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: lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread (Read 202998 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #275 –
Quote
-m, --midside        analyse 2 channel audio for mid/side content.


When and how this switch can be useful?
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #276 –
There was a request to include this analysis some time ago - there must be some type of content which has mid/side information incorporated into the L+R channels.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #277 –
Sorry, I don't understand how lossywav processing and correlation of stereo channels can be related.

Anyway, should I add it to my command line? Can it improve/hurt processing quality or something else?
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #278 –
It will only work for stereo input and will link the bits-to-remove from each channel together, i.e. it will remove the lower derived number of bits from each channel. By default lossyWAV removes bits from each channel independently.

So, no - you should not be adding it to your command line.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #279 –
I completed yet another full collection transcode today (11493 tracks, 287GB FLAC, 882 kbps lossless) in about 16.5 hours. [edit] I should say that I used --superportable --impulse as my settings for this transcode - average bitrate overall 311kbps. The output is individual tracks, so the bitrate variation is a bit more extreme than if I had gone for one file per album. [/edit]

Out of interest I had a look at the spread of bitrates for the resulting files:
Code: [Select]
|-------------|-----|-----|-----|
|    Band     | Min | Avg | Max |
|-------------|-----|-----|-----|
|  0% to   5% |  54 | 240 | 276 |
|  5% to  10% | 276 | 283 | 287 |
| 10% to  15% | 287 | 290 | 293 |
| 15% to  20% | 293 | 295 | 297 |
| 20% to  25% | 297 | 299 | 300 |
| 25% to  30% | 300 | 302 | 303 |
| 30% to  35% | 303 | 304 | 306 |
| 35% to  40% | 306 | 307 | 308 |
| 40% to  45% | 308 | 309 | 310 |
| 45% to  50% | 310 | 311 | 312 |
| 50% to  55% | 312 | 313 | 314 |
| 55% to  60% | 314 | 315 | 316 |
| 60% to  65% | 316 | 318 | 319 |
| 65% to  70% | 319 | 320 | 321 |
| 70% to  75% | 321 | 322 | 324 |
| 75% to  80% | 324 | 325 | 327 |
| 80% to  85% | 327 | 328 | 330 |
| 85% to  90% | 330 | 333 | 335 |
| 90% to  95% | 335 | 339 | 343 |
| 95% to 100% | 343 | 363 | 608 |
|-------------|-----|-----|-----|

54 and 608 are extreme (the first is a Robbie Williams end of album track with a huge silence and the last is a live track).

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #280 –
I'm probably going to remove the --impulse parameter and enable it for all quality presets (currently if int(q)>0). This will only affect -5 to 0.99.. and will be able to be disabled by using --analyses 2 (default number of analyses will be 3).

The questionably named --reasonable preset will be changed to --intermediate as -i will be available when --impulse is removed.

I will also change the short parameter for --portable from -P to -p and for --postanalyse from -p to -P. In this way, --standard, --extreme and --insane will be -S, -E and -I respectively and --superportable, --economic, --portable and --intermediate will be -s, -e, -p and -i respectively.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #281 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
I'm probably going to remove the --impulse parameter and enable it for all quality presets (currently if int(q)>0). This will only affect -5 to 0.99.
Quote from: Nick.C on
I used --superportable --impulse as my settings

So would that mean that the setting you used won't be possible anymore? Or is --impulse maybe also enabled with --analyses 3 ?

[oops] I read it again, --impulse will be always on. That would be alright with me. I just think the effect should be tested (on the lower -q's) and not be introduced in a final version.

Some other thoughts about the parameters you need for the presets:
If the only reason to remove this is to free up -i , you can also use any free symbol for --impulse you like. Alternatively you could at least keep the long --impulse.

To me it makes even sense to have all the numerous presets under 1 parameter preferable like -q [P|S|E|s|...] . If you think it is too tricky to combine alfa and numerical qualities it could be -p [S|E|I|s|e|p|i] as -p could be freed up. If you like, a long variant to match --preset standard,extreme,portable etc.

BTW I will not make a big thing of it (I know it's a can of worms), but now the quality scale has been stretched, I doubt that -q 5 is the sensible default. Just a quick idea: --standard = -q 2.5 (default) --high 5.0 . It might match the standard bit rates from the previous versions better.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #282 –
I like the idea of --impulse always being on. Makes things clearer.
And I like GeSomeone's idea of defaulting to new -q 2.5 calling this 'standard' and calling -q 5 'high'.
Moreover I like the idea of using the named presets as a value for the -q switch. Unifies things and allows for good names as there is no potential collision with other parameter names.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #283 –
Thanks for the constructive comments!

lossyWAV beta 1.2.3c RC4 attached to post #1 in this thread.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #284 –
1.2.3.c's average bitrate for my usual test set of various pop music:

-q S: 432 kbps
-q P: 396 kbps
-q N: 338 kbps
-q X: 295 kbps

According to the description in the starting post I was afraid that the long names of the named presets are to be written '-q --portable' but was happy to see that it's '-q portable'.

I did a short listening test.
Using -q X eig was transparent to me, but I could ABX furious 9/10 (though quality is very good).
Using -q N furious was transparent to me.

As for the names of the named presets though it's not important:
I'd prefer to call -q -2.5 'portable' and -q 0 'intermediate' or 'economic'.
It would bring the two quality levels with 'portable' in their name together as the two worst (though excellent) quality levels.
This would match most what I'd expect from a 'portable quality': high quality leaving room for minor issues.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #285 –
Excellent news about -q intermediate - I'll swap portable and intermediate so the scale will now run: extraportable; portable; intermediate; standard; high; extreme; insane.

I am considering
  • changing the limits of the -A, --adaptive parameter from 32<=n<=480 to 64<=n<=256;
  • removing the option to disable adaptive shaping.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #286 –
Thanks, Nick, for exchanging 'portable' and 'intermediate'.

As for your further considerations: the new -A limits sound reasonable to me, and removing the option to disable adaptive noise shaping would be fine to me too.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #287 –
The latest 1.2.3c seems like 4x slower (than 1.2.3b and 1.2.0).
Am I imagining this?

(Vista 32bit, Intel Core2 Duo E7300, libfftw3-3 3.2.2)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #288 –
Adaptive shaping is now enabled by default - that would explain the difference in processing time.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #289 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
Adaptive shaping is now enabled by default - that would explain the difference in processing time.

Is there a trade-of for this speed penalty? Or at the end of the day, what has improved in (upcoming) 1.3.x compared with 1.2.0.
I guess the real question is: what brings us ANS vs. no noise shaping?

As a side note: In the development leading to 1.2.0 there were indications that (the then used) noise shaping was a disadvantage when transcoding the lossyWav processed files to mp3 later. However, when it would be a real advantage for straight lossless to lossyWav, that would be more important.

[edit] rephrased a bit
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #290 –
The fixed noise shaping of 1.2.0 brings more noise to the very high frequency range. Because of mp3's sfb21 properties this makes mp3 encoding less efficient as a tendency.

Adaptive noise shaping doesn't do that.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #291 –
lossyWAV beta 1.2.3d RC5 attached to post #1 in this thread.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #292 –
I can only encode if I set no quality parameter. Weird. The same command line in Foobar2000 that worked before does not work at all with the new version. Regards.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #293 –
.... and the command line was?

[edit].... your command line probably contains text parameter relating to a specific quality preset. I would suggest that you have a look at the included help (lossywav -h). [/edit]

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #294 –
Quote from: punkrockdude on
I can only encode if I set no quality parameter. Weird. The same command line in Foobar2000 that worked before does not work at all with the new version. Regards.
Code: [Select]
Past
Parameters: /d /c c:\"program files"\bin\lossywav - --quality standard --silent --stdout|c:\"program files"\bin\flac - -b 512 -5 -f -o%d --ignore-chunk-sizes

For Now
Parameters: /d /c c:\"program files"\bin\lossywav - -q standard --silent --stdout|c:\"program files"\bin\flac - -b 512 -5 -f -o%d --ignore-chunk-sizes

@Nick.C
I've using default preset since RC4,
and used -b 1024 in extreme for only 48kHz(LPCM) before it.
I hear a sound considerably changes in this candidate

Please let me hear your opinion for 48kHz(LPCM).

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #295 –
Quote from: Nowings69 on
I hear a sound considerably changes in this candidate
Please let me hear your opinion for 48kHz(LPCM).
Could you please upload a 30 second (or less) sample of a / the track which is causing problems?

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #296 –
Nick. Can you add more options for higher quality of insane. This is result in bit compare plugin in foobar. File used: WAV 96kHz/24bit/2Ch (both channels are the same = mono)

FLAC 1753kb/s : No differences found
WavPack hybrid 1408kb/s :  Differences found: 38214905 sample(s), starting at 0.0000000 second(s), peak: 0.0000181 at 11.0004479 second(s), 1ch
WavPack hybrid 1208kb/s :  Differences found: 41685515 sample(s), starting at 0.0000000 second(s), peak: 0.0000347 at 47.1038021 second(s), 1ch
LossyWav 594kb/s : ______Differences found: 42549280 sample(s), starting at 0.0000000 second(s), peak: 0.0086710 at 80.6068333 second(s), 2ch
LossyWav 555kb/s : ______Differences found: 42554737 sample(s), starting at 0.0000000 second(s), peak: 0.0154066 at 80.9439896 second(s), 1ch

LossyWav 594kb/s : (/d /c C:\bin\lossywav - --insane --adaptive --underlap 8 --silent --stdout|C:\bin\flac - -b 512 -8 -f -o%d --ignore-chunk-sizes)
LossyWav 555kb/s : (/d /c C:\bin\lossywav - -I --adaptive --silent --stdout|C:\bin\flac - -b 512 -8 -f -o%d --ignore-chunk-sizes)

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #297 –
Insane is already, er, insane.

If you want more, the only "sensible" option is to simply keep x more bits than suggested, or offset the threshold by x dB. Both have the same effect (the latter gives finer control).

Other options include enforcing a minimum number of bits to keep.

These have all be played with in the past (don't know if any are left in there as hidden features), but the current presets are felt to be more useful.

What are you trying to do?

Cheers,
David.

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #298 –
Quote from: Nick.C on
Quote from: Nowings69 on
I hear a sound considerably changes in this candidate
Please let me hear your opinion for 48kHz(LPCM).
Could you please upload a 30 second (or less) sample of a / the track which is causing problems?


Well,precisely I dont remeber?when did it change since
because  it does not overwrite Writing Library
My all LPCM trusts your ear?as LossyWav

After the next time, I do not neglect preparations so that it is not asked a question symbolic entirely




 

lossyWAV 1.3.0 Development Thread

Reply #299 –
I had a look at the adaptive noise shaping method again - from the point of view of sample-rates greater than 44.1kHz and I have made a few minor alterations. I believe that these are for the better but am reverting to simple beta rather than release candidate.

I am thinking about how best to allow the user to tweak certain parameters to further reduce the number of bits removed. One which immediately springs to mind is to allow the user to increase the minimum-number-of-bits-to-keep (default=6), probably user selectable between 7 and 16. Will revert with another beta in due course.

lossyWAV beta 1.2.3e attached to post #1 in this thread.