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: Subjectively pleasing codecs? (Read 7811 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

As we have seen, some people prefer stuff like vinyl and tubes, despite their objectively inferior performance. Apart from perceptual bias, the preference is probably also driven by "pleasant" coloration and distortion. There also seems to be some cases where people have actually preferred low-bit-rate mp3 to uncompressed in listening tests - explained by the way the mp3 encoding removes extarneous stuff, emphasizing the real musical information.

In designing and testing codecs, we naturally try to focus on making the codecs as transparent as possible - the goal being compression that is audibly indistinguishable from the original.

Is anyone aware of any research into codecs and digital processing that would be non-transparent on purpose, instead focusing on emphasizing the "pleasant" aspects of the music? I am not talking about digital versions of teh good old Aphex Aural Exciter, but stuff that is based on the same kind of sophistication in psychoacoustic modelling that the more advanced lossy codecs are based on.

I am aware of a fair bit of work in speech codecs, emphasizing legibility rather than transparency, but I am not aware of similar work in music reproduction/processing.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #1
Surely you'd just want EQ to do this? After all there's no point having a codec that basically produces a "warm" sound? You can get the same results by using any codec and applying EQ?

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #2
Surely you'd just want EQ to do this? After all there's no point having a codec that basically produces a "warm" sound? You can get the same results by using any codec and applying EQ?


I am curious if someone has gone beyond mere EQ in modelling "pleasant" sound.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #3
Very interesting! I think to start need to be split all listeners into several age groups, ranging from 10-12 years. I have assume that preference of youth will be given to mp3 and possibly, ogg family codecs.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #4
There are a huge number of DSP effects that are nontransparent but subjectively pleasant at least to some people. You can combine these with a codec like mp3 if you want (and many cheap digital audio players can do this).

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #5
There are a huge number of DSP effects that are nontransparent but subjectively pleasant at least to some people.


Right - but is there any (published) perceptual research underlying them?

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #6
If a single algorithm to make music sound better existed, then it would already be mastered in the recording. Since recording engineers are not stupid.

A specific track might sound better with some specific sound effect, but only because the recording/mastering engineers didn't think of using it for that track. But a general trick doesn't exist.

Floyd E. Toole already proved that everyone prefers a neutral frequency response. Young people, old people, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Hard Rock fans, Classic fans, Hip Hop fans etc. So there is no EQ that would make things sound better in general, except if your system isn't neutral, which it shouldn't be. There is no such thing as a subjective preference for certain EQ patterns. There is only subjective preference for musical taste. Not for sound quality. It's why JBL stopped making speakers tuned for Germans.

There is only one way to audio nirvana: get your system to be as neutral as possible. And get the studio's to get listenings rooms as neutral as possible. That way we'll be using the same reference, so that you hear what the recording engineers intended you to hear.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #7
There are a huge number of DSP effects that are nontransparent but subjectively pleasant at least to some people.


Right - but is there any (published) perceptual research underlying them?


Theres a lot of research on various aspects of such DSP effects, things like EQ, compression, stereo expanding, etc.  I've looked through a few commercial products, and they tend to use a combination of these effects and others.  Presumably they do some tuning to figure out what will sound "good" when put together.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #8
Theres a lot of research on various aspects of such DSP effects, things like EQ, compression, stereo expanding, etc.


Thanks! Would you have any references?

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #9
If a single algorithm to make music sound better existed, then it would already be mastered in the recording. Since recording engineers are not stupid.

A specific track might sound better with some specific sound effect, but only because the recording/mastering engineers didn't think of using it for that track. But a general trick doesn't exist.

Floyd E. Toole already proved that everyone prefers a neutral frequency response. Young people, old people, Americans, Europeans, Asians, Hard Rock fans, Classic fans, Hip Hop fans etc. So there is no EQ that would make things sound better in general, except if your system isn't neutral, which it shouldn't be. There is no such thing as a subjective preference for certain EQ patterns. There is only subjective preference for musical taste. Not for sound quality. It's why JBL stopped making speakers tuned for Germans.

There is only one way to audio nirvana: get your system to be as neutral as possible. And get the studio's to get listenings rooms as neutral as possible. That way we'll be using the same reference, so that you hear what the recording engineers intended you to hear.


Great first post! Welcome to the forum . . .

There's no accounting for taste universally. I don't think it's too big a stretch to claim that educated listening invariably, broadly leads along a path to the endpoint of neutrality. However, absolute neutrality is a near-impossible goal.

What tends to happen is that individuals come to different conclusions about the kind of a-neutrality that bugs them most: which is why the distortion of vinyl remain pleasant to many, compared to imperfections introduced by the complex apparatus of digital sources.

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #10
There are a huge number of DSP effects that are nontransparent but subjectively pleasant at least to some people. You can combine these with a codec like mp3 if you want (and many cheap digital audio players can do this).


Megabass anyone?

Autotune on the supply side.


Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #12
I seem to remember there being a filter that could add a vinyl "sound" to digital audio, but I don't recall where or by who.

 

Subjectively pleasing codecs?

Reply #13
iZotope Vinyl. iZotope products are, as far as I'm aware, considered state of the art.