Re: Seedeclip4 Mediaplayer entry deleted, edits undone and user blocked. Why? Reply #25 – 2017-01-09 21:52:20 This discussion is trying to accomplish too many things at once.Substantive debate about declippingBack-and-forth about the loudness wars and statistics of distributed musicDebate about the proper ways to deal with overly broad statements on the wiki and other disputes thereQuestions about policies for allowing software authors and other experts to contribute to the wiki Questions about Greynol's behavior patterns as a moderator and a wiki editorQuestions about cutestudio's edits and whether he should have wiki edit privilegesAt least some of these discussions need to be separated somehow and addressed more generally and dispassionately.CuteStudio, if you think greynol has overreacted and acted irrationally or based on emotion/hot temper, the most important thing for you to do is to avoid overreacting, act rationally, and keep temper and emotion in check. Try to be more concise and dispassionate in your complaints.Here's my take on the first few of those topics; I may comment on the others later.1. In a couple of other threads as well, Greynol and others have been unjustly dismissive of declipping. For highly variable signals such as speech, where clipped regions are likely to be short, isolated, and very severe, good audio restoration algorithms frequently improve the SNR by more than 12dB. It is not at all difficult to hear the improvement either (esp. the reduction in boomy full-spectrum distortion during clipped vowels). For less variable signals (most music), if the severity of clipping is high enough to make an obvious audible difference, it's likely that so many samples are clipped that a restoration algorithm has insufficient information for a really good reconstruction. Improvements are likely to be much smaller, say 6dB or less, but may still be worth pursuing.This is not some kind of weird audiophile junk. This is a well-posed set of mathematical problems which have seen good theoretical and engineering work. Sadly the only open-source stuff I'm aware of are Audacity's clipfix, which is a very naive (cubic interpolation is not very appropriate for audio) simple hack Ben Schwartz (later of Xiph fame) did back as an undergraduate, and Monty's postfish, which does a reasonable job but is not as simple to work with (linux only, no distro includes binaries, source only available via svn, odd build dependencies, doesn't integrate into other kinds of toolchains). Audacity's "repair" effect, which does least squares autoregression, could probably be turned into a halfway decent declipper if combined with something that detected the clipped regions. Implementing the algorithms from any of the various recently published academic papers on the subject might be more competitive with the closed-source solutions.2. If someone puts an overbroad statement about clipping in pop songs on the wiki, the right way to deal with that is a  and then remove the offending statement if evidence is not provided in a timely way. We don't need to sit here and argue about the loudness wars and how they should have been addressed twenty years ago.3. I don't think mass deletion and reversion and blocking users at the first suspicion is sensible for dealing with a small closed-membership wiki.