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: Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio? (Read 14805 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

I'm looking for a codec that is slightly lossy and doesn't lowpass the audio as MP3 does. I came across ADPCM and found it good but it reduces quality too much (16 bit to 4 bit).

I wonder if there is a better alternative to ADPCM with more options for quality?
Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #1 –
1 - Disable the lowpass in your natively-lossy encoder of choice.  Though that still won't preserve all frequencies, if such is something you need (as for scientific reasons) you want something like:

2 - LossyFLAC
Creature of habit.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #2 –
Thanks for the reply!
However... Isn't LossyFLAC = LossyWAV? (Or did I overlook something?)
I just tried LossyWAV with all quality settings and for some reason it didn't reduce the size of a PCM wave file with even a byte ... (Windows XP 32 bit)

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: hightype on
I'm looking for a codec that is slightly lossy and doesn't lowpass the audio as MP3 does.

Not this silliness again, I hope:
https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=875926

Quote from: hightype on
I just tried LossyWAV with all quality settings and for some reason it didn't reduce the size of a PCM wave file with even a byte ... (Windows XP 32 bit)

Of course not.  That's why you need to also employ lossless compression.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: hightype on
I wonder if there is a better alternative to ADPCM with more options for quality?

WavPack lossy is very much like a super-ADPCM, and might work for you.

At 2.5 bits per sample it gives about the same quality as ADPCM at 4 bits, and can be scaled up from there.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #5 –
@greynol:
Well, in _this_ thread I'm looking for 'slightly lossy' methods that preserve highs _other_ than MP3.

@bryant:
Thanks! I wanted to do exactly that but as written, for some reason it didn't reduce the file size by even one byte... I wonder if you could provide a command line option example?
I tried lossyWAV infile.wav -q C ... (and other quality settings)

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: hightype on
@greynol:
Well, in _this_ thread I'm looking for 'slightly lossy' methods that preserve highs _other_ than MP3.

Sure, but you've still left me wondering why.

Instead of frequency response, suppose there was some tool that created a pretty graph showing how much of something else that is "missing" from a lossy encoding, would you be looking for some format that "better addressed" it as well?

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: hightype on
@bryant:
Thanks! I wanted to do exactly that but as written, for some reason it didn't reduce the file size by even one byte... I wonder if you could provide a command line option example?
I tried lossyWAV infile.wav -q C ... (and other quality settings)

We're talking about two different things here.

1. lossyWAV is a program that converts WAV files to a lossy form, but they're still original size WAV files that very compressible by FLAC (or another lossless compressor) because they have lots of zeros in the least significant bits. The brilliant thing about this is that FLAC files are playable on a lot of devices.

2. WavPack lossy is a mode provided by the WavPack program. The files don't need to be processed further, but are playable on far fewer devices than FLAC (but are provided for in many software players).

The compression schemes are similar in many ways, but also have their pros and cons. There was a recent thread discussing this that should be searchable.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #8 –
@greynol:
Well, I don't know. There are much more issues with lossy compression besides 'frequency lowpassing', although I was mostly focusing on the frequency response (MP3 by default is too radical in that). I'm looking for an audio storage method that is a good compromise between being too much lossy and having too big lossless files. ADPCM seemed to be a good compromise between the two, but it's still too radical by default and has too few options for finetuning.

@bryant:
Ah... I see, I mixed up the two!
I have downloaded WavPack - at last, a compression method where there is actually a grey area between lossless and lossy, this is what I was looking for! It looks very user-friendly and the idea of creating a correction file option is also cool! For me as an end-user this looks very exciting, I hope there will be more support to the format!

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #9 –
In any case (I hope I won't be offtopic), while we're at ADPCM ... I was trying to convert PCM .wav files to ADPCM with FFmpeg but couldn't figure out the command line options for that and I wasn't able to find any on Google - I wonder if anyone could help with that? (Also, between IMA and MS ADPCM, which is better?)

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: hightype on
I was mostly focusing on the frequency response (MP3 by default is too radical in that).

Based on what, exactly?

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: greynol on
Based on what, exactly?


Based on the amount of reduction. There is no 'slightly lossy' option with MP3, it eats the very highs by default. I was experimenting with bitrates higher than 320 kbps but it has compatibility issues. I can't play it in Winamp for example. WavPack looks like a good option where if one wants, one can create files that are literally 'very slightly lossy', by giving the desired output bitrate.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #12 –
Turn up the lowpass for mp3. Or don't because it doesn't matter.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #13 –
Quote from: hightype on
Based on the amount of reduction.

That doesn't even remotely come close to answering my question.

How did you determine how much of a reduction is too much?

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #14 –
I think he is referring to the representation of high frequencies. Yes, mp3 is especially bad above 16kHz because of it's known limitation when representing the sfb21 scalefactor band (anything above 16kHz). That's why LAME implemented the -Y switch so you can tell it to use coarse representation or even drop anything above 16kHz when it's too expensive in bitrate budget.

I would recommend to give Opus a try, which always transmits the whole 20kHz spectrum when the bitrate is above 48kbps and has some great tools to avoid spectrum collapsing. You might say, it's only going up till 20kHz, but it should be more than enough for lossy, since it's the upper hearing limit of the human ear. The setting in my signature is working for me for some time. The portable device support is marginal but if you have a smartphone you can download a custom player which handles it (just like WavPack). Also Android 6.0 Marshmallow supports it on system level, you can even use an opus file as a ringtone, etc.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: darkbyte on
Yes, mp3 is especially bad above 16kHz because of it's known limitation when representing the sfb21 scalefactor band (anything above 16kHz).

Considering that the OP is interested in bitrates >= 320 kbits, how is this a problem?

Quote from: darkbyte on
spectrum collapses

How is it been determined by the OP (or you, for that matter) that spectrum collapses are a bad thing?

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: darkbyte on
You might say, it's only going up till 20kHz, but it should be more than enough for lossy, since it's the upper hearing limit of the human ear.

For pure tones, yes, and even higher than that; however, perceptual coding relies on masking in order to obtain data reduction, which is why removing content above 16kHz can often be achieved without being detected, unless you're listening with your eyes (my signature works well too ).

When did you determine that you need content all the way up to 20kHz all the time?

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: greynol link=msg=0 date=
Considering that the OP is interested in bitrates >= 320 kbits, how is this a problem?


If you check the spectrum of a 320kbps mp3 you will see that not even that bitrate is enough to always accommodate the needs of the sfb21. LAME clearly reduces the resolution when the <16kHz part of the spectrum needs it to represent complex things or the stereo image is complex enough.
I don't say this is a bad thing, it's clever codec programming and I'm not keen of this "keep the whole spectrum just to make it look cool" thing anyway. But if the OP looks for something which keeps a nice wide spectrum in every second of the song, mp3 is clearly can't fulfill that wish.

Quote from: greynol link=msg=0 date=
How is it been determined by the OP (or you, for that matter) that spectrum collapses are a bad thing?

For me it seems that transcoding is one thing which benefits from not having spectrum collapses. And now think about a stupidly simple second codec like Bluetooth's SBC which is quiet common nowadays. I still have to do ABX'ing about this though, so don't hold your breath. It's just a theory. I don't know why the OP needs this.

I'm aware of how masking works. On a fullband music sample I'm always having hard times ABX'ing a 16kHz lowpass, so yes, even the part of the spectrum above 16kHz is not that important when we are speaking about music playback.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: darkbyte on
I still have to do ABX'ing about this though, so nobody hold your breath please, it's just a theory

Q.E.D.

The same goes for issues directly relating to sfb21.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #19 –
I still want to hear from the OP on the matter.  hightype, what is your application exactly?  If it is for listening, have you conducted a proper test?

https://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...974#entry149481

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #20 –
Well, my point is not scientific analysis (I'm an audio 'consumer' in that sense). Actually, looking at visual representations (oscilloscopes, fft's and the like) of the audio stream is important to me as I make music (not just scientists use oscilloscopes and such). So it's nice to preserve the visual aspect also.
Keeping every material in lossless doesn't make sense, having things overcompressed degrades quality, so I try to aim for somewhere between the two.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #21 –
I think the OP is talking not only about perceptual quality but also objective. He doesn't like radical changes to the audio and thats just fine IMO. I use wavpack for similar reasons.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #22 –
I'd recommend lossyflac then.

Note however that the FFT view of most lossy formats will often be somewhat misleading.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #23 –
Preserving the whole frequency spectrum is not a goal in itself, more like a perfectionist 'feature' (by the way I don't have synesthesia or some other weird condition)... WavPack does it quite well IMO.

Slightly lossy codec that doesn't lowpass audio?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: hightype on
Preserving the whole frequency spectrum is not a goal in itself, more like a perfectionist 'feature' (by the way I don't have synesthesia or some other weird condition)... WavPack does it quite well IMO.

But you've thrown information away anyhow, leaving yourself with data that only has, what, an SNR of maybe 60 dB or so(?), for the sake of it looking pretty because it lights up every column of your spectrum analyzer?  That seems like a silly thing to be striving for, especially if you think it's giving you perfection.  Guess what: it isn't perfection!

Quote from: hightype on
I make music

Given your situation, I'm going to echo the hundreds of posts already here urging people to keep a lossless (and backed-up) copy of any original source of something, for good and legitimate (READ: NON-PLACEBO-based reasons).  I concur with them completely.  If it is inconvenient to use a lossless copy for distribution and/or playback then use a lossy version.  You can even try something like 128kbit aac or vorbis, or like what darkbyte is suggesting (as opposed to some bloated lossy version that you're keeping for either purely aesthetic or otherwise irrational reasons).  If for some reason you would like to switch to something else, you can; because you still have the source.  FWIW and no matter how much it pains me to say this: aac, vorbis and opus are likely going to give you an acceptable visual appearance as well.