IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

25 Pages V  « < 16 17 18 19 20 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
QAAC: discussion, questions, feature requests, etc., [originally a thread for a feature request]
eahm
post Sep 7 2013, 08:55
Post #426





Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



Thanks for the update nu774. Simple question, is libsoxr conversion just faster? Does it give the very same result of libsoxrate?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 7 2013, 09:56
Post #427





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (eahm @ Sep 7 2013, 16:55) *
Thanks for the update nu774. Simple question, is libsoxr conversion just faster? Does it give the very same result of libsoxrate?

Well, it's not "very same".
rate module of original SoX (and libsoxrate) is always using double precision float numbers for internal calculation.
On the other hand, libsoxr offers both single and double precision implementations.
single precision version can be faster by using SIMD, but is not as precise as double version. single/double mode are automatically chosen by the quality parameter for libsoxr.

As for qaac, when incoming signal is double or 32bit integer, "very high quality" mode is selected, that leads to double precision resampling in libsoxr.
For other cases, qaac will choose "high quality", that leads to single precision resampling.
I think "high quality" mode is usually enough, and it's the default of libsoxr.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bandpass
post Sep 7 2013, 15:00
Post #428





Group: Members
Posts: 322
Joined: 3-August 08
From: UK
Member No.: 56644



QUOTE (nu774 @ Sep 7 2013, 09:56) *
For other cases, qaac will choose "high quality", that leads to single precision resampling.
I think "high quality" mode is usually enough, and it's the default of libsoxr.

libsoxr single-precision is clean to 120dB, and IIRC, here at HA, we've yet to find a recording with noise floor below 96dB (even somewhat above that, but I can't remember the figure). So I concur.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mrgou
post Sep 10 2013, 17:40
Post #429





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 23-March 05
Member No.: 20859



I'd like to confirm my understanding of the dependencies with CoreAudioToolbox.dll

If I get it right, on a system with iTunes 10 (because I don't like iTunes 11), if I extract CoreAudioToolbox.dll from the latest iTunes installer (as of now, 11.0.5) and put it in the same folder as qaac.exe, QAAC will use the DLL from the latest release, and not from the iTunes release installed on my PC.

Is this correct?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 10 2013, 17:58
Post #430





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (mrgou @ Sep 11 2013, 01:40) *
If I get it right, on a system with iTunes 10 (because I don't like iTunes 11), if I extract CoreAudioToolbox.dll from the latest iTunes installer (as of now, 11.0.5) and put it in the same folder as qaac.exe, QAAC will use the DLL from the latest release, and not from the iTunes release installed on my PC.

Is this correct?

Yes, but you need not only CoreAudioToolbox.dll but also other dependencies.
Alternatively you can place them under "QTfiles" sub folder under where qaac is installed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mrgou
post Sep 10 2013, 20:08
Post #431





Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 23-March 05
Member No.: 20859



QUOTE (nu774 @ Sep 10 2013, 18:58) *
Yes, but you need not only CoreAudioToolbox.dll but also other dependencies.
Alternatively you can place them under "QTfiles" sub folder under where qaac is installed.

OK, so I've run makeportable.cmd, and it's all set up. It really great that it takes these files over the iTunes install so you can update one but not the other!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 11 2013, 02:43
Post #432





Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



nu774, why the Windows system folder has priority over the QTFiles folder?

I think it should be:
1) Same folder
2) QTFiles
3) Windows system (look for something installed after the portable option)

Thanks.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 11 2013, 03:04
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 11 2013, 09:52
Post #433





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (eahm @ Sep 11 2013, 10:43) *
I think it should be:
1) Same folder
2) QTFiles
3) Windows system (look for something installed after the portable option)

As is written in http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wi...6(v=vs.85).aspx, it is by design of Microsoft.
qaac just pushes QTfiles and standard AppleAppicationSupport directory at the top of process internal PATH environment variable so that they are searched before any other directories in the PATH.
Also as is written in that document, Windows has a known security issue that DLL in the "current directory" (not same as application directory) gets loaded, but it's prevented via a call to SetDllDirectory().

This can be changed by manually searching DLLs for candidates then call LoadLibrary() with full path name, but I don't feel it's worth doing in case of qaac.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 12 2013, 04:27
Post #434





Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



Not worth. Thanks for the explanation.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kurosu_
post Sep 13 2013, 13:40
Post #435





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 13-September 13
Member No.: 110080



Hello, even with the recent 2.21 (although I'm not using --threading option), I'm still getting random crashes when feeding multichannel (eg 5.1) audio to qaac through fb2k, depending on the coreaudio version. For the record, the command-line I'm using:
CODE
-V 80 --no-optimize  --verbose --quality 2 -n --no-delay --log "%d.txt" -o %d -


If using coreaudio 7.5.5.0 (old, from qtlite 4.1 or something), crashes are very frequent. If using 7.9.8.3 (I have extracted the dlls around 2 months ago), it seems to be fine. My problem though is that there are posts from 2011 (for instance this one) stating that the channel mapping is wrong.

I don't have a multichannel AAC setup to actually verify this, but my tv set can decode those multichannel aacs to stereo (not multichannel spdif output though sad.gif ), except the sounds are muffled (in particular people speaking with various amount of audio around etc). Whether this is DRC or matrixing gone wrong, I don't know, but I'd prefer to make sure whether this is an issue of the past. qaac wiki does not list this issue.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 13 2013, 14:46
Post #436





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (kurosu_ @ Sep 13 2013, 21:40) *
If using coreaudio 7.5.5.0 (old, from qtlite 4.1 or something), crashes are very frequent. If using 7.9.8.3 (I have extracted the dlls around 2 months ago), it seems to be fine. My problem though is that there are posts from 2011 (for instance this one) stating that the channel mapping is wrong.

Well, please don't use THAT old CoreAudioToolbox. That channel mapping issue was already solved in the past on qaac side, and should work fine.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 13 2013, 16:55
Post #437





Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



kurosu_, why would you use something that old? Lossy improves every time, you should update every time.

Thanks again for your hard work nu774, let's announce it:

[qaac] release 2.21 (refalac 1.21)
posted 9 hours ago by nu 774
Fixed an issue of --threading option. There was a possibility of non sample aligned read on the pipe, similar to the problem that was fixed on 2.04 and 2.05.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 13 2013, 16:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScionicReaver
post Sep 20 2013, 22:20
Post #438





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 20-September 13
Member No.: 110191



Can someone give me help on how to get the QAAC encoder to work with Foobar.

I keep getting errors whenever I try to input a command
https://github.com/nu774/qaac/wiki/Command-Line-Options

I'm really lost and have no idea how to use it for Foobar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 20 2013, 22:41
Post #439





Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



QUOTE (ScionicReaver @ Sep 20 2013, 14:20) *
Can someone give me help on how to get the QAAC encoder to work with Foobar.

I keep getting errors whenever I try to input a command
https://github.com/nu774/qaac/wiki/Command-Line-Options

I'm really lost and have no idea how to use it for Foobar.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=845439
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ScionicReaver
post Sep 20 2013, 22:43
Post #440





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 20-September 13
Member No.: 110191



QUOTE (eahm @ Sep 20 2013, 14:41) *
QUOTE (ScionicReaver @ Sep 20 2013, 14:20) *
Can someone give me help on how to get the QAAC encoder to work with Foobar.

I keep getting errors whenever I try to input a command
https://github.com/nu774/qaac/wiki/Command-Line-Options

I'm really lost and have no idea how to use it for Foobar.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=845439

Thanks! I forgot to include -o %d - commands at the end!
I got it to work now!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
otonvm
post Sep 22 2013, 17:39
Post #441





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22-September 13
Member No.: 110241



Hello nu774, great job with this frontend, very easy to use.

But I cannot wrap my head around mixer matrices, I never could...

I'm currently using a ffmpeg->sox->qaac pipe to downmix 5.1 to DPL2 2.0 audio. By using flac as an input format I could remove all the other utilities.
In sox I'm using this for remix:
CODE
1v0.2646,3v0.1870,4v0.1870,5v0.2991,6v0.1323 2v0.2646,3v0.1870,4v0.1870,5v-0.1323,6v-0.2291


Is this the correct translation to be used with matrix-file?
CODE
0.2646 0 0.1870 0.1870 0.2991 0.1323
0 0.2646 0.1870 0.1870 -0.1323 -0.2291
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 22 2013, 19:05
Post #442





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (otonvm @ Sep 23 2013, 01:39) *
In sox I'm using this for remix:
CODE
1v0.2646,3v0.1870,4v0.1870,5v0.2991,6v0.1323 2v0.2646,3v0.1870,4v0.1870,5v-0.1323,6v-0.2291


Is this the correct translation to be used with matrix-file?
CODE
0.2646 0 0.1870 0.1870 0.2991 0.1323
0 0.2646 0.1870 0.1870 -0.1323 -0.2291

Looks ok in that it's equivalent to the sox remix option you are using.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
otonvm
post Sep 22 2013, 19:20
Post #443





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22-September 13
Member No.: 110241



QUOTE (nu774 @ Sep 22 2013, 20:05) *
Looks ok in that it's equivalent to the sox remix option you are using.


Ok thanks!
What about this:
I took the values from this page: Wikipedia: Dolby Pro Logic and converted them to this:
CODE
1 0 0.7071 0 -0.8718j -0.4899j
0 1 0.7071 0 0.4899j 0.8718j


EDIT:
Aaaand of course those are the values you use in your wiki. smile.gif

Thanks again for the prompt answer any your work.

This post has been edited by otonvm: Sep 22 2013, 19:27
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 22 2013, 19:58
Post #444





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (otonvm @ Sep 23 2013, 03:20) *
CODE
1 0 0.7071 0 -0.8718j -0.4899j
0 1 0.7071 0 0.4899j 0.8718j

That will work, but it's actually taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic.
As is written in Sox document, 90 deg phase shift (hilbert transform) has a bandpass characteristic, and it's far more complex than simple 180 degree phase shift you are using.
Although I cited from the wiki, I don't know if it's actually worth doing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
otonvm
post Sep 22 2013, 20:45
Post #445





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22-September 13
Member No.: 110241



QUOTE (nu774 @ Sep 22 2013, 20:58) *
QUOTE (otonvm @ Sep 23 2013, 03:20) *
CODE
1 0 0.7071 0 -0.8718j -0.4899j
0 1 0.7071 0 0.4899j 0.8718j

That will work, but it's actually taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic.
As is written in Sox document, 90 deg phase shift (hilbert transform) has a bandpass characteristic, and it's far more complex than simple 180 degree phase shift you are using.
Although I cited from the wiki, I don't know if it's actually worth doing.


Right... I really don't understand this but it sounds ok, L and R seem to be in balance overall. Why not "worth doing"? Computationally? More complex?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 23 2013, 02:09
Post #446





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (otonvm @ Sep 23 2013, 04:45) *
Computationally? More complex?

Yes, computationally more complex, and it's not exact / lossless transform like 180 degree phase shift. Highs/lows will be attenuated to a certain degree, because it acts like a bandpass filter.
Channel separation may be better when heard using DPL2 system, but I don't know. I'm not very familiar with surround audio.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
otonvm
post Sep 23 2013, 21:30
Post #447





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22-September 13
Member No.: 110241



OK I did some research and it seems that the later matrix has been accepted as the closest to what the spec probably looks like and I think it's what has been implemented in most tools today.

The only point of contention remains the phase shift. It looks like if it's used then a proper DPL2 decoder can rebuild the original channels back but it's also relative to how the recording has been done in the first place.

I have tried a manual encode from single channels with a "reference" encoder and I think this matrix sounds almost identical to that.

Again thanks for your work!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nu774
post Sep 24 2013, 02:16
Post #448





Group: Developer
Posts: 477
Joined: 22-November 10
From: Japan
Member No.: 85902



QUOTE (otonvm @ Sep 24 2013, 05:30) *
OK I did some research and it seems that the later matrix has been accepted as the closest to what the spec probably looks like and I think it's what has been implemented in most tools today.

"the latter matrix" = 90 degree phase shift version on the wiki ?

QUOTE
I have tried a manual encode from single channels with a "reference" encoder and I think this matrix sounds almost identical to that.

Nice to hear that smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
otonvm
post Sep 24 2013, 07:13
Post #449





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 22-September 13
Member No.: 110241



QUOTE (nu774 @ Sep 24 2013, 03:16) *
"the latter matrix" = 90 degree phase shift version on the wiki?

Yes, that one.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 28 2013, 22:34
Post #450





Group: Members
Posts: 886
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



nu774, why don't you pack libsoxr in the same zip as qaac? Not that it so hard to unpack two zip files but it would be just one more reason that people don't forget to use it instead of libsoxrate. I guess you can use for other applications, better to stay apart.

This post has been edited by eahm: Sep 28 2013, 22:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

25 Pages V  « < 16 17 18 19 20 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd April 2014 - 12:27