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: lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread (Read 307392 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #200 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
@botface

A reasonable description is "near lossless audio coding".

How about this snappy title?:

Transparent [until proven otherwise] Variable Bitdepth WAV Pre-processor for Lossless Encoders

C.

EDIT:

The reason I mention this is that the problem is that LossyWAV occupies an intermediary position, and any attempt to position it as an end result confuses the issue.

Lossy: WAV > MP3 (1 step)
Lossless: WAV > FLAC (1 step)
WAV > LossyWAV > FLAC (2 steps)

It's the intermediary step that needs to be stated.

Without that idea in the title, something like "near lossless audio coding" can lead to someone saying "Oh, like very high quality MP3"; near lossless = not lossless = lossy. You can end up with a mental image of High Quality MP3 in FLAC's clothing.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #201 –
Quote from: carpman on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
@botface

A reasonable description is "near lossless audio coding".

How about this snappy title?:

Transparent [until proven otherwise] Variable Bitdepth WAV Pre-processor for Lossless Encoders

C.

EDIT:

The reason I mention this is that the problem is that LossyWAV occupies an intermediary position, and any attempt to position it as an end result confuses the issue.

Lossy: WAV > MP3 (1 step)
Lossless: WAV > FLAC (1 step)
WAV > LossyWAV > FLAC (2 steps)

It's the intermediary step that needs to be stated.

Without that idea in the title, something like "near lossless audio coding" can lead to someone saying "Oh, like very high quality MP3"; near lossless = not lossless = lossy. You can end up with a mental image of High Quality MP3 in FLAC's clothing.

I have no particular feelings about a name I just think that if we can avoid using "added noise" it might make it more attractive to casual browsers

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #202 –
Quote from: botface on
I have no particular feelings about a name I just think that if we can avoid using "added noise" it might make it more attractive to casual browsers

I second your suggestion. Sounds reasonable to me.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #203 –
Quote from: carpman on
Lossy: WAV > MP3 (1 step)
Lossless: WAV > FLAC (1 step)
WAV > LossyWAV > FLAC (2 steps)

It's the intermediary step that needs to be stated.
If it's integrated properly, I don't know if many people would care about that. They might read about it, if they were interested, but I'm guessing most people would want to put a .wav, .flac, or CD in and get a lossy.flac file out. Nobody actually wants the intermediate .wav file* - just like, when people pop a CD in and run EAC to generate mp3s, they don't want the intermediate .wav file then either.

* - OK, for debugging.

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #204 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
@BORK,

Do you have time to try -I --shaping 0?

Cheers,
David.


Hmm I see there's an even newer version so Ill get it ,(Thanks Nick & 2BDecided !)
I will redo the Test files , & will try when I can get some more time.

(Im a tiny bit frustrated that the only time I found since the first test is after Ive been exposed to sound for min. 8 hours, so Ill try to change that & not rush these, will get to it.)
 

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #205 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
@BORK,

Do you have time to try -I --shaping 0?

Cheers,
David.



Nick C & 2Bdecided ,ok, ran this file Before I go to sleep, because it's a good candidate for some noise, (short 20 run session) can you please check if you can see just what it is that 112e does in this mode, just converted the file using 1.1.2.e --insane --shaping 0 (Log and test files attached).

(Will do the other three files in a later date , so much for not rushing things ..  hmm)

http://rapidshare.com/files/194915589/112e...ping_0.rar.html

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #206 –
Quote from: B0RK on
... ran this file ... using 1.1.2.e --insane --shaping 0 (Log and test files attached). ...

Thanks a lot for your test. You can really hear a problem with --insane !!! Hopefully there is a specific problem with lossyWAV that can be fixed.
As I recovered from my cold I'll try your sample tonight when it's quiet at my home though my hearing certainly can't compete with yours.

Something comes to my mind:
Maybe it's a  bit egocentric but I never moved up from version 1.1.0 because this was the last version I tested intensively and no real reason came up to me after 1.1.0 to upgrade to a newer version (things have changed right now because of the way noise shaping is being improved).
There had been significant changes in the software however, and may be there is a specific implementation issue which emerged after 1.1.0.

BORK, do you mind testing again your last sample using --insane --shaping 0 with lossyWAV 1.1.0, which I just uploaded in the UPLOAD section?
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #207 –
@halb27,

I think you're on the wrong track. Take a listen to the correction file - the noise is barely audible most of the time even without the music playing.

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #208 –
Maybe I'm on the wrong track.
But I've just listened to this sample's error signal of both the 1.1.0 and the 1.1.2e results using --insane --shaping 0. There is a spot in the 4.5...6.0 second range where the error is clearly more audible with the 1.1.2e result.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #209 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
@halb27,

I think you're on the wrong track. Take a listen to the correction file - the noise is barely audible most of the time even without the music playing.

Cheers,
David.


2Bdecided ,I probably need better understanding of the internals of how lossy wav works, but I cannot understand why/how Isolating the noise in the correction file,
can help undertsand the effect of it removed, as it's isolated from it's effect combined in the music.

Please , No offense ,but ,I see you said that you do not see any real relation to the Full Music ABX results ,& I respect that, but then you say listening to the correction file convinced you ? , that is a valid way to determine the effect ?


for what it's worth, the way I see it, It's like taking a thin yellow layer off a green.

looking at the yellow layer removed & saying all you see is a real pale of yellow, -nothing that seems of any importance.

But the real effect is in the main file, the Music, the green now looks blue instead of green. This was quite obvious to me here.

Obviously more testers are needed At this point, the more the better (calling all users to help out !), so at least you'll know what percentage of (hopefully experienced) users
share similar results & experiences.

If anyone reading this can please test with these file and post his results I would be grateful:
http://rapidshare.com/files/194915589/112e...ping_0.rar.html

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #210 –
Quote from: B0RK on
2Bdecided ,I probably need better understanding of the internals of how lossy wav works, but I cannot understand why/how Isolating the noise in the correction file,
can help undertsand the effect of it removed, as it's isolated from it's effect combined in the music.

Please , No offense ,but ,I see you said that you do not see any real relation to the Full Music ABX results ,& I respect that, but then you say listening to the correction file convinced you ? , that is a valid way to determine the effect ?

Well, the correction file is the difference between the original and the processed file. When you listen to it you hear what alterations have been made to the original file. It is easier to listen to that file to determine the differences because they are not masked by the rest and you can also turn up the volume to extreme proportions to make it even easier. lossyWAV takes away certain fine detail of the original waveform. This missing fine detail is audible as white noise that fluctuates in intensity in accordance to the original waveform.


Quote from: B0RK on
for what it's worth, the way I see it, It's like taking a thin yellow layer off a green.

looking at the yellow layer removed & saying all you see is a real pale of yellow, -nothing that seems of any importance.

But the real effect is in the main file, the Music, the green now looks blue instead of green. This was quite obvious to me here.

I think that's a very valid analogy. It's amazing that you feel music this way, but I now wonder if there is any way at all to reduce the file size in a lossy way that you don't notice at least to a tiny extent. I don't believe it's possible to maintain current bitrates while also achieving full transparency for you. We now know that you can ABX the differences but how does that affect the validity of the process itself for you? Would you rather stick with lossless files or would the differences be acceptable for your personal taste?

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #211 –
Quote from: Hancoque on
... I now wonder if there is any way at all to reduce the file size in a lossy way that you don't notice at least to a tiny extent. I don't believe it's possible to maintain current bitrates while also achieving full transparency for you. ...

I think that's a bit too early a conclusion though it may come out like that. At the moment there is hope that it's all about an implementation issue.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #212 –
What happens when I process an already 'lossywavved' file again? If I take a lossywav processed at say -q 7, and process it once more at -q 3, will this turn out similar to a that file processed straight from untouched source to -q 3?

In other words, will these give me the same, or very similar results:
source -> -q 3
source -> -q 7 -> 3
?

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #213 –
Quote from: B0RK on
If anyone reading this can please test with these file and post his results I would be grateful:
http://rapidshare.com/files/194915589/112e...ping_0.rar.html

I tried your sample. With my first ABX test (10 trials) I got at 5/6, then lost the problem and ended up 6/10.
My second ABX test was a total miss.
I took a rest, had a light evening meal, did some work at the house, and returned to ABXing, but again without success.

Though my results are bad at least the 5/6 result I got from scratch with my first 6 guesses confirm the suspicion that there's something wrong.
Strange enough I tried to ABX the lossyWAV1.1.2e --portable --shaping 0 result, but to me it was as hard as with your supplied --insane result and I did not succeed.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #214 –
Quote from: Brent on
What happens when I process an already 'lossywavved' file again? If I take a lossywav processed at say -q 7, and process it once more at -q 3, will this turn out similar to a that file processed straight from untouched source to -q 3?

In other words, will these give me the same, or very similar results:
source -> -q 3
source -> -q 7 -> 3
?



Yes, the results would be very similar. Remember that lossyWav works by reducing the bit precision (which is why it adds noise). It also applies other mechanisms like dither, which is why i don't say "the same", but remember that dither only modifies the LSB (in this case, of the reduced bitdepth, not of the original bitdepth)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #215 –
Dither has been removed, however noise-shaping is standard since 1.1.0, with effectiveness at q/10, i.e. -q 0 > 0% effective noise-shaping; -q 5 == --standard > 50% effective noise-shaping.

Alternatively, try it - see how big the -q 7 followed by -q 3 file is in relation to a one step -q 3 file.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #216 –
Quote from: Hancoque on
I think that's a very valid analogy. It's amazing that you feel music this way, but I now wonder if there is any way at all to reduce the file size in a lossy way that you don't notice at least to a tiny extent. I don't believe it's possible to maintain current bitrates while also achieving full transparency for you. We now know that you can ABX the differences but how does that affect the validity of the process itself for you? Would you rather stick with lossless files or would the differences be acceptable for your personal taste?


I would like to first point out that I Like LossyWav a lot (or I would not be here) from the start, & it's already very good.

The only reason to these tests is my attempt to help with improvements, not discredit it in any way.

Since I am not a coder, I just try & help in ways I can.

I would stick to Lossless files for archiving if I'll have to as I have done for long,
but I'd really rather not on my media server / portable etc.

I assume/hope implementation & methods used could be improved as already demonstrated by Nick & 2BDecided , (Thanks!) so I think/hope more testers with a single chosen compression mode, & further improvements (We probably need to choose the best mode the develeper/s think is of the utmost importance & get as many tests & improvements done with it, as testing all will be impossible,at least for me) can bring it to the point that the difference is extremely hard to point at , even with professionals/reference ears/gear etc.


Quote from: halb27 on
I tried your sample. With my first ABX test (10 trials) I got at 5/6, then lost the problem and ended up 6/10.

Though my results are bad at least the 5/6 result I got from scratch with my first 6 guesses confirm the suspicion that there's something wrong.


That's the fatigue + boredom effect for you, that I mentioned earlier & will always be our enemy .. it always amazes me how quickly it sets in, and how hard it is to shake off once it hits you (hence my obsessive long session attempts).

Ill have to look through the logs but If I am not mistaken, I did not score better then 5 repetitive 'wins' on the tests either, so you heard it as clean as possible if you ask me.

Slightly off topic (but indeed entertaining) I am surely no expert at this, but at least from my experience in Retail Pro Audio Sales using AB tests for clients (50% of the time against their own gear), I learnt the following:

-When people cannot tell a difference, they get it wrong ~70% percent MINIMUM.
-I have yet to see anyone get 5/6 in real life AB tests by chance.
-When they did get something right , they usually managed to do it it when they were 'fresh'.
-For those who persisted to continue testing, the stats were cruel, & by the 15th try few would try again.

People who managed to get something along the lines of a Fifth attempt right listening to something &/or liking the result,usually had an open wallet in their hand the next second,or a day later 

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #217 –
Quote from: B0RK on
-When people cannot tell a difference, they get it wrong ~70% percent MINIMUM.
-I have yet to see anyone get 5/6 in real life AB tests by chance.

I don't understand this.
Are you saying you've never known anyone toss a coin and it come up heads 5 times out of 6? Or is the probability different in A/B tests? I would have thought if people cannot tell the difference, then they have to guess and then wouldn't they have a 50% chance of being right (rather than 30% or less)?
Have I misunderstood A/B tests?

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #218 –
Forgive my interruption but I have a question. I´m using 24/96 material a lot, for listening, remastering and other stuff. For now I used WavPack lossy a lot but I also tried LossyWAV. As I understood this, LossyWAV dynamically decreases bit-depth, the resulting quantization noise is moved to higher frequencies afterwards via noise-shaping (depends on the quality setting). Right? So far my opinion about LossyWAV is that it is a very ingenious, clever and effective method to reduce needed space to save audio material.

Would it be possible to have a stronger noise-shaping for 24/96 material since frequencies beyond 20.000 Hz are not audible to us (at least not by ear - but the hypersonic effect is still controversial) in order to shift ALL quantization noise to the frequency area from 20.000 to 40.000? Or would then the sheer amount of quantization noise be too "loud", effectively producing clipping?

I followed LossyWAV development for some time now and it always reminded me of SACD where the quantization noise is completely shifted to ultrasonic frequencies. Is this possible? Correct me if I´m wrong, because I´m no technical expert.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #219 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
Dither has been removed, however noise-shaping is standard since 1.1.0, with effectiveness at q/10, i.e. -q 0 > 0% effective noise-shaping; -q 5 == --standard > 50% effective noise-shaping.

This is probably a stupid question but I'm intrigued. ..........

As quality levels are increased (from q0 towards q10) the number of bits removed decreases. Hence less noise is present in the output file. Conversely the lower the quality setting the more bits are remove and more noise is present in the output. So why does noise-shaping increase with quality setting? Shouldn't it be the other way round so that noise-shaping is applied more strongly to the lower quality settings to mask the increased noise?

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #220 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Would it be possible to have a stronger noise-shaping for 24/96 material since frequencies beyond 20.000 Hz are not audible to us (at least not by ear - but the hypersonic effect is still controversial) in order to shift ALL quantization noise to the frequency area from 20.000 to 40.000? Or would then the sheer amount of quantization noise be too "loud", effectively producing clipping?


The higher you shift the noise, the harder it is to compress for a lossless compressor, since more variation exists in the time domain. As such, the benefits of using lossywav could decrease.


That also sort of replies to botface, although I would preffer a better answer from Nick, 2bDecided or others.

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #221 –
Quote from: botface on
... Shouldn't it be the other way round so that noise-shaping is applied more strongly to the lower quality settings to mask the increased noise?

As [JAZ] wrote already there is an efficiency penalty for the lossless codec when applying noise shaping. With low quality settings the file size increase is very remarkable, with high quality settings file size increase is more or less negligible. That's why lossyWAV increases noise shaping with quality setting.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #222 –
@BORK:

I'd welcome very much if you could try version 1.1.0 with your last sample.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #223 –
As [JAZ] has already indicated, the decision to apply more noise-shaping to the higher quality levels has everything to do with added bitrate due to noise-shaped audio being inherently more difficult to compress than non-noise-shaped audio.

In this post the link between quality preset and shaping level was made - as you can see the trend is quite marked.

@B0rk: I would be interested if you notice any difference by applying a higher upper frequency limit (--limit <n>, where 16000<=n<=20000), say --limit 17500?

@Cavaille: The noise-shaping coefficients were published by SebastianG some time ago and have been calculated for 44.1kHz and 48kHz. The 48kHz coefficients are used for any frequency above 48kHz. This will tend to force the quantization noise energy out of the audible range and into the ultrasonic range as you have already surmised.

In general, noise-shaping does not decrease the quantization noise energy, merely shifts it about the spectrum a bit.
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 -s h -A --feedback 2 --limit 15848 --scale 0.5 | FLAC -5 -e -p -b 512 -P=4096 -S- (having set foobar to output 24-bit PCM; scaling by 0.5 gives the ANS headroom to work)

lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread

Reply #224 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
As [JAZ] has already indicated, the decision to apply more noise-shaping to the higher quality levels has everything to do with added bitrate due to noise-shaped audio being inherently more difficult to compress than non-noise-shaped audio.

In this post the link between quality preset and shaping level was made - as you can see the trend is quite marked.

Yes, I see. But in that example the -q0 -s1.00 Lossy.Flac file is still 10% smaller than the --portable one with its default shaping (q0.25). Or is that too simplistic a way of looking at it?