An idea of audio encode algorithm, based on maximum allowed volume of Reply #50 – 2013-03-25 02:10:57 Quote from: saratoga on 2013-03-22 02:24:41Quote from: softrunner on 2013-03-22 02:16:12Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on 2013-03-12 20:46:01Convert some CD audio to 8 bit/sample, that gives you the ~45 dB difference level you want. You'll find it's not enough for many music files, especially ones with long fade-outs.If do it without dithering, the noise will be about -1.4 dB, and if use dithering, yes, it will be about -45 dB, but it all will be in high frequencies, so using equalizer will make it easily audible.The audio quality of this approach will already be poor. If you're also going to use EQ, you should absolutely apply it BEFORE you encode. Otherwise you will need to tolerate much lower quality or else even higher bitrates.Yes, but, I did not say, that -45 dB, given by this approach, and -45 dB, given by WavPack hybrid, are of the same quality. Definately they are not. I wrote only about WavPack, which I had tested.Quote from: Gecko on 2013-03-22 07:48:48You seem to be looking for some form of holy grail of lossy audio encoding: great compression, zero artifacts, super simple algorithm. Many smart people have spent a lot of time and effort to give us good compression and few artifacts. But the algorithms involved usually aren't very simple.No, the idea is in running already existing encoders many times (increasing bitrate) until they give proper result. And the decision of how proper the result is, should be made by computer program at runtime. Of course, every encoder has its own properties, so the way of the evaluation of the result should consider this properties.Quote from: db1989 on 2013-03-22 10:51:54QuoteIt depends on what to call "transparent".The irony is strong with this one. How do you define “transparent”, then? To me, it seems as though your ideal definition is transparency for everyone all the time. Setting aside how patently absurd that idea is since transparency specifically refers to specific combinations of listener and material, your pointing out how a codec that is usually transparent at much more sensible bitrates fails to be transparent at a very high bitrate with one particular sample does not support your argument: it’s actually undercutting it. There will always be exceptions to transparency, at least for certain people and certain signals, and none of your nice-sounding-in-novice-theory-but-baseless-in-practice ideas are likely to change that. At least develop a consistent narrative before you try to make everyone implement it at your behest.I do not use the word "transparent" at all. I prefer audible/inaudible instead. Yes, my approach is that the difference should be inaudible for all humans (not dogs, cats, snakes etc.). We are humans, so there are restrictions of our perceptibility. If you do not hear the difference, it does not mean, that it is not there, and if the difference is there, it does not mean, that you (any human) can hear it. Audio listening is an objective thing. Usually people do not hear the difference because they are not attentive, patent etc. enough. They actually can do it, but silent mind is needed first.In my opinion, for encoder there should not be any exceptions of input audio (when you try to substitute lossless). Otherwise, use Opus 208 kbps and be happy. It gives high quality for all types of music.Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2013-03-22 13:43:31Are you saying that lossyWAV standard without noise shaping is transparent?I can not say for sure. At 32 kHz sample it is audible, for 44 kHz and higher it is probably not, but deeper tests are needed. (with adaptive noise shaping 44 kHz is audible)QuoteIf I've understood you correctly, I think it's the closest thing you're going to get to your goal.Yes, as far, as I tested it, it can be safely used instead of lossless.