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: "WMA has a richer, warmer sound" (Read 14546 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #25 –
Quote
Quote
IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

Not real science.

Real science is open to any revisions based on new evidence.  Scientism is the blind belief in "already proven" theorems, and the rejection of the unknown merely on the basis that it is unknown.  Afaic, a "real scientist" will approach an issue with an open mind, and without preconceptions.  The purpose of science is discovery, not validating what one already knows in order to feel more secure in one's beliefs.

IMHO, your claim that inclusion of the observer isn't "real science" is unscientific, unless you can prove it and no doubt remains (1+1=2).

P.S... for the record, Dibrom wanted me to "back up" what I was saying... otherwise I wouldn't have carried this off-topic conversation so far.  Probably this is my last post on the thread, sorry to distract anyone or use up bandwidth.  This stuff is available for anyone to investigate thru Google, and has nothing to do with either the sound of .wma files or the general subject matter of the board (i.e. this should be in "off-topic").  Perhaps a topic split?

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #26 –
Quote
Quote
WMA has rich, full bass.


Looking at the findings, this statement seems to hold true "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB", it is ok to now say this on HA?

Looking at the data again, we can't say this. There's a much higher level at 30Hz in the original than there is at 22Hz. So, perhaps the wmp psy-model says that this will mask a 3dB increase at 22Hz, and perhaps that's even correct...

We should be trying more samples/music styles before we conclude.

@Tigre: how did you get the wmp output (wav) written to disk? Edit: never mind, I just found out CEP does that. Question two then: is CEP as good as the reference decoder, using 24bit resolution?

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #27 –
Quote
Quote
WMA has rich, full bass.


Looking at the findings, this statement seems to hold true "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB", it is ok to now say this on HA?

Are you asking if it's ok to say "WMA has rich,full bass", or "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB"?

Which do you think is more specific and informative?
Juha Laaksonheimo

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #28 –
Quote
"WMA has rich,full bass", or "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB"? Which do you think is more specific and informative?


The average Joe on the street wouldn't have a clue what 50Hz 3dB means, he would know what the former means.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #29 –
Quote
Real science is open to any revisions based on new evidence.

Did I say otherwise?

Quote
Scientism is the blind belief in "already proven" theorems, and the rejection of the unknown merely on the basis that it is unknown.


I don't know much about that term, but that's not science. Real theorems can't be disproved, are mathematically true (such as 2+2=4 or Pithagoras theorem). Theories are just that, theories, and are subject to revision if new contradicting evidence appears, as you say.

Quote
Afaic, a "real scientist" will approach an issue with an open mind, and without preconceptions.  The purpose of science is discovery, not validating what one already knows in order to feel more secure in one's beliefs.


Does anyone say otherwise? On the other side, if there is plenty of evidence that supports your beliefs or a theory, it must be considered as the most likely, until , again, new evidence can disprove that.

Quote
IMHO, on that basis your claim that inclusion of the observer isn't "real science" is unscientific, unless you can prove it and no doubt remains (1+1=2).


I didn't say that, but the opposite. I said that in real science, inclusion of the observer must be taken into account if needed.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #30 –
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This is an area of great interest in quantum physics, in particular -- how the act of observation may change the observed.  IMHO, science has been too neglectful about leaving the observer out of the equation.

This has nothing to do with psychoaccoustics!!!!!

Sorry to disagree with you, but the observer is not fundamentally separate from what he/she observes. 

Aside from matters of social agreement (which objectivists are always accusing subjectivists of!) there's no fundamental way of determining whether a perception is "subjective" or "objective."  Really, it is neither.

I'm glad to see you providing some sort of backing to your claims here.....

Seriously, these are the kinds of things that volumes upon volumes of text have been written about by philosophers and physicists alike for literally thousands of years.  I fail to see how you can make such sweeping claims as these without providing any support for them (you didn't even provide examples or expand upon the ideas to any sigificant degree) and just expect people to take your word for it...

What could I possibly provide -- an ABX test? 

Yes, please do. There's a principle in law: not guilty unless proven otherwise. So is with your theory. Prove it to be true. Until then it's not, so don't percist on it. You yourself don't even know if it's true or not.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #31 –
Quote
Quote
"WMA has rich,full bass", or "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB"? Which do you think is more specific and informative?


The average Joe on the street wouldn't have a clue what 50Hz 3dB means, he would know what the former means.

So, should the average Joe try to learn it if he wants to read HA, or should HA regulars start to talk like average Joe, very unspecificly?
Juha Laaksonheimo

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #32 –
Quote
So, should the average Joe try to learn it if he wants to read HA, or should HA regulars start to talk like average Joe, very unspecificly?

The latter would imo be more polite (by the HA regulars). Or was this a rhetorical question?!? 

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #33 –
Quote
Quote
So, should the average Joe try to learn it if he wants to read HA, or should HA regulars start to talk like average Joe, very unspecificly?

The latter would imo be more polite (by the HA regulars). Or was this a rhetorical question?!? 

Juha Laaksonheimo

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote
Scientism is the blind belief in "already proven" theorems, and the rejection of the unknown merely on the basis that it is unknown.


I don't know much about that term, but that's not science. Real theorems can't be disproved, are mathematically true (such as 2+2=4 or Pithagoras theorem). Theories are just that, theories, and are subject to revision if new contradicting evidence appears, as you say.

Try to prove that 2+2=4 ! I never had any success... But supposedly you can get no longer than for example Peano's Axioms or such, and those are really only assumptions. There is no way to prove them correct. Maybe some day someone will come up with a better set of axioms and we will have to revise parts of the mathematics??

You can draw a triangle with three straight corners. How? Does Pithagora's theorem still hold?

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #35 –
The philosopher asks: "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

David replies: "As long as the tree falls on a philosopher, does it matter?"


Subjective vs Objective

Is it possible to hear a difference that cannot be measured? No.

(Think: ears respond to air pressure variations; we can detect, measure, and record those with more than enough accuracy. The analysis of the results is a different matter, but what you heard is somewhere in what was measured)


Is it possible to perceive a difference that cannot be measured? Maybe.
Perception is more than "hearing". Our mood affects our perception. But that's an internal thing.


In my experience, consistent subjective impressions can be traced to objective measureable and ABXable differences. (Unless those consistent subjective impressions are due to sighted comparisons!)

Sighted comparisons are stupid, if all you're interested in is the sound quality. It's as simple as that. Get rid of that placebo!


As for stress, and different types of hearing/listening. Well, it's obvious that our moods effect our perception. Anyone who claimed otherwise would be foolish.

But we're not talking about moods. We're talking about a simple fact: do you know what you're listening to, or not. That doesn't set your mood to cold hard and analytical. Sitting in front of your PC with PCABX on the screen and 13ms of harpsichord music looped may well do, but it doesn't have to be like that... "Hey dude - is that a new stereo you've got in the next room - sounds really cool!" That's blind listening. Not statistically valid yet - it depends how many friends say that before they see it!


But I'll say it again: every reliable subjective comment that I've ever heard and investigated (or seen investigated) has been traced to a hard objective fact. People who say otherwise are trying to sell you something, or justify buying something, or don't understand science enough to speak the right language.

Cheers,
David.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #36 –
OT: IMO is the discussion about science/scientific methods/etc. very interesting and deserves to take place. OTH for me one of the things i appreciate most about HA is the scientific way auido-related (especially quality-related) topics are (supposed to be) discussed here. A more subjective/"open-minded" point of view *in discussions* is of no use IMO. Example:
1. "sample A and sample B sound identical, noone was able to ABX successfully."
2. "sample A and sample B sound identical, noone was able to ABX successfully, but once when I had a massage while listening to sample A and was totally relaxed I noticed that it moved somtheing in me. I never had this feeling with sample B".
I prefer 1 and I am thankful that the people who run this site spend their precious time on making people keep the rules. IMO it'd be a sign of thankfulness and appreciation for this place and their work just to accept the way things work here. We are all guests, noone is forced to participate.
__________________________

Now back on topic (if this thread is not already hopefully offtopic )

Quote
Looking at the data again, we can't say this. There's a much higher level at 30Hz in the original than there is at 22Hz. So, perhaps the wmp psy-model says that this will mask a 3dB increase at 22Hz, and perhaps that's even correct...

We should be trying more samples/music styles before we conclude.

Definitely. Now that I've set up Excel it's not much work to repeat with other samples. I guess next I'll try with some sine sweep or similar, afterwards with the test samples from rjamorim's 64kbps listening test. One more reason why I think it's important to do more tests is, that I don't know how exact CEP's frequeny analysis is (Blackman-Harris window, 8192 Samples used), especially for low frequencies.

Quote
CEP as good as the reference decoder, using 24bit resolution?

I don't know. WMA9 "Pro" encoded files are opened by CEP as 16bit here. Is the reference decoder you're talking about publicly available?
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #37 –
CEP FFT is accurate enough for those tasks.

A better way to compare visually frequency response: create a new 16-bit stereo file. Copy left track of one file into left track of new file, and left track of the other file into right track of new file. Both files should be ideally time aligned before doing this. You will have a stereo file where the both channels are the same, but one has been encoded/decoded and the other not.

Then, use frequency analysis and zoom at the Y (amplitude) axis so that 0.2 dB or so differences are clearly detectable. Use a not very long FFT size, 1024 pt can be ok, but you can try other sizes. Then, look at various parts of the song, or use realtime playback, or average parts of the file (scan button at the FFT window), and see if there are parts of spectrum that are always higher amplitude in one of the channels.

A better method could be to plot a FFT of left/righ channels transfer funcion of this file, Spectralab can do this. Also, using pink or white noise can be more revealing than using music.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #38 –
I can't resist putting in one flippant suggestion.  What we need is an ABX test where you don't know for each trial whether you are paying attention or not.

On WMA boosing low bass below your speakers capability:  even with speakers that will reproduce 20-30 Hz, if they distort even a few percent then the harmonics can sound louder than the fundamental frequency.  This is because your hearing is less sensitive down there.

I think that speakers that won't  reproduce very low bass can also put out audible
harmonics as you are still getting cone motion which will have distortion products within the passband of the speaker. 

Another effect with wide range drivers is that high excursions at low frequencies will cause
doppler distortion of higher frequencies sent to the same driver.  I don't know if this would be considered "warm" by some.

Of course,  this low bass boost will have no effect whatsoever if the song you are playing has no content in that range.  As a reference, I think the lowest note on a standard tuned bass guitar is 42 Hz.  For 20 Hz, aside from electronic enhancement and explosions,  you are looking at pipe organs, ambient venue noise like HVAC rumble, and maybe the largest tycho drums.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #39 –
Quote
The philosopher asks: "If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

David replies: "As long as the tree falls on a philosopher, does it matter?"

I agree with you -- nonpractical philosophy is nothing but a useless mental game.  That's why I just said that the whole subjective/objective stance is worth each person looking into for themselves (and expressed a few of my views on it)... that's all.  I hope people aren't so paranoid that they automatically assume a subjective/superstitious stance is being promoted when someone challenges conventional thinking a little.

Anyway -- I think it's time that I cut my participation here to a bare minimum -- the subject matter no longer interests me much anymore, anyway.  Cheers all...

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #40 –
Quote
Now back on topic (if this thread is not already hopefully offtopic )
Quote
CEP as good as the reference decoder, using 24bit resolution?

I don't know. WMA9 "Pro" encoded files are opened by CEP as 16bit here. Is the reference decoder you're talking about publicly available?

Well, I guess 'reference decoder' is indeed a too elevated name for WMP9
I've been trying to confirm it but can't get WMP9 to write to disk here though (I tried a virtual soundcard but it crashes my system...).
And who knows how WMP works internally. Perhaps it too decodes to 16bit and then ups the output for 24bit cards...

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #41 –
Quote
A better way to compare visually frequency response: ...

There could be a missunderstanding: I didn't compare anything visually. Using frequency analysis for the whole file, pressing "Copy to Clipboard" + Ctrl-V in Excel delivers a table with 1/2*(window size) frequenciy bands, for each band one left and one right channel dB value. The small bands belonging to 1/2 octave bands were summarized (= average dB values were calculated) using Excel.

If you think visual comparison can give better results, I'd be glad to know why...


Thanks for the white/pink noise idea. I'll try this next.
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #42 –
Quote
Quote

Now back on topic (if this thread is not already hopefully offtopic )
Quote
CEP as good as the reference decoder, using 24bit resolution?

I don't know. WMA9 "Pro" encoded files are opened by CEP as 16bit here. Is the reference decoder you're talking about publicly available?

Well, I guess 'reference decoder' is indeed a too elevated name for WMP9
I've been trying to confirm it but can't get WMP9 to write to disk here though (I tried a virtual soundcard but it crashes my system...).
And who knows how WMP works internally. Perhaps it too decodes to 16bit and then ups the output for 24bit cards...

1. I don't want to install WMP9; I don't even have a 24bit soundcard, so AFAIK it won't play back at 24bit anyway (Win2k here).

2. At -40dB a difference of 0.2dB is much bigger than what could be caused by truncation from 24bit to 16bit resolution.

Unless CEP's WMA decoder is somehow buggy I don't think here's a reason to worry. With the next sample I try I'll decode MPC without dither to keep things "fair".
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #43 –
According to Fletcher-Mundson curves, at 80 dB, a 22 Hz frequency is perceived 40 dB quieter than a 345 Hz one. Thus, in this analysis, the 22 Hz band being already 33 dB below the 345 Hz one, it must be perceived 40+33=73 dB quieter.
Therefore we're talking about a 3 dB error on -73 dB noise that is below a 0 dB signal ! This might well fall into the "Graphs don't tell anything" category, because the Psychoacoustic model might well have decided that changing this level would allow to save bits without any audible effect.
Is it actually the case ? This is impossible to tell, because the global analysis don't tell anything about the duration and intensity of the phenomenon in the time domain. This +3 dB may actually be an inaudible boost affecting a continuous -40 dB rumble, but it may as well be a full scale artifact occuring during several milliseconds, that would be accounted for -64 dB after being averaged with hundreds of seconds of silence in the same frequency band for the rest of the track.
Thus we can't tell that WMA boosts 22 Hz frequencies by +3 dB. It could as well highpass the file at 30 Hz, while causing 22 Hz artifacts on problem samples. The effect on the numbers would be the same.

_______________________

The observers'problem in quantum mechanics is not relevant here.
It has a special status in quantum mechanics, because the system measured abides laws (quantum laws) that the observer is violating.
The most obvious is the superposition principle : "if a system can be in the state A or in the state B, then it can also be in any linear combination of A and B" (for example A+B).
For example if Schödinger's cat can be alive, or dead, then it can also be alive+dead at the same time. This is true for quantum systems. Interferences building up in the Young Two-slit experiment shows that photons that can pass through silt A or slit B can also pass through slit A+B. But this is wrong for the observer. With photon detectors, the observer can see the photon in slit A or in slit B, but not in slit A+B. The observer violates the superposition's principle.
Since the observer sees what happens, he forces the quantum system to violate the superposition principle when it is observed.

In audio, the sound abides the same mechanical laws in the room when there is nobody and when there is someone. Thermodynamics and Acoustic laws are not changed when someone comes in.
Thus, unlike in quantum mechanics, it is perfectly possible to apply these laws to the observer himself. For example, artifical heads are used to measure the frequency response of headphones. Head and body related transfer functions are used to simulate speaker sound in headphones, etc.

_________________________________

I think that the feeling that a given sound can give doesn't depend on the program that plays it, be it Winamp, Foobar2000, or WinABX.
If someone can feel that a sound is warm to his ears, and can tell it, what would prevent him to do so in a blind test ? Stress ? Well, a blind test, in order to be valid must be conducted in the same conditions that the ones under which the phenomenon tested was observed first, that is under non-stressed conditions. It's up to the subject to relax.
I found the Astral sample, that I ABXed with MPC standard, in a casual listening. I was not looking for artifacts at all. I just started the track, and poof ! HEY ! What was that ? An MPC artifact or what ? And yes it was. It sounded obvious to my ears in casual listening, while during ABX, I sometimes completely lost track of it. But I was still capable or ABXing it with pauses between the sessions.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #44 –
My question is:

Has anyone measured the frequency distribution of a tadpole fart? I need some verifiable objective data on this. When I encode my tadpole fart recordings, I don't want to use any codec that may cause a boost in  frequecies that may cause a perception of "warm".  I want the compressed tadpole fart recordings to be a true to the original as possible, without resorting to lossless.           
you will make mp3's for compatibility reasons.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #45 –
Quote
According to Fletcher-Mundson curves, at 80 dB, a 22 Hz frequency is perceived 40 dB quieter than a 345 Hz one. Thus, in this analysis, the 22 Hz band being already 33 dB below the 345 Hz one, it must be perceived 40+33=73 dB quieter.
Therefore we're talking about a 3 dB error on -73 dB noise that is below a 0 dB signal ! This might well fall into the "Graphs don't tell anything" category, because the Psychoacoustic model might well have decided that changing this level would allow to save bits without any audible effect.
Is it actually the case ? This is impossible to tell, because the global analysis don't tell anything about the duration and intensity of the phenomenon in the time domain. This +3 dB may actually be an inaudible boost affecting a continuous -40 dB rumble, but it may as well be a full scale artifact occuring during several milliseconds, that would be accounted for -64 dB after being averaged with hundreds of seconds of silence in the same frequency band for the rest of the track.
Thus we can't tell that WMA boosts 22 Hz frequencies by +3 dB. It could as well highpass the file at 30 Hz, while causing 22 Hz artifacts on problem samples. The effect on the numbers would be the same.

Thanks for the valuable info, Pio2001! Good point. This means that doning the same with other samples is useless. Analyzing short periods of time won't help either because you can't know from looking at the numbers if an increased band is masked. At best it could help to find places where ABXing could work.

So we are at the starting point again: Who thinks that WMA sounds richer/warmer should ABX it before writing.
________________

Now science vs. open-minded-ness discussion can go on! 
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #46 –
Quote
Now science vs. open-minded-ness discussion can go on! 

Science vs. open-mindedness?  Oh lord... I'm truly sorry I ever got onto the conversational track I did last night.  Talk about big mistakes...

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #47 –
Quote
Quote
WMA has rich, full bass.


Looking at the findings, this statement seems to hold true "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB", it is ok to now say this on HA?

I completely agree that "Below 50 Hz WMA starts to become louder with arround 3dB" is a valid statement, but that "WMA has rich, full bass" is not.  The former seems to have evidence backing it up.  The latter is a subjective opinion.

I tend to be a control freak myself, and I don't want my encoder messing with equalization any more than it has to.  I prefer my encoding step to be as audibly transparent as possible.  If I can hear more bass after encoding (and without using any sort of playback DSP/equalization), then the word "muddy" would enter my mind before "rich" or "full".  After all, any difference in sound quality, whether perceived as good or bad by the listener, would directly work against the basic tenet of psychoacoustic audio compression, would it not?  I want "accurate", not "warm".

If I want more bass, I'll turn it up myself with an EQ during playback.  I'll bet I know more about exactly how to "shape" the sound to make my ears happy than all of Microsoft does with their WMA encoder trying accomplish the same goal.

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #48 –
Quote
So when someone says:

"WMA sounds richer"

We are only interested in the following:

1. What does "richer" mean? How can it be defined in a universally applicable and measureable sense?


Geez. I'm sorry I started this mess. I certainly did not mean to. I was just making an innocent comment on why I actually like WMA. I like MPC, AAC, and MP3 as well. I'm not a WMA promoter!

I'm going to try and answer Dibrom's question, since he gave me a warning for making this statement in the 1st place (I still think you were in error to issue me this warning, Dibrom. Out of the respect I have for the great work you did for LAME and creating APS - I will argue this no more), but it is VERY difficult. How do you describe hearing?

Have you ever heard anyone make the statement that vinyl sounds richer than a CD? That is the same perception I have listening to WMA vs. MP3. Is the sound better? I will NOT claim so. Audiophiles in this forum have proven it is not as accurate, that MPC and AAC are much more accurate than WMA at higher bit rates.

When I say richer and warmer, I mean the sound has more bass (I think that has been proven in this thread), with more distinction between the highs and lows. The highs especially are 'fuzzier' sounding than the crip highs produced by LAME APS.

I don't know what else to say. Again, I stress I do NOT make any claim that WMA is better. I hope the vinyl analogy helps. I first heard it from Neil Young who claimed CDs have not the warmth of vinyl, even though CDs are proven to more accurately capture the original recording. He did not care and claimed he preferred the sound of vinyl over digital. Pearl Jam holds similar claims and they still release all recordings, except live hshows, on vinyl. Who knows, maybe Neil, Pearl Jam, and I just have distorted hearing from too many live shows. 

"WMA has a richer, warmer sound"

Reply #49 –
ScorLibran, Ezra: three posts above yours it is concluded that there is probably no audible bass boost. The 3dB boost found is allowed by perceptual models. There is nothing more to it.