Skip to main content

Topic: ABX Comparator version 2.0 (Read 21766 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #125
Actually ReplayGain seems to be tricked by the heavy ultrasonic noise present in DSD files. I recall having tested this with regular hi-rez PCM file and got the same scan result (or very close) for the original and a 44.1 kHz resampled version.
But now I tested a DSD file converted to 352800 Hz PCM vs same file resampled to 44.1 kHz. They showed about 2 dB difference in RG results.

Edit: just tested the original ReplayGain scanner. It showed only 0.09 dB difference for these two tracks.
  • Last Edit: 18 April, 2017, 03:51:41 AM by Case

  • gorman
  • [*][*]
Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #126
Thanks for the plugin. I respectfully ask for a way to save temp files to RAM. I wanted to ABX 44.1 and 88.2 files but the lag in loading the bigger file was always noticeable when switching track. I have the temp folder on SSD but apparently it's not fast enough (SATA 3).

  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #127
The lag comes from the sample rate change. Until ABX component is changed to account for that you should resample the 44.1 kHz file to match the other one's sample rate.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #128
Actually ReplayGain seems to be tricked by the heavy ultrasonic noise present in DSD files.
I doubt this would have happened had the algorithm not been changed.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #129
Note the edit, I tested original RG scanner and it did better but had a small level difference too. Also I have read the ITU 1770 paper again and their loudness estimation coefficients were meant for 48 kHz sampling rate. It's a bug to use them on inaudible frequencies.

There is a request in the internal bug tracker to fix the issue, posted two years ago, but so far Peter hasn't implemented it.