quality of --portable --shaping 0 will only increase (not so important) but never decrease (very important) in the future.
Well, basically it is already psychoacoustic in a way as it utilizes the masking effect (keeping added noise below the noise floor).
That's precisly what I mean. Quality varies. Why would you want to do that?
...like for example quantization noise that's right under min(S - 12dB, M - 25dB) within every cricital band where S=signal, M=estimated masking threshold. The above formular grauantees a minimal SNR of 12 dB and a headroom of at least 15 dB considering a medium quality psychoacoustic model that's within +/- 10 dB of accuracy.
The same is true of LPCM, isn't it? The "overcoding" for loud signals is much greater than the "overcoding" for quiet signals.
Remember (as if I need to tell you! ) that conventional codecs often put "noise" above the "signal", since basic spectral masking theory says this is often OK, because it's inaudible. In contrast, lossyWAV tries to keep the added noise below the signal, always.
Taking this opportunity to seek advice from interested users, I am wondering as to the real need for the correction file?