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: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it? (Read 4243 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #25 –
@shadowking

Interesting test.
Definitely harder on 16/48.

Do you think that only resampling alone can cause quality degradation
or is 100% safe to resample?
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #26 –
Not 100 % sure.  However Retroarch gives consistent good results.

I think with high quality resampler like retroarch it should be very safe. I have a positive feeling on it.


Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #27 –
This 44>48 and vice versa is done a lot in the background for years.
I read a post on steve hoffman forum that one user took a transparent sample
and resampled back and forth 100 times and it remained transparent. If its true its another
good sign.

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #28 –
I am starting to see it this way; 44/16 is great but not end all. It was for CD-hardware & after all video uses 48/16.
I searched online and consensus is to use 44 for music and 48 for video.  but after all this i am not
convinced and imo 44/16 is for 100% compatibility with CD-Audio discs and hardware players. (some 1980's limit ?)
48/16 is maybe more suited for computers and post-cd hardware (mp3 players/phones) while still adhering to the 44/16 goals.

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: shadowking on
This 44>48 and vice versa is done a lot in the background for years.
I read a post on steve hoffman forum that one user took a transparent sample
and resampled back and forth 100 times and it remained transparent. If its true its another
good sign.

This sounds encouraging at least. Should be safe.
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #30 –
Good news, I tested your problem sample and 48k (retroarch) helped both wv and mp3 a lot.
So much I that at -b3.5hx4 i didn't need -s.5.  This was on a casual listen on speakers.


Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #31 –
 I was able to abx up to -b3.5hx4 / 48k.  even then the difference is not annoying.
-b4hx4 dns , was small difference 4/5 + 4/5 = 8/10 
-b4hx4s.5,   was easier to abx that dns @ 5/5 - more distinct hf boost
-b4hx4s.75, this one was hard and 3/5 - the small hiss just 'sinks'
maybe i could do it on more volume but i do not want tinnitus.

All above resampled with retroarch @ 48k
--
I tried to see if -b3hx4 48k & 32k would fix furious since 44.1 was always abxable, but i could abx both. still not too bad.
-b4hx4 was enough for 48k , 44.1 & 32k

32k samplerate is also excellent for me @ -b4xh4 gives 256k vs 400 for 48k.


Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: shadowking on
Good news, I tested your problem sample and 48k (retroarch) helped both wv and mp3 a lot.
So much I that at -b3.5hx4 i didn't need -s.5.  This was on a casual listen on speakers.


You mean this sample?

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,120193.50.html

I've never tried 32k resample. Interesting approach.
Besides smaller bitrate, are there any other benefits?

Regarding 48k or -s0.5 is probably different for each sample.
One could benefit from 48k, other from -s0.5.

One small request (if you are willing):
Could you try FhG AAC (Winamp) at 320k CBR
on Furious and EIG samples?

I find FhG AAC (Winamp) excellent at 320k.
Very robust, fixing almost all (if not all) problem samples (for my ears and equiment).
My first choice next to lossless and WV (384k+)
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #33 –
Yep that sample.

32 k cuts freq around 15.5khz. In theory you avoid problems in very HF range from going 'down' to lower
audiable range. If 16khz or close is transparent in music its another way to explore.
Another way is semi-lossless approach; resample original to 32k flac,WV.  The bitrate reduction is big. Add replaygain and
its even more.  A loud 1000kbps lossless 44.1 can be reduced to 750 etc.

I'll have to test this fhc aac soon, but I must say I 've managed to make lame perform good all round at half the rate.
the command line is lame --abr 172 -f  (resampled to 48k with retroarch).
 

Re: Wavpack lossy + Correction - Which software players support it?

Reply #34 –
@shadowking

So 32k is similar to lowpass 15.5 probably with bitrate reduction.
I'll have to test this on few samples.

I've tried "my" sample with lame --abr 172 -f but used sox resampler to 48k.
Bad pre echo.
I've realised that I don't have retroarch. :D
I have dbpoweramp resampler, PPHS and Sox which I added few months ago.

Than I've tried FhG AAC (Winamp) at 160 CBR.
Far better. Difference is there but sonds very good.
I suggest you to try FhG @160k cbr.
Very robust.
@224k is almost gone.
Apple aac can't solve it even at 320 cvbr.
lame --abr 288 -f --lowpass 17 (+ mp3gain@92 dB)