IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
lossyWAV 1.3.0 Delphi to C++ Translation Thread, Added noise linear PCM bitdepth reduction method.
Nick.C
post Dec 16 2012, 23:11
Post #76


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



Got sidetracked again - I'm going to add an option to convert any valid input audio (9-bit to 32-bit signed integer) to Float16, with or without adaptive / fixed noise-shaping. This will require the same messing about with the WAV handling code that I had to do for TransPCM. ETA is sometime early in the new year.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atak_Snajpera
post Jan 3 2013, 16:44
Post #77





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 16-August 12
Member No.: 102388



any progress on lossywav?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 3 2013, 23:28
Post #78


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



Still working on it, still distracted by the Elite: Dangerous KickStarter....


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FreaqyFrequency
post Jan 7 2013, 18:17
Post #79





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 4-October 11
From: VA Beach, VA
Member No.: 94145



I've been experimenting with various compression levels in FLAC and -q X, and I've found that for certain tracks, -0 compresses much more efficiently than higher levels, and is practically equivalent with at least one of the tracks I tested at -8. Extraportable combined with -0 might very well make for the most overall efficient decode combination ever. Exciting stuff.


--------------------
FLAC -2 w/ lossyWAV 1.3.0i -q X -i
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 18 2013, 21:26
Post #80


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0g attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
FreaqyFrequency
post Jan 20 2013, 08:25
Post #81





Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 4-October 11
From: VA Beach, VA
Member No.: 94145



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Jan 18 2013, 15:26) *
lossyWAV beta 1.3.0g attached to post #1 in this thread.


Neat! I'm getting an average of 2 to 3 kbps reduction at level 0 compression for the material I've tested so far. It also seems to average faster processing than 1.3.0a, which is what I was using previously.


--------------------
FLAC -2 w/ lossyWAV 1.3.0i -q X -i
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 20 2013, 18:00
Post #82


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



QUOTE (FreaqyFrequency @ Jan 20 2013, 07:25) *
I'm getting an average of 2 to 3 kbps reduction at level 0 compression for the material I've tested so far.
I've carried out a FLAC settings comparison test (based on my 55 problem sample test set) and will post the results this evening.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 20 2013, 22:44
Post #83


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



I did a bit of testing with my 55 problem sample set (12:43.933 of audio) processed using "-q X" and got the following results:

CODE
+------------------+---------------------+
| FLAC | Relative |
| Encoder +----------+----------+
| Setting | Size | Time |
+------------------+----------+----------+
| -8 -m -r 8 -p | 97.66% | 2187% |
| -8 -r 8 -p | 97.66% | 2089% |
| -8 -e -r 8 -p | 97.66% | 2094% |
| -8 -e -m -r 8 -p | 97.66% | 2105% |
| -8 -e -p | 97.66% | 1599% |
| -8 -p | 97.66% | 1615% |
| -8 -m -p | 97.66% | 1616% |
| -8 -e -m -p | 97.66% | 1634% |
| -6 -e -m -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1689% |
| -7 -e -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1694% |
| -6 -e -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1695% |
| -7 -e -m -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1697% |
| -4 -e -m -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1701% |
| -7 -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1705% |
| -7 -m -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1710% |
| -5 -e -m -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1723% |
| -5 -e -r 8 -p | 98.06% | 1799% |
| -7 -e -p | 98.06% | 1215% |
| -6 -e -p | 98.06% | 1220% |
| -6 -e -m -p | 98.06% | 1222% |
| -7 -m -p | 98.06% | 1222% |
| -7 -e -m -p | 98.06% | 1224% |
| -7 -p | 98.06% | 1225% |
| -5 -e -p | 98.10% | 983% |
| -5 -e -m -p | 98.10% | 1020% |
| -4 -e -m -p | 98.18% | 825% |
| -8 -r 8 | 98.36% | 368% |
| -8 -m -r 8 | 98.36% | 370% |
| -8 -e -m -r 8 | 98.36% | 374% |
| -8 -e -r 8 | 98.36% | 379% |
| -8 -e -m | 98.36% | 249% |
| -8 -m | 98.36% | 249% |
| -8 | 98.36% | 250% |
| -8 -e | 98.36% | 250% |
| -3 -e -m -r 8 -p | 98.69% | 1449% |
| -6 -e -m -r 8 | 98.80% | 294% |
| -7 -e -r 8 | 98.80% | 295% |
| -7 -r 8 | 98.80% | 295% |
| -5 -e -r 8 | 98.80% | 296% |
| -7 -e -m -r 8 | 98.80% | 296% |
| -6 -e -r 8 | 98.80% | 296% |
| -4 -e -m -r 8 | 98.80% | 298% |
| -7 -m -r 8 | 98.80% | 298% |
| -5 -e -m -r 8 | 98.80% | 318% |
| -6 -e -m | 98.81% | 174% |
| -7 -e -m | 98.81% | 175% |
| -6 -e | 98.81% | 176% |
| -7 -m | 98.81% | 177% |
| -7 -e | 98.81% | 183% |
| -7 | 98.81% | 189% |
| -3 -e -m -p | 98.82% | 605% |
| -5 -e | 98.86% | 127% |
| -5 -e -m | 98.86% | 138% |
| -4 -e -m | 98.95% | 105% |
| -3 -e -m -r 8 | 99.40% | 261% |
| -6 -m -r 8 -p | 99.42% | 201% |
| -6 -r 8 -p | 99.42% | 205% |
| -5 -r 8 -p | 99.42% | 206% |
| -5 -m -r 8 -p | 99.42% | 209% |
| -4 -m -r 8 -p | 99.42% | 215% |
| -6 -m -p | 99.42% | 137% |
| -6 -p | 99.42% | 138% |
| -5 -m -p | 99.45% | 106% |
| -5 -p | 99.45% | 108% |
| -4 -m -p | 99.51% | 87% |
| -3 -e -m | 99.55% | 71% |
| -3 -m -r 8 -p | 99.86% | 209% |
| -3 -m -p | 99.95% | 88% |
| -6 -m -r 8 | 99.97% | 28% |
| -6 -r 8 | 99.97% | 31% |
| -5 -m -r 8 | 99.97% | 32% |
| -4 -m -r 8 | 99.97% | 33% |
| -5 -r 8 | 99.97% | 33% |
| -6 -m | 99.97% | 6% |
| -6 | 99.97% | 7% |
| -5 -m | 100.00% | -1% |
+------------------+----------+----------+
| -5 | 100.00% | 0% |
+------------------+----------+----------+
| -4 -m | 100.06% | -5% |
| -3 -m -r 8 | 100.44% | 27% |
| -3 -m | 100.52% | -9% |
| -3 -e -r 8 -p | 100.54% | 678% |
| -3 -e -p | 100.69% | 279% |
| -3 -e -r 8 | 101.28% | 102% |
| -3 -e | 101.45% | 9% |
| -3 -r 8 -p | 101.76% | 78% |
| -3 -p | 101.87% | 20% |
| -3 -r 8 | 102.37% | -15% |
| -3 | 102.48% | -30% |
| -4 -e -r 8 -p | 102.59% | 846% |
| -4 -e -p | 102.74% | 403% |
| -4 -e -r 8 | 103.33% | 130% |
| -4 -e | 103.50% | 28% |
| -4 -r 8 -p | 104.08% | 85% |
| -4 -p | 104.19% | 22% |
| -4 -r 8 | 104.64% | -8% |
| -4 | 104.76% | -28% |
| -2 -e -m -r 8 -p | 108.34% | 113% |
| 0 -e -m -r 8 -p | 108.34% | 114% |
| 0 -e -m -r 8 | 108.34% | 114% |
| -2 -e -m -r 8 | 108.34% | 115% |
| -1 -e -m -r 8 | 108.34% | 115% |
| -1 -e -m -r 8 -p | 108.34% | 117% |
| -2 -e -r 8 -p | 108.34% | 118% |
| -2 -e -r 8 | 108.34% | 119% |
| -2 -r 8 | 108.50% | -4% |
| 0 -m -r 8 -p | 108.50% | -3% |
| 0 -m -r 8 | 108.50% | -3% |
| -1 -m -r 8 -p | 108.50% | -2% |
| -2 -r 8 -p | 108.50% | -1% |
| -2 -m -r 8 | 108.50% | -1% |
| -1 -m -r 8 | 108.50% | 0% |
| -2 -m -r 8 -p | 108.50% | 5% |
| -2 -e -m -p | 108.65% | -2% |
| -2 -e -m | 108.65% | -1% |
| -1 -e -m -p | 108.65% | -1% |
| 0 -e -m -p | 108.65% | -1% |
| 0 -e -m | 108.65% | -1% |
| -1 -e -m | 108.65% | 2% |
| -2 -e -p | 108.65% | 5% |
| -2 -e | 108.65% | 7% |
| 0 -m | 108.71% | -28% |
| 0 -m -p | 108.71% | -28% |
| -1 -m | 108.71% | -27% |
| -2 -m -p | 108.71% | -27% |
| -2 | 108.71% | -27% |
| -2 -m | 108.71% | -25% |
| -2 -p | 108.71% | -23% |
| -1 -m -p | 108.71% | -21% |
| 0 -e -r 8 -p | 110.94% | 30% |
| 0 -e -r 8 | 110.94% | 35% |
| 0 -r 8 -p | 111.12% | -31% |
| 0 -r 8 | 111.12% | -28% |
| 0 -e | 111.29% | -29% |
| 0 -e -p | 111.29% | -25% |
| 0 -p | 111.37% | -41% |
| 0 | 111.37% | -34% |
| -1 -e -r 8 -p | 113.83% | 34% |
| -1 -e -r 8 | 113.83% | 44% |
| -1 -r 8 -p | 114.06% | -27% |
| -1 -r 8 | 114.06% | -24% |
| -1 -e -p | 114.18% | -20% |
| -1 -e | 114.18% | -19% |
| -1 -p | 114.31% | -39% |
| -1 | 114.31% | -38% |
+------------------+----------+----------+


This post has been edited by Nick.C: Jan 23 2013, 22:20


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 23 2013, 22:19
Post #84


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0h attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jan 30 2013, 23:20
Post #85


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0i attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Feb 8 2013, 22:31
Post #86


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0j attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cynic
post Feb 19 2013, 23:31
Post #87





Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 6-March 07
Member No.: 41244



What is the penalty (if any) for using the -i switch? Slower encoding, higher risk of artifacts, or both? For someone not that concerned with filsesize, is the new noise shaping routine preferable to the default?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Feb 20 2013, 22:03
Post #88


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



Hi Cynic,

The penalty is simply that the noise shaping is a bit more aggressive in trying to conform to the lossless audio spectrum. This saves about 1% of the resultant lossyFLAC size when compressed at --extraportable, less at higher quality levels.

I am currently working on a (very) simplistic psymodel based on masking using the Bark scale. This may be a wrong turn, but it is an option for both the classic method and the --interp-curve method of determining the basis shape of the noise spectrum.

Nick.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Banned
post Mar 2 2013, 21:20
Post #89





Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 12-January 13
Member No.: 105821



Out of curiousity, why does the distribution include a "gpl.txt" file? I thought it is for open source software.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Mar 3 2013, 17:33
Post #90


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



When v1.40 is released, the source will be as well in a similar manner to the previous versions.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Mar 8 2013, 21:27
Post #91


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0k attached to post #1 in this thread.

[edit] updated to beta 1.3.0k2 [/edit]
[edit2] updated to beta 1.3.0k3 [/edit2]

This post has been edited by Nick.C: Mar 8 2013, 22:26


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Mar 25 2013, 23:04
Post #92


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0m attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Mar 30 2013, 15:14
Post #93


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0n attached to post #1 in this thread.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post Mar 30 2013, 15:31
Post #94





Group: Developer
Posts: 1343
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



Thanks for your work. I'm looking forward to 1.3.0 final.


--------------------
caudec.net
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doccolinni
post May 26 2013, 03:04
Post #95





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 28-May 09
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Member No.: 70204



I may be late for the party, but regarding the internal FFT routines...

You might consider using FFTW's genfft to generate efficient FFT routine source code. genfft is a set of routines written in OCaml which generate C code for efficient FFT routines. For example, this is a C code for 128-sample MDCT generated with genfft. These were used to generate FFTW's FFT routines, and you can use it to generate the code for lossyWAV's internal FFT routines. You can download it from here. Contact fftw@fftw.org and I'm sure they'll gladly assist you with using it to generate code for lossyWAV.

This post has been edited by doccolinni: May 26 2013, 03:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
doccolinni
post May 26 2013, 05:43
Post #96





Group: Members
Posts: 172
Joined: 28-May 09
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Member No.: 70204



By the way, you can read more about genfft and why FFTW is fast here.

The best solution, however, is to not have a specified internal FFT routine, because ultimately its performance will be hardware-specific (better/worse on some hardware). You are better off completely relying on FFTW since it adapts itself to whatever hardware it's used on.

This post has been edited by doccolinni: May 26 2013, 05:47
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jun 11 2013, 19:34
Post #97


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



lossyWAV beta 1.3.0o attached to post #1 in this thread.

=============================================================

Hi doccolinni,

The internal FFT / IFFT routines are only used if the appropriate FFTW 32-bit DLL is not available to lossyWAV.

Nick.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atak_Snajpera
post Jun 12 2013, 23:13
Post #98





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 16-August 12
Member No.: 102388



does pipeing work with wave64 format? for example latest flac 1.3 -> lossywav -> latest flac 1.3

btw soon you will run out of alphabet wink.gif

This post has been edited by Atak_Snajpera: Jun 12 2013, 23:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Jun 13 2013, 07:16
Post #99


lossyWAV Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1772
Joined: 11-April 07
From: Wherever here is
Member No.: 42400



FLAC 1.3.0 > lossyWAV 1.3.0o > FLAC 1.3.0 works with --force-wave64-format in the first FLAC command.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atak_Snajpera
post Jun 13 2013, 12:33
Post #100





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 16-August 12
Member No.: 102388



Ok works like I charm smile.gif
I've encoded using pipes (FLAC -> lossywav -> FLAC) 2h:41m 6 channels avatar soundtrack without any problems.
Lossywav now really needs multithreading optimalization. Using internal algo it took 40 minutes to complete task on my Q6600@3Ghz. With proper multithreading this could be reduced to 12-14 minutes.

Btw What exactly .dll does lossywav need to use FFTW? libfftw3-3.dll , libfftw3f-3.dll or libfftw3l-3.dll ?

One more thing. You forgot to include pthreadGC2.dll in package.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
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: 16th April 2014 - 18:59