Skip to main content

Topic: ABX Comparator version 2.0 (Read 23398 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.

  • Case
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #130
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).
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.
My earlier reply was incorrect. I had forgotten that the delay from sample rate difference was fixed in ABX component v2.0.2.

But the delay still isn't caused by your SSD. If you have the RAM Windows' caching mechanism will keep the files in memory and drive isn't read while playing. If the files were so huge that they couldn't be cached, then foobar's RAM disk usage wouldn't have been possible either.

I suspect one of your files has silence in the beginning and that is what makes fair ABXing impossible. Fix the files with audio editor or redo the resampling with foobar's built-in resamplers or SoX. These won't introduce unwanted delays.

Re: ABX Comparator version 2.0
Reply #131
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.

Good idea but for me the reason why is that I always recommend making the two files being compared to be alike as possible, aside for the issue under test.

One bad side effect of following this strategy could be that the resampler chosen introduces audible issues of its own, like unnecessarily narrow transition bands and ultra steep slopes that lead to ringing that is peculiar to the resampler, not the basic issue.

Really, if you want to do a controlled experiment, monitor every step of the process as closely as possible. That means avoiding all-in-1-box solutions, even if doing things that way makes it easier.