lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Topic: lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread (Read 308165 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #150 – 2009-01-31 20:06:10

Wow, nice going Bork. I'm downloading the files and will see if I can ABX one of them.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #151 – 2009-01-31 21:05:43

Quote from: B0RK on 2009-01-30 23:36:39

As I hinted above , Im the first to say that I do NOT have Reference ears anymore. ...

A 9/10 result for standard quality is real impressive, so you don't have to blame your ears. You are the first to have found an issue with standard.
Thanks again for your test.
What's most frightening is that you come up even with three samples and various kind of problems as it looks.
I've tried the sample you abxed first and could not find an issue, but this tells us nothing because I've caught a cold and my hearing is suffering.
Thanks for your problem description. Can you add some hints about the spots (second range) of your tracks where the problems are most obvious to you?

Do you mind trying with noise shaping switched off? To do so you add -s 0 after -S or --standard.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #152 – 2009-01-31 23:01:38

Oh well, back to the drawing board .

B0rk, thanks for the extensive ABXing and provision of samples.

As halb27 requested, could you please try --standard with --shaping 0 (-s 0) to attempt to determine whether the additional noise at high frequencies due to noise shaping is part of the problem.

Thanks again,

Nick.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #153 – 2009-01-31 23:23:51

Due to exams I do not currently have the time to test the sample but I downloaded the files package & I will test it within a month I hope.
The transparency of portable is of the highest importance for me. I will not let anyone tell that standard is not transparent if I am not 100% sure of his ABXing skills.
standard is a very high quality level IMHO so I need to test by myself. For me, it's either a big problem always hearable by golden heared people or a fake.
I am not telling you are lying, but in this forum the only guy telling me that standard is not transparent that I would blindly trust is Guruboolez.
I am just shocked by a guy that don't know how to ABX but ABX everything at first try, even a musician.
That said, your logs are impressive.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #154 – 2009-02-01 00:11:36

We need near perfect abx result for such high qulity levels pval < 3 % even though Bork's abx results are statisticaly valid.

If there is a quality issue then [-P] should be abxable with very high confidence 8/8 or 14/16 - easier than -standard.
If this isn't happening there is likely some other problem not related to lossywav.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #155 – 2009-02-01 08:34:35

There is a variation between --portable and --standard - the shaping factor increases from 0.25 (-P) to 0.50 (-S). If this issue is shaping noise related then changing from --standard to --portable is changing more than one "variable". Using --portable --shaping 0.5 would be consistent.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #156 – 2009-02-02 06:19:23

Quote from: sauvage78 on 2009-01-31 23:23:51

I will not let anyone tell that standard is not transparent if I am not 100% sure of his ABXing skills.
standard is a very high quality level IMHO so I need to test by myself. For me, it's either a big problem always hearable by golden heared people or a fake.
I am not telling you are lying, but in this forum the only guy telling me that standard is not transparent that I would blindly trust is Guruboolez.
I am just shocked by a guy that don't know how to ABX but ABX everything at first try, even a musician.
That said, your logs are impressive.

Hello again.
I agree , TBH I doubted Ill get any results with this test,
& definitley had to focus to do it , not to mention I was not used to foobar's method,
but Halb27 helped me with it.

Please let me clarify a few things about myself.

I am here because I saw The LossyWav project - & just had to try it, & thank the author for the great work.

I am thankful for the development of it , and would love to see it take off.
My interest in it is very selfish - I have a big music collection,
and I just do not have the space for it all - & this project sounds like the only hope.

I am not a naysayer.

Now about me being new to ABXing ...
nothing can be further from the truth ..
what I AM new to is abxing using apps like Foobar.
(I was (& still am) scared that ABX tests can have LOGS lol).

To make a long boring story short, I have been in music basically all my life & I make
my living from music , in more then one form.

so please ,do not mistake me for a beginner .. I never said I was.
I am sorry I have not been clearer on my background, I can see now how it might have looked ..
in fact Im pretty shocked my first tests were that 'positive',was not sure theyll show anything that I felt & was not all that successful later on a less well known (to me) tune as youll see later down this post.

while anything can be faked , Im here for the right reasons,
and since 35 is in my rear view mirror , I think am pretty much done with pissing contests.

More testing - Im totally with you on this.

we cannot trust any single person's tests.
I don't trust these ears 50% of the time nowadays - but I sure as hell used to, & they put food on my table & still do.

so getting a Pro Tester base for this should probably high up on the priority list.
& I do not mean myself.

Quote from: halb27 on 2009-01-31 21:05:43

Quote from: B0RK on 2009-01-30 23:36:39
As I hinted above , Im the first to say that I do NOT have Reference ears anymore. ...

A 9/10 result for standard quality is real impressive, so you don't have to blame your ears. You are the first to have found an issue with standard.
Thanks again for your test.
What's most frightening is that you come up even with three samples and various kind of problems as it looks.
I've tried the sample you abxed first and could not find an issue, but this tells us nothing because I've caught a cold and my hearing is suffering.
Thanks for your problem description. Can you add some hints about the spots (second range) of your tracks where the problems are most obvious to you?

Do you mind trying with noise shaping switched off? To do so you add -s 0 after -S or --standard.

Halb27 - Hello again.
Sure Ill try to find the time to do that as well.

Although These were 'good' results , I do KNOW these tracks VERY well,
(& beginners luck with foobar has probably helped ..)

Ill try to explain The spots (If I got your question), but first how I did it.
had a problem getting getting over how confusing that Foobr test is.
didnt quite get it - seemed to me like an ABCD thing.

first I to narrowed it down to first NOT PLAYING the B button for example,
mostly it helped me label the A button as Reference.

although as you'll see in a bit it failed me as well, for me it's simpler.

The other thing that helped me is to set the start and end for the tracks to quite short lengths 3 seconds max I think , or Medium (actually that's as long as Ill ever try with this ABX tests) - 10 seconds max.

Then I made sure I stop (have silence) between the longer bits,
and no gaps or very short ones on the shorter ones.

I made sure I do not move my head at all,
as the slightest movement will cause phase shifts, amplitude differences, etc etc.
eveytime I move - I fuckup as this AB test is not about feeling , it's about standing on your toes & very alert ( Yep I pretty much hate these).

finally , there comes a time when your focus just escapes you, you have ear fatigue,
or just got burned out on this specific slice of music - time to move on to a new slice,
because at this point - there is just no way I can tell anything , as my brain says Im bored with this shit - and just shuts down on me.

Here's another MJ song I tried later , Off The wall, an older song that I Do not know as well - which was a pretty miserable experience:

I'll walk you through it :

foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/01/31 05:20:11

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1mine TRIM.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\1mine TRIM.lossy.flac

Locked in on a short slice - Bulls Eye ... erm NOT
05:20:11 : Test started.
05:20:45 : 00/01 100.0%

turns out Id better be launching only the B button , as it seems I somehow related to it more clearly (?!), welcome to Vegas

05:21:29 : 01/02 75.0%
05:21:46 : 02/03 50.0%
05:22:14 : 03/04 31.3%
05:22:36 : 04/05 18.8%
05:22:56 : 05/06 10.9%
05:23:26 : 06/07 6.3%

So far so good 6 bulls eyes - 2 minutes & by this time I start drifting
05:23:43 : 06/08 14.5%
Nope ..
05:24:23 : 07/09 9.0%
Aye
05:24:52 : 07/10 17.2%
slight recovery
05:25:53 : 08/11 11.3%
Nope !:::::::: I am DEAD here & it's getting worse
05:26:27 : 08/12 19.4%
05:27:12 : 08/13 29.1%
05:28:02 : 08/14 39.5%
Trigger A , as Im Fucked , let's try to lock on it
05:28:21 : 09/15 30.4%
05:28:54 : 10/16 22.7%
05:29:40 : 11/17 16.6%
05:30:51 : 12/18 11.9%
switched to another slice
05:31:36 : 12/19 18.0%
05:32:48 : 13/20 13.2%
05:34:16 : 13/21 19.2%
05:34:46 : 14/22 14.3%
05:35:46 : 15/23 10.5%
Focus lasts for 4 mins - with longer pauses then goes away
05:36:07 : 15/24 15.4%
05:36:16 : 15/25 21.2%
05:37:17 : 15/26 27.9%
05:37:50 : 15/27 35.1%
short break - Fresh Off on it once again
05:39:21 : 16/28 28.6%
05:41:00 : 17/29 22.9%
05:42:45 : 18/30 18.1%
05:43:50 : 19/31 14.1%
05:44:26 : 20/32 10.8%
05:45:37 : 21/33 8.1%
05:46:04 : 22/34 6.1%
This 6 minutes spree couldnt last now could it
05:47:07 : 22/35 8.8%
05:49:11 : 23/36 6.6%
05:50:07 : 23/37 9.4%
05:51:28 : 23/38 12.8%
05:52:24 : 23/39 16.8%
Last Hard Effort
05:53:38 : 24/40 13.4%
05:55:25 : 25/41 10.6%
05:56:24 : 25/42 14.0%
05:58:03 : 26/43 11.1%
Should have really stopped here ..
05:59:24 : 26/44 14.6%
06:01:28 : 26/45 18.6%
06:02:42 : 26/46 23.1%
06:06:29 : 26/47 28.0%
06:07:40 : 27/48 23.5%
06:08:44 : 27/49 28.4%
06:09:46 : 28/50 24.0%
THAT's IT - Im OUT !
06:11:40 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 28/50 (24.0%)

By the end of this - I want to seriously hurt someone.
So some tests can also end this way ...
maybe this result has some value as well.

I feel these kind of tests are so hard on you mentally ,
& maybe even need some strategy ...
so maybe they do not reflect the truth as well.

The way I see sound was always like I see shoes or a car.
You gotta walk in em for awhile , before you know that something's not as comfy as it should have been.

But this approach will never work on any AB tests, & cannot be 'proven'.

Nick C. please carry on with this great project !
I was & still am very excited about it !

I have some pro audio disciples with younger ears that I can try & test,
if that's welcome/needed at all please lmk.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #157 – 2009-02-02 07:38:53

Thanks again for another round of testing. Would it be reasonable to say that although not transparent, --standard is at least difficult to ABX?

I would appreciate very much if you could try one of these samples having been processed with --shaping 0 appended to the lossyWAV command line. This would allow a clearer determination of whether the noise shaping method is involved in the differences that you are hearing.

[edit] For reference - David Robinson (2Bdecided here) is the author of the method, my implementation of lossyWAV is just that. [/edit]

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #158 – 2009-02-02 08:47:56

Quote from: B0RK on 2009-02-02 06:19:23

... By the end of this - I want to seriously hurt someone.
So some tests can also end this way ...
maybe this result has some value as well. ...

You describe very well the pain of ABXing.

While ABXing you concentrated on a few second range. Can you please tell us the second range (hopefully a narrow range) for the 3 tracks you ABXed successfully?

The background for the question is this:
While nobody doubts your ABX results it would be good if they were confirmed by at least one other independent tester. It makes a difference if a problem is heard only by a golden eared specialist on tracks he knows very well or if there is a problem, even if subtle, which can be heard by several people.

With this in mind it is helpful to concentrate on your three existing problem tracks, help us confirm them, and help finding the source of the problem by trying encoding variations.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #159 – 2009-02-02 08:47:56

Sorry, post was doubled.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #160 – 2009-02-02 20:52:35

Quote from: Nick.C on 2009-02-02 07:38:53

Thanks again for another round of testing. Would it be reasonable to say that although not transparent, --standard is at least difficult to ABX?

I would appreciate very much if you could try one of these samples having been processed with --shaping 0 appended to the lossyWAV command line. This would allow a clearer determination of whether the noise shaping method is involved in the differences that you are hearing.

I have not done enough testing to have enough confidence in my ability to tell the difference betwen the modes themselves in relation to the differences being more or less audible, (& I doubt I will ,maybe you will need people with the highest caliber of gear & experience for that.)

I did learn however that in these short tests I do get better results if i really KNOW a piece of music , so my full attention is to the Sound & not the Music.

I will try and test with these parameters,
so the full parameters will be --standard --shaping 0 ?

@ halb27 :
not sure as I did not have exact pin points locations, it might turn out to be different in a different day , maybe I should keep note of it , wish foobar could do that for me.

There's just so many variables that can change from one tester to another.
For example if your ears/speakers have a good range in the highs,
then a ride cymbal evolving into a crash cymbal for example ,
will show as more pronounced sometimes (distortion ..) at it's lower highs (10khz-14khz) , but if you use speakers that have full bodied midrange to low range for example, a loss of weight on some sounds can be your cue.

I find that for me, NOT starting any selection in a sharp attack truly helps me focus instead of just recover from the the aftershock , only to miss the differences during that time.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #161 – 2009-02-02 21:05:14

Yes, I would be very interested to learn if there is a perceptible difference, i.e. is --standard --shaping 0 easier or harder to ABX than --standard.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #162 – 2009-02-02 22:15:59

Quote from: Nick.C on 2009-02-02 21:05:14

Yes, I would be very interested to learn if there is a perceptible difference, i.e. is --standard --shaping 0 easier or harder to ABX than --standard.

Got it , will try & report.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #163 – 2009-02-02 22:22:37

Many thanks!

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #164 – 2009-02-03 11:58:25

Nick,

I very much doubt this is the reason for the ABX results, but the noise shaping isn't working quite right. Sorry for not looking at this before...

When you switch the number of bits to remove, the noise shaping breaks at the block boundary - you get a non-noise-shaped click. I was going to post a picture of the CEP spectral view of the difference signal, but I can't see the "attach" box in the new forum view!

The click is still much quieter than what you'd get without noise shaping - and even without noise shaping, we'd assumed content at that level was inaudible - but it would still be better not to have the click.

To my ears, the added noise with noise shaping is far far lower than the added noise without (as it should be!). Of course moving from --insane --shaping 0 to --standard --shaping 0 makes the noise even higher. (Still inaudible to me, though I'm not in a position to play the tracks at a decent level to make sure!).

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #165 – 2009-02-03 13:24:50

I think I understand what you mean - although, how would the noise shaping be "continued" across codec-blocks given that they may have different bits-to-remove values?

Could it be as simple as saving the last N samples / fifo values per channel and scale the fifo values by the 2^(new_bits_to_remove - old_bits_to_remove) and feeding this into the noise shaping calculations?

Currently the first 4 fifo values are zero (which is probably causing the problem). Maybe these should be random numbers (although determining the "correct" magnitude limit might be a challenge.....).

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #166 – 2009-02-03 15:17:57

Is there a problem with "continuing" it? Or, to put it another way, is there a reason to re-set it? I'm really sorry Nick I can't program, otherwise I could read your code and offer useful suggestions!

I think when I did it in MATLAB (this is a long time ago now!) it was quite easy. It depends what you're doing with the numbers - I'm not doing anything clever between blocks, just changing the number of bits to be removed (i.e. the number of bits that are being set to zero) - there's no reason to re-set the calculation though - the noise shaping will happily work across this change.

Are you doing something that makes this difficult, e.g. are you doing scaling based on the bits_to_remove, or running a noise shaping loop with the amplitude referenced/scaled to the lowest remaining non-zero bit? That would make this trickier.

I don't think you should initialise it with random numbers.

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #167 – 2009-02-03 18:56:00

I think that I've solved it - lossyWAV 1.1.2b attached to post #1 in this thread.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #168 – 2009-02-04 01:47:32

thanks for the update Nick.C & 2Bdecided , I will redo the test files with the new version and try some more testing.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #169 – 2009-02-04 05:19:08

Got to testing after a real long day - probably was a mistake hehe ..
but had to check this out.

Did give it some serious listening & time, despite the yawns.

First off just did some random listening & very quick testing which did not show much in my part , I could not lock onto the differences that much ,
but then I had a smoke & gave it a serious effort in two batches.

Note on the second batch I reset it after realizing Im just betting for a few tries & lost my focus , then did another 80 run to makeup for it ,so the final stats actually should be better for the 80 run session.

I did the OLEO track again - from the Test Files.

Run 1:

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/04 05:44:11

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\Stnadard No Noise Shaping\Bob Berg - Oleo.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\Stnadard No Noise Shaping\Bob Berg - Oleo.lossy.flac

05:44:11 : Test started.
05:44:28 : 01/01  50.0%
05:45:14 : 01/02  75.0%
05:45:28 : 02/03  50.0%
05:45:42 : 03/04  31.3%
05:45:52 : 04/05  18.8%
05:46:04 : 05/06  10.9%
05:47:22 : 05/07  22.7%
05:47:35 : 05/08  36.3%
05:47:46 : 06/09  25.4%
05:47:58 : 06/10  37.7%
05:48:22 : 06/11  50.0%
05:48:34 : 07/12  38.7%
05:48:40 : 08/13  29.1%
05:49:34 : 09/14  21.2%
05:50:27 : 09/15  30.4%
05:50:57 : 10/16  22.7%
05:51:34 : 10/17  31.5%
05:51:45 : 11/18  24.0%
05:52:12 : 12/19  18.0%
05:52:30 : 12/20  25.2%
05:53:44 : 13/21  19.2%
05:54:04 : 13/22  26.2%
05:54:51 : 14/23  20.2%
05:55:07 : 14/24  27.1%
05:55:40 : 15/25  21.2%
05:56:35 : 15/26  27.9%
05:57:03 : 16/27  22.1%
05:57:19 : 16/28  28.6%
05:58:25 : 16/29  35.6%
05:59:01 : 17/30  29.2%
05:59:12 : 17/31  36.0%
05:59:32 : 18/32  29.8%
06:00:03 : 19/33  24.3%
06:00:42 : 20/34  19.6%
06:01:57 : 20/35  25.0%
06:02:19 : 21/36  20.3%
06:02:47 : 22/37  16.2%
06:03:31 : 22/38  20.9%
06:04:17 : 22/39  26.1%
06:05:22 : 23/40  21.5%
06:06:29 : 23/41  26.6%
06:07:16 : 24/42  22.0%
06:08:02 : 25/43  18.0%
06:08:25 : 26/44  14.6%
06:08:54 : 27/45  11.6%
06:09:28 : 28/46  9.2%
06:09:38 : 28/47  12.1%
06:10:14 : 29/48  9.7%
06:11:24 : 30/49  7.6%
06:11:49 : 31/50  5.9%
06:11:55 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 31/50 (5.9%)

Run 2:

Code: [Select]

foo_abx 1.3.3 report
foobar2000 v0.9.6.2 beta 2
2009/02/04 06:19:09

File A: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\Stnadard No Noise Shaping\Bob Berg - Oleo.flac
File B: F:\MP3\Favourite\TEST FILES\Stnadard No Noise Shaping\Bob Berg - Oleo.lossy.flac

06:19:09 : Test started.
06:19:25 : 01/01  50.0%
06:19:32 : 02/02  25.0%
06:19:39 : 02/03  50.0%
06:20:11 : 03/04  31.3%
06:20:46 : 03/05  50.0%
06:21:16 : 04/06  34.4%
06:21:36 : 05/07  22.7%
06:21:44 : 05/08  36.3%
06:21:57 : 05/09  50.0%
06:22:16 : 05/10  62.3%
06:22:41 : 05/11  72.6%
06:23:04 : 05/12  80.6%
06:23:26 : 05/13  86.7%
06:23:41 : 05/14  91.0%
06:23:45 : Trial reset.
06:23:57 : 01/01  50.0%
06:24:04 : 01/02  75.0%
06:24:10 : 02/03  50.0%
06:24:20 : 02/04  68.8%
06:24:51 : 02/05  81.3%
06:25:40 : 02/06  89.1%
06:25:49 : 03/07  77.3%
06:26:06 : 04/08  63.7%
06:26:20 : 05/09  50.0%
06:26:29 : 06/10  37.7%
06:26:39 : 07/11  27.4%
06:26:47 : 08/12  19.4%
06:26:57 : 08/13  29.1%
06:27:18 : 09/14  21.2%
06:27:38 : 10/15  15.1%
06:28:00 : 11/16  10.5%
06:28:20 : 12/17  7.2%
06:28:40 : 12/18  11.9%
06:28:59 : 12/19  18.0%
06:29:27 : 13/20  13.2%
06:30:35 : 14/21  9.5%
06:30:45 : 14/22  14.3%
06:31:06 : 14/23  20.2%
06:31:56 : 15/24  15.4%
06:32:09 : 15/25  21.2%
06:32:17 : 16/26  16.3%
06:32:34 : 17/27  12.4%
06:33:21 : 18/28  9.2%
06:34:22 : 18/29  13.2%
06:34:41 : 19/30  10.0%
06:35:05 : 19/31  14.1%
06:35:53 : 19/32  18.9%
06:37:10 : 20/33  14.8%
06:37:22 : 21/34  11.5%
06:37:30 : 22/35  8.8%
06:37:42 : 22/36  12.1%
06:37:54 : 23/37  9.4%
06:38:05 : 23/38  12.8%
06:38:24 : 23/39  16.8%
06:39:06 : 23/40  21.5%
06:39:22 : 23/41  26.6%
06:39:32 : 24/42  22.0%
06:39:50 : 24/43  27.1%
06:40:28 : 25/44  22.6%
06:40:40 : 25/45  27.6%
06:40:54 : 25/46  32.9%
06:41:30 : 26/47  28.0%
06:41:58 : 26/48  33.3%
06:42:40 : 27/49  28.4%
06:43:50 : 27/50  33.6%
06:44:06 : 27/51  39.0%
06:44:32 : 28/52  33.9%
06:44:50 : 29/53  29.2%
06:45:05 : 30/54  24.8%
06:45:23 : 31/55  20.9%
06:45:39 : 32/56  17.5%
06:45:57 : 32/57  21.4%
06:46:08 : 32/58  25.6%
06:46:26 : 33/59  21.7%
06:46:36 : 33/60  25.9%
06:47:10 : 34/61  22.1%
06:47:35 : 35/62  18.7%
06:47:43 : 36/63  15.7%
06:48:08 : 36/64  19.1%
06:48:47 : 37/65  16.1%
06:49:01 : 37/66  19.5%
06:49:44 : 37/67  23.2%
06:50:31 : 38/68  19.8%
06:50:46 : 39/69  16.8%
06:51:22 : 39/70  20.1%
06:51:35 : 39/71  23.8%
06:51:46 : 40/72  20.5%
06:51:58 : 41/73  17.5%
06:52:11 : 42/74  14.8%
06:52:24 : 43/75  12.4%
06:52:42 : 43/76  15.1%
06:52:50 : 43/77  18.1%
06:52:58 : 43/78  21.4%
06:54:18 : 44/79  18.4%
06:54:28 : 45/80  15.7%
06:54:38 : Test finished.

 ---------- 
Total: 50/94 (30.3%)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #170 – 2009-02-04 09:06:34

Thanks for testing lossyWAV 1.1.2b. Now things look pretty fine again. Did you use just -S resp. --standard with noise shaping as defaulted (no -s or --shaping option)?

BTW it seems that when describing how to ABX with foobar I wasn't precise enough in one point: You decide before testing how many trials you do, for instance 8 (minimum) or 10 or 16. After making up your mind the number of trials is fixed. In case you fail ABXing with the test you are free of course to do another ABX test, but when telling about your ABX results you should mention these failed ABX tests.

So far it looks like the noise shaping 'clicks' have caused the issue. Thanks, 2Bdecided, for showing up this problem, and, Nick.C, for immediate fixing.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #171 – 2009-02-04 09:55:26

Just out of interest will LossyWav 1.0.1.0 be affected by this issue. I've not been following recent developments and I'm not sure if this is to do with a post 1.0.1.0 noise shaping issue or if it relates to prior versions too.

Thanks and thanks to Bork, Nick, 2Bdecided and halb27 for work on this issue.

C.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #172 – 2009-02-04 10:01:48

This particular problem only affects v1.1.0 onwards.

I'm waiting for David to try the revised version 1.1.2b and see if the "clicking" has been removed / modified.

In testing last night, I couldn't hear anything different. However when using ReplayGain to determine how "quiet" the correction file was the RG value for some files in my problem sample set required about 1.5dB more amplification for 1.1.2b compared to 1.1.2 - not exactly scientific but an indicator that something had changed (hopefully for the better).

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #173 – 2009-02-04 11:03:08

Bork,
In an earlier post you mentioned "reduced overtones" and "midrange thickness" as well as noise. Does your latest listening test and ABX results indicate that these problems have gone away too?

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #174 – 2009-02-04 13:51:50

Quote from: Nick.C on 2009-02-04 10:01:48

I'm waiting for David to try the revised version 1.1.2b and see if the "clicking" has been removed / modified.

Definitely different, almost certainly better, but maybe not perfect.

This was the problem...
http://www.david.robinson.org/pics/lw1.1.2_bb_-I.jpg
(see the vertical lines at block boundaries?)

This is 1.1.2b...
http://www.david.robinson.org/pics/lw1.1.2b_bb_-I.jpg
(see most of the vertical lines have gone, but there are still a few?)

I don't think there should be any vertical lines.

The way I assume you've coded it, I bet when you transition from a block with some bits to remove, into a block with zero bits to remove, I think you'll still get a vertical line (click) - unless you carry the noise shaping on into that block. You could try that - it should hopefully have zero effect after the first four samples, but you'd need to check.

In the part shown, there are a few vertical lines even when transition between blocks which both have some bits removed. I'm not sure why that would happen.

This is really splitting hairs. I can hear the difference if I listen to the difference/correction signal at full volume, but in the presence of actual music...! No.

B0RK - please be really careful to report exactly what you're testing when you report an ABX. Exactly what software version, and exactly what settings. I don't know if you've done it yet, but -I --shaping 0 seems the most useful test to me.

Cheers,
David.

Notice