IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

lossyWAV 1.1.0 Development Thread., Added noise WAV bit reduction method.
Nick.C
post May 14 2008, 10:24
Post #1


lossyWAV Developer


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



Following the release of lossyWAV 1.0.0b, I feel it is time to kick off development of the next minor release.

Items currently on the list for inclusion in 1.x.0:

1.1.0: STDIN input;
1.1.0: STDOUT output;
1.1.0: Channel independent bit removal;
1.1.0: Reversion to same bits-to-remove for all channels;
1.1.0: Noise shaping;
1.2.0: Checking of S (=L-R) channel for matrix surround content;

If you have any ideas, suggestions, code optimisations, etc, please post them here.
CODE
lossyWAV 1.1.0b, Copyright (C) 2007,2008 Nick Currie. Copyleft.

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later
version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with
this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Process Description:

lossyWAV adds white noise to the processed output. The amount of added noise is
based on analysis of the signal levels in the frequency range 20Hz to 16kHz.

If signals above the upper limiting frequency are at an even lower level, they
can be swamped by the added noise. This is usually inaudible, but the behaviour
can be changed by specifying a higher --limit (in the range 16kHz to 20kHz).

For many audio signals, there is little content at very high frequencies, and
forcing lossyWAV to keep the added noise level lower than the content at these
frequencies can increase the bitrate dramatically for no perceptible benefit.

Usage   : lossyWAV <input wav file> <options>

Example : lossyWAV musicfile.wav

Quality Options:

-I, --insane        highest quality output, suitable for transcoding;
-E, --extreme       high quality output, also suitable for transcoding;
-S, --standard      default quality output, considered to be transparent;
-P, --portable      good quality output for DAP use. Not considered to be fully
                    transparent, but considered fit for its intended purpose.

Standard Options:

-c, --check         check if WAV file has already been processed; default=off.
                    errorlevel=16 if already processed, 0 if not.
-C, --correction    write correction file for processed WAV file; default=off.
-f, --force         forcibly over-write output file if it exists; default=off.
-h, --help          display help.
-L, --longhelp      display extended help.
-M, --merge         merge existing lossy.wav and lwcdf.wav files.
-o, --outdir <t>    destination directory for the output file(s).
-v, --version       display the lossyWAV version number.

Advanced Options:

-                   if filename="-" then WAV input is taken from STDIN.
    --blockdist     show distribution of lowest significant bit of input
                    codec-blocks and bit-removed codec-blocks.
-D, --dither <n>    enable variable PDF dither of output; default=off;
                    0 = rectangular; 1 = triangular; 0.5 = half way between.
-l, --limit <n>     set upper frequency limit to be used in analyses to n Hz;
                    (16000<=n<=20000), default = 16000.
    --linkchannels  Revert to original single bits-to-remove value for all
                    channels rather than channel dependent bits-to-remove.
-q, --quality <n>   quality preset (10=highest quality, 0=lowest bitrate;
                    default = --standard = 5; --insane = 10; --extreme = 7.5;
                    --portable = 2.5)
    --sampledist    show distribution of lowest significant bit of input
                    samples and bit-removed samples.
    --scale <n>     scaling factor from WaveGain, etc; (0.0<n<=8.0),default=1.0
-s, --shaping <n>   enable fixed noise shaping; (0.00<=n<=1.00); default=q/10;
                    0.00 = off, 1.00 = 100% effectiveness, 0.50 = 50%, etc.
    --stdinname <t> pseudo filename to use when input from STDIN.
    --stdout        write processed WAV output to STDOUT.
-w, --writetolog    create (or append to) lossyWAV.log in the output directory.

System Options:

-B, --below         set process priority to below normal.
-d, --detail        enable detailed bits-to-remove information output mode
    --low           set process priority to low.
-n, --nowarnings    suppress lossyWAV warnings.
-Q, --quiet         significantly reduce screen output.
    --silent        no screen output.

Special thanks:

David Robinson      for the publication of his lossyFLAC method, guidance, and
                    the motivation to implement the method as lossyWAV.
Horst Albrecht      for ABX testing, valuable support in tuning the internal
                    presets, constructive criticism and all the feedback.
Sebastian Gesemann  for the noise shaping coefficients and help in using them
                    in the lossyWAV noise shaping implementation.
Don Cross           for the Complex-FFT algorithm used.

Link to the hydrogenaudio wiki article

Suggested foobar2000 converter setup:

lossyFLAC:
CODE
Encoder: c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe
Extension: lossy.flac
Parameters: /d /c c:\"program files"\bin\lossywav - --standard --silent --stdout|c:\"program files"\bin\flac - -b 512 -5 -f -o%d
Format is: lossless or hybrid
Highest BPS mode supported: 24
lossyTAK:
CODE
Encoder: c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe
Extension: lossy.tak
Parameters: /d /c c:\"program files"\bin\lossywav - --standard --silent --stdout|c:\"program files"\bin\takc -e -p2m -fsl512 -ihs - %d
Format is: lossless or hybrid
Highest BPS mode supported: 24
lossyWV:
CODE
Encoder: c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe
Extension: lossy.wv
Parameters: /d /c c:\"program files"\bin\lossywav - --standard --silent --stdout|c:\"program files"\bin\wavpack -hm --blocksize=512 --merge-blocks -i - %d
Format is: lossless or hybrid
Highest BPS mode supported: 24

There is a known problem within foobar2000 (although more likely to do with cmd.exe itself) when running an executable within the cmd.exe command line from a path which includes spaces. The suggested fix for this is to enclose the element of the path which contains spaces within double quotation marks ("), e.g. c:\"program files"\directory_where_executable_is\executable_name

Change log 1.1.0c: 30/04/2009
Exactly as 1.1.0b except that the WINE incompatibility issue has been fixed.

Executable here.
Source here.

Change log 1.1.0b: 03/08/08
FFT lengths will now increase for higher bitrate audio, i.e. 88.2/96kHz, 176.4/192kHz and 352.8/384kHz;
improved logfile output and --detail output;
reference threshold constants for rectangular dither and triangular dither have been calculated so added noise should be the same for dither off and any dither level between 0 and 1 - the number of bits-to-remove will however reduce with "increasing" dither.

Change log 1.1.0: 12/07/08
Certain advanced parameters removed for final release.

Change log 1.0.1x RC4: 12/07/08
Final release candidate prior to release of 1.1.0

Change log 1.0.1w RC3: 02/07/08
Code tidied up a bit more (yet again....);
--wine parameter modified to stop the program using Windows API function calls when using piped input (should hopefully stop crashing under Wine).

Change log 1.0.1v RC2: 30/06/08
Code tidied up a bit more (again....);
--wine parameter implemented to stop the program using the GetLastError Windows API call when using piped input (should stop crashing under Wine).

Change log 1.0.1u RC1: 20/06/08
Code tidied up a bit more;
--bitdist parameter introduced to allow user to "examine" the distribution of lowest set bit on a codec-block by codec-block basis, channels treated separately.

Change log beta 1.0.1t: 11/06/08
Revision to STDIN handling - bug found where last codec-block read from foobar2000 using STDIN input was not being written to the output file.

Change log beta 1.0.1s: 09/06/08
Revision to STDIN handling. Now (fingers crossed) should work successfully inside Foobar2000;
Code and help tidied up;
Dither function fixed and augmented. Taking on board a statement by SG with respect to using a dither function somewhere between rectangular (rand - 0.5) and triangular (rand-0.5)+(rand-0.5), i.e. (rand-0.5)+s*(rand-0.5) {0<=s<=1}. s=0 = rectangular dither; s=1 = triangular dither. -D, --dither now requires a supplementary <n> in the range 0<=n<=1.

Change log beta 1.0.1r: 03/06/08
Implementation of fast square root function using lookup tables for fxtract(ed) exponent and mantissa of input value;
--scale parameter corrected to accepted values in the range 0<n<=8.

Change log beta 1.0.1q: 30/05/08
Codec-block overflow bug (when codec-block-size=4096) corrected;

Change log beta 1.0.1p: 29/05/08
Quality synonym automatic noise shaping bug corrected;

Change log beta 1.0.1o: 29/05/08
Spreading function spread-zones and spreading-function string modified to allow finer control of high frequency zones;
Code "recovered" from 1.0.1e after a minor hardware failure blush.gif

Change log beta 1.0.1n: 26/05/08
Implementation of -H, --highskew <n> parameter. Functionally identical to the internal skewing applied to the FFT results (-36dB @ 20Hz to 0dB at 3.45kHz) except applied from 3.45kHz upwards. Valid in the range 0 to 36 (0=default=no high skew applied).

Change log beta 1.0.1m: 25/05/08
reintroduction of max-inter-block-change implementation limits increase in bits-to-remove between codec-blocks to 1 bit.

Change log beta 1.0.1k: 23/05/08
static maximum_bits_to_remove limitation re-applied in serial with dynamic maximum_bits_to_remove limitation;
Automatic noise shaping now applied using a shaping-factor of quality-level / 10.

Change log beta 1.0.1j: 23/05/08
-q <n> quality selection moved to advanced settings;
-E, --excessive changed to --extreme; -I, --insane added, equivalent to -q 10;
--lowpass changed to -l, --limit in keeping with discussion;
Process Description text added to --longhelp.

Change log beta 1.0.1i: 23/05/08
-q <n> quality selection moved to advanced settings;
-E, --excessive; -N, --normal; -P, --portable quality "names" introduced following discussion in the development thread. These equate to -q 7.5; -q 5.0 and -q 2.5 respectively.

Change log beta 1.0.1h: 20/05/08
minimum bits to keep values changed for -q 0 and -q 1 to 2.333 and 2.667 respectively.

Change log beta 1.0.1g: 22/05/08
Reference_threshold > threshold_index > bits_to_remove calculation refined;
spreading function string modified;
minimum bits to keep values changed for -q 0 and -q 1;
--writetolog (-w) parameter implemented to write minimal output to "lossyWAV.log". Appends to existing file if already exists;
--lowpass <n> parameter re-implemented to allow users to set upper frequency limit of the range that lossyWAV uses in its analyses (16000<=n<=24000).

Change log beta 1.0.1f: 20/05/08
Filenaming logic "improved" when STDIN and STDOUT used together.

Change log beta 1.0.1e: 19/05/08
STDIN / STDOUT mode tidied up. Use the following as a flossy.bat file for foobar conversion:
CODE
@echo off
z:\bin\lossyWAV %1 --low --nowarnings --quiet %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 --stdout|z:\bin\flac - -5 -f -b 512 -o%2
Unfortunately, due to the nature of piped input to FLAC, the lossyWAV 'fact' chunk is lost. This means no record is kept within the file that is has been processed with lossyWAV (however, the lower the quality setting of the processing, the more likely the bitrate will be an obvious indicator that the file has indeed been processed with lossyWAV);
Minor error found and amended in revised remove_bits procedure, no minimum_bits_to_keep value was being applied, although this has little impact at -q >= 2;
New parameter --linkchannels implemented to revert to old remove_bits method whereby all channels share the same bits_to_remove. Implementing this, I found an error in the original which was forcing more bits to be lost to clipping prevention than should have been (i.e. output was more conservative).

Change log beta 1.0.1d: 18/05/08
STDIN / STDOUT mode modified again (use '-' as a filename to enable STDIN input, --stdout to enable STDOUT output).
Console output has been redirected to 'con', rather than STDOUT.

Change log beta 1.0.1c: 16/05/08
STDIN / STDOUT mode modified again (use '-' as a filename to enable STDIN input).

Change log beta 1.0.1b: 15/05/08
Channel independent bit-removal implemented;
STDIN / STDOUT mode modified - still very much a work in progress.

Change log beta 1.0.1: 14/05/08
STDIN / STDOUT mode commenced.


This post has been edited by Nick.C: May 14 2009, 13:10


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
halb27
post May 16 2008, 21:32
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Looking for a very high quality substitute for lossless archiving I ended up with v1.0.1b -q 7.0 --shaping 1.0.
Yields a bitrate of 528 kbps on average with my regular track set, which is 34 kbps more than when not using --shaping. But listening to the correction file noise is so much less audible when using noise shaping that it's worth spending this extra bitrate.
Bitrate difference is higher for lower quality settings as I noticed before: with v1.0.1b -q 5.5 using --shaping 1.0 or not makes up for a difference of 46 kbps with my regular track set.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 16 2008, 21:34


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 16 2008, 21:42
Post #3


lossyWAV Developer


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



QUOTE (halb27 @ May 16 2008, 21:32) *
Looking for a very high quality substitute for lossless archiving I ended up with v1.0.1b -q 7.0 --shaping 1.0.
Yields a bitrate of 528 kbps on average with my regular track set, which is 34 kbps more than when not using --shaping. But listening to the correction file noise is so much less audible when using noise shaping that it's worth spending this extra bitrate.
Bitrate difference is higher for lower quality settings as I noticed before: with v1.0.1b -q 5.5 using --shaping 1.0 or not makes up for a difference of 46 kbps with my regular track set.
I take it from that that you are content with the bit-removal process being channel dependent rather than the lowest of all channel bits-to-remove? In my listening to the results of the revised bit-removal, I am content with the results, also with the improved efficiency when losslessly encoded.

I am still working on the STDIN and STDOUT processes. At present lossyWAV beta 1.0.1c can output raw audio to FLAC and have it correctly encoded (using lossywav wavfilename.wav --stdout | flac - -5 -b 512 --bps 16 --channels 2 --sample-rate 44100 --sign signed --endian little -f -o"wavfilename.lossy.flac"). It can take input through STDIN, (i.e. lossywav - <wavfilename.wav) and will output "lossyWAV.lossy.wav".

I am having difficulty piping FLAC --stdout output or foobar2000 converter output into lossywav - I cannot find any documentation which details the transfer format for foobar2000. [edit] Using "flac -d wavfilename.flac --stdout|lossywav - -q 0" I got a lossywav processed file lossywav.lossy.wav - when encoded with FLAC it seems to have worked. However, a double pipe will not (yet, if ever) work. [/edit]

lossyWAV beta 1.0.1c attached to post #1 in this thread.

NB: using STDIN (filename='-') is only working if the --nochunksin parameter is NOT specified. At present using both in combination will cause the program to crash. This release specifically made to see of collector's crash issue has been resolved....

This post has been edited by Nick.C: May 16 2008, 22:20


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
collector
post May 17 2008, 10:23
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 2-July 04
Member No.: 15029



QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 16 2008, 12:42) *
This release specifically made to see of collector's crash issue has been resolved....

Sorry, no changes. It still doesn't run.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 17 2008, 15:28
Post #5


lossyWAV Developer


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



QUOTE (collector @ May 17 2008, 10:23) *
QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 16 2008, 12:42) *
This release specifically made to see of collector's crash issue has been resolved....
Sorry, no changes. It still doesn't run.
I'll get round to tracking the issue this evening - sorry for the delay!

QUOTE (halb27 @ May 17 2008, 15:26) *
Nothing new, just an observation for those who like to use lossyWAV in extremely high quality mode like me:
I tried v1.0.1b -q 7.0 --shaping 0.5 (instead of --shaping 1.0 which I did before).
This yields a bitrate of 503 kbps on average with my regular track set which is only 9 kbps more than when not using --shaping. That's more or less for free, and noise is still so much in the HF region that the most important frequency range of the fundamentals is more or less free of noise, and the overall noise perception when listening to the correction file is very low usually.
So I think this rather simple noise shaping which we have already is very favorable when using high quality settings.
As is known with low quality settings things are different: average bitrate when using -q 1.5 goes up from 312 kbps to 342 kbps when using --shaping 0.5.
Sounds good - it could even be a standard part of the preset, i.e. quality_noise_shaping_factor : array[0..Quality_Presets] of double = (0,0,0,0.1,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1);

This post has been edited by Nick.C: May 17 2008, 15:33


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 17 2008, 19:00
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 17 2008, 16:28) *
Sounds good - it could even be a standard part of the preset, i.e. quality_noise_shaping_factor : array[0..Quality_Presets] of double = (0,0,0,0.1,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1);

I thank you very much for having implemented noiseshaping as I really like it at something like -q 7.0.
I'm not sure however with quality settings that aren't so high whether it's safe to use and which way to use.
One sorrow for instance: with a weak noise shift like 0.1: isn't there a risk that noise level is increased in the area around 6 kHz where we're very sensitive towards noise? Another one: roughly speaking the quality assuring machinery controls SNR in various ways, but isn't the SNR of certain frequency regions made worse by shaping the noise?
With -q 7.0 --shaping 0.5 I feel pretty safe as I think a) --shaping 0.5 shifts noise for the most part pretty much beyond 6 kHz, and b) with -q 7.0 there's a security margin that I expect to cover a certain decrease in HF SNR due to noise shifting.

With this understanding - hope it's correct - I would prefer not to default to current noise shifting other than with high quality settings.
With high quality settings >= 7.0 however it does make sense to me: something like --shaping 0.5 for -q 7.0, --shaping 0.6 for -q 8.0, --shaping 0.7 for -q 9.0, --shaping 0.8 for -q 10.0 (the exact details being a matter of taste).
The current noiseshaping may be favorable also for low bitrate (I listened to -q 1.5 --shaping 0.5 and was very content), but may be it's wise to leave it up to the user and not default to it.

This post has been edited by halb27: May 17 2008, 19:08


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
botface
post May 17 2008, 19:20
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: 14-January 08
Member No.: 50483



QUOTE (halb27 @ May 17 2008, 19:00) *
QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 17 2008, 16:28) *

Sounds good - it could even be a standard part of the preset, i.e. quality_noise_shaping_factor : array[0..Quality_Presets] of double = (0,0,0,0.1,0.3,0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9,1);

I thank you very much for having implemented noiseshaping as I really like it at something like -q 7.0.
I'm not sure however with quality settings that aren't so high whether it's safe to use and which way to use.
One sorrow for instance: with a weak noise shift like 0.1: isn't there a risk that noise level is increased in the area around 6 kHz where we're very sensitive towards noise? Another one: roughly speaking the quality assuring machinery controls SNR in various ways, but isn't the SNR of certain frequency regions made worse by shaping the noise?
With -q 7.0 --shaping 0.5 I feel pretty safe as I think a) --shaping 0.5 shifts noise for the most part pretty much beyond 6 kHz, and b) with -q 7.0 there's a security margin that I expect to cover a certain decrease in HF SNR due to noise shifting.

With this understanding - hope it's correct - I would prefer not to default to current noise shifting other than with high quality settings.
With high quality settings >= 7.0 however it does make sense to me: something like --shaping 0.5 for -q 7.0, --shaping 0.6 for -q 8.0, --shaping 0.7 for -q 9.0, --shaping 0.8 for -q 10.0 (the exact details being a matter of taste).
The current noiseshaping may be favorable also for low bitrate (I listened to -q 1.5 --shaping 0.5 and was very content), but may be it's wise to leave it up to the user and not default to it.

I have no knowledge of how the noise shaping is done in LossyWAV but if you have any control over it surely it should be possible to ensure that any noise is always shifted well out of harm's way
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post May 17 2008, 19:32
Post #8


lossyWAV Developer


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



QUOTE (botface @ May 17 2008, 19:20) *
I have no knowledge of how the noise shaping is done in LossyWAV but if you have any control over it surely it should be possible to ensure that any noise is always shifted well out of harm's way
lossyWAV uses SebastianG's noise shaping method for 44.1kHz and 48kHz with thanks.

Speaking about it with SG, using any "factor" applied to the coefficients (factor to the power of (the coefficient index -1)) will work for any value of factor in the range 0.0 to 1.0. In this way I presume that even using 0.1 will tend to move some of the white noise added by the lossyWAV bit reduction method into the high frequency area.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SebastianG
post May 17 2008, 20:22
Post #9





Group: Developer
Posts: 1317
Joined: 20-March 04
From: Göttingen (DE)
Member No.: 12875



QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 17 2008, 20:32) *
[...] using any "factor" applied to the coefficients (factor to the power of (the coefficient index -1)) will work for any value of factor in the range 0.0 to 1.0. In this way I presume that even using 0.1 will tend to move some of the white noise added by the lossyWAV bit reduction method into the high frequency area.

Yes. This is a simple trick you can do with minimum phase filters. The "factor" actually scales the poles and zeros of the filter's transfer function. As they move closer to the origin (factor going from 1.0 down to 0.0) the filter's response becomes more and more flat. Setting this parameter to 0.0 is equivalent to disabling noise shaping.

I'm currently trying to get something fancier to work: Adaptive filters that quickly respond well to what the psychoacoustic model "decides" to be irrelevant.

Cheers,
SG
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Nick.C   lossyWAV 1.1.0 Development Thread.   May 14 2008, 10:24
- - Nick.C   I've been playing with STDIN / STDOUT. Setting...   May 14 2008, 13:02
- - SebastianG   I'm currently toying around with "frequen...   May 14 2008, 15:23
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (SebastianG @ May 14 2008, 15:23) I...   May 14 2008, 18:25
- - PatchWorKs   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 14 2008, 11:24) If yo...   May 15 2008, 10:18
|- - halb27   QUOTE (PatchWorKs @ May 15 2008, 11:18) W...   May 15 2008, 10:27
- - Nick.C   I've had another look at the FLAC format speci...   May 15 2008, 13:59
- - SebastianG   Also, the quantization/dithering part could be don...   May 15 2008, 14:45
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (SebastianG @ May 15 2008, 14:45) A...   May 15 2008, 19:26
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 15 2008, 20:26) ... I...   May 15 2008, 20:17
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 15 2008, 20:17) QUOTE...   May 15 2008, 20:24
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 15 2008, 21:24) ... I...   May 15 2008, 21:43
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 15 2008, 21:43) Very ...   May 15 2008, 21:55
- - 2Bdecided   This is brilliant. If you look at the early MATLAB...   May 16 2008, 11:38
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 16 2008, 11:38) Th...   May 16 2008, 12:34
||- - collector   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 16 2008, 03:34) How a...   May 16 2008, 13:11
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 16 2008, 12:38) Wh...   May 16 2008, 15:29
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ May 16 2008, 15:29) QU...   May 16 2008, 16:25
|- - 2Bdecided   I've attached an example. a..._MS_done.flac is...   May 16 2008, 16:41
|- - shadowking   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 17 2008, 01:41) .....   May 20 2008, 14:13
- - collector   Nick, beta v1.0.1b is the first release that doesn...   May 16 2008, 11:42
- - halb27   Looking for a very high quality substitute for los...   May 16 2008, 21:32
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 16 2008, 21:32) Looki...   May 16 2008, 21:42
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 16 2008, 22:42) I tak...   May 16 2008, 23:29
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 16 2008, 23:29) Yes, ...   May 17 2008, 09:04
|- - collector   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 16 2008, 12:42) This ...   May 17 2008, 10:23
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (collector @ May 17 2008, 10:23) QU...   May 17 2008, 15:28
||- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 17 2008, 16:28) Sound...   May 17 2008, 19:00
||- - botface   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 17 2008, 19:00) QUOTE...   May 17 2008, 19:20
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (botface @ May 17 2008, 19:20) I ha...   May 17 2008, 19:32
||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 17 2008, 20:32) [...]...   May 17 2008, 20:22
|- - GeSomeone   QUOTE Change log 1.0.1d: 18/05/08 Console output h...   May 20 2008, 22:46
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (GeSomeone @ May 20 2008, 22:46) QU...   May 20 2008, 23:00
- - halb27   Nothing new, just an observation for those who lik...   May 17 2008, 15:26
- - Nick.C   There has been a request for a DLL of lossyWAV. I ...   May 18 2008, 21:11
- - Nick.C   lossyWAV beta 1.0.1d attached to post #1 in this t...   May 18 2008, 22:17
|- - collector   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 18 2008, 13:17) lossy...   May 18 2008, 23:19
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (collector @ May 18 2008, 23:19) QU...   May 19 2008, 06:33
- - Nick.C   lossyWAV beta 1.0.1f attached to post #1 in this t...   May 19 2008, 21:51
|- - collector   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 19 2008, 12:51) lossy...   May 20 2008, 12:43
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (collector @ May 20 2008, 12:43) QU...   May 20 2008, 13:20
- - Mardel   Lossywav why cant work with *.wav??? (lossywav *.w...   May 20 2008, 17:43
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Mardel @ May 20 2008, 17:43) Lossy...   May 20 2008, 17:48
|- - Mardel   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 20 2008, 18:48) CODE@...   May 20 2008, 18:00
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Mardel @ May 20 2008, 18:00) QUOTE...   May 20 2008, 18:09
- - Mardel   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 20 2008, 19:09) I wou...   May 20 2008, 23:02
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Mardel @ May 20 2008, 23:02) QUOTE...   May 20 2008, 23:12
|- - Josef Pohm   After a short session, it looks that TAK, FLAC, LP...   May 21 2008, 11:05
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Josef Pohm @ May 21 2008, 11:05) A...   May 21 2008, 12:08
- - SebastianG   It just occured to me that in case of varying ...   May 21 2008, 12:55
- - Nick.C   I've been thinking about the difference betwee...   May 21 2008, 13:46
- - halb27   I think that' s very natural and shows that yo...   May 21 2008, 14:44
- - Mardel   There is a somthing up. I'm hearing heavily di...   May 21 2008, 18:27
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (Mardel @ May 21 2008, 18:27) There...   May 21 2008, 18:40
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 21 2008, 19:40) QUOTE...   May 21 2008, 19:29
- - sauvage78   I confirm, I can hear it too sec 01, sec 07 & ...   May 21 2008, 19:19
- - Mardel   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 21 2008, 19:40) QUOTE...   May 21 2008, 19:43
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Mardel @ May 21 2008, 20:43) ... T...   May 21 2008, 19:47
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 21 2008, 19:47) QUOTE...   May 21 2008, 19:56
- - sauvage78   tried quickly v1.0.1f -q 1.5, the artefact is much...   May 21 2008, 19:50
|- - halb27   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 21 2008, 20:50) tr...   May 21 2008, 20:11
- - sauvage78   I agree with halb27, I have spend the last 20 min ...   May 21 2008, 20:46
|- - halb27   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 21 2008, 21:46) I ...   May 21 2008, 21:03
- - sauvage78   Sorry, I just edited that I wouldn't test -q 2...   May 21 2008, 21:10
|- - halb27   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 21 2008, 22:10) So...   May 21 2008, 21:12
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 21 2008, 21:10) So...   May 21 2008, 21:13
- - Nick.C   I've been thinking about -q 0 and 1 ("my...   May 22 2008, 08:54
|- - Mardel   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 22 2008, 09:54) I hav...   May 22 2008, 10:53
- - sauvage78   This morning I tested the problem sample at V1.0.1...   May 22 2008, 09:45
- - sauvage78   I can ABX -q 2 too but it takes 23min with a pause...   May 22 2008, 10:41
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 22 2008, 10:41) I ...   May 22 2008, 10:58
- - 2Bdecided   Would it be rude to request a reality check here? ...   May 22 2008, 11:33
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 22 2008, 11:33) Wo...   May 22 2008, 12:04
||- - collector   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 22 2008, 03:04) At pr...   May 22 2008, 19:07
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (collector @ May 22 2008, 19:07) QU...   May 22 2008, 19:28
|- - halb27   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ May 22 2008, 12:33) .....   May 22 2008, 19:50
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (halb27 @ May 22 2008, 19:50) QUOTE...   May 22 2008, 20:13
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 22 2008, 21:13) 1.0.1...   May 22 2008, 20:33
- - collector   CODE-s, --scale <n> scaling factor from W...   May 22 2008, 11:38
- - 2Bdecided   If you wavegain at more than unity, you can introd...   May 22 2008, 12:07
- - sauvage78   V1.0.1g -q 0 Vs. Original foo_abx 1.3.3 report f...   May 22 2008, 12:10
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 22 2008, 12:10) Fo...   May 22 2008, 12:27
- - lvqcl   With this sample and -q 0 setting, it looks like l...   May 22 2008, 18:56
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (lvqcl @ May 22 2008, 18:56) With t...   May 22 2008, 20:34
- - sauvage78   halb27: you're right -q 2 was near transparent...   May 22 2008, 20:55
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 22 2008, 20:55) ha...   May 22 2008, 21:32
||- - lvqcl   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 23 2008, 00:32) The i...   May 22 2008, 22:57
||- - Nick.C   QUOTE (lvqcl @ May 22 2008, 22:57) QUOTE ...   May 22 2008, 23:02
||- - lvqcl   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 23 2008, 02:02) How l...   May 22 2008, 23:57
|- - halb27   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 22 2008, 21:55) .....   May 22 2008, 21:34
- - sauvage78   I may look dumb, but with my little knowledge it s...   May 22 2008, 22:06
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 22 2008, 22:06) I ...   May 22 2008, 22:17
- - shadowking   Maye we should add a sticky somewhere. Inexperienc...   May 23 2008, 02:05
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (shadowking @ May 23 2008, 02:05) M...   May 23 2008, 06:40
- - shadowking   I had another idea: create a few 'presets...   May 23 2008, 08:21
|- - Nick.C   QUOTE (shadowking @ May 23 2008, 08:21) I...   May 23 2008, 08:34
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Nick.C @ May 23 2008, 09:34) QUOTE...   May 23 2008, 08:57
- - sauvage78   That's exactly what I was suggesting, except t...   May 23 2008, 09:07
- - halb27   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 23 2008, 10:07) .....   May 23 2008, 09:36
- - halb27   QUOTE (sauvage78 @ May 23 2008, 10:07) .....   May 23 2008, 09:46
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >


Closed 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 - 15:40