IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

27 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
lossyWAV 1.2.0 Development Thread, Added noise WAV bitdepth reduction method
Nick.C
post Sep 3 2008, 22:57
Post #26


lossyWAV Developer


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



Monkey's Audio does not make use of a "wasted-bits" feature as FLAC, TAK, Wavpack, WMA-Lossless, etc do. Therefore there is no space-saving benefit in using lossyWAV with Monkey's Audio, ALAC, etc.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krmathis
post Sep 4 2008, 16:13
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 742
Joined: 27-May 02
From: Oslo, Norway
Member No.: 2133



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Sep 2 2008, 15:27) *
I love the idea, I just don't have the development platforms or the experience to carry out the conversion.

Fair enough, especially the lack of experience part.
But regarding development platform I am quite sure all you need is a GNU/Linux distro with GCC, ...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Sep 4 2008, 16:25
Post #28


lossyWAV Developer


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



And a knowledge of C which I don't have - lossyWAV is Delphi & IA-32 assembler....


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Sep 4 2008, 19:34
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 1706
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



QUOTE (Nick.C @ Sep 4 2008, 17:25) *
And a knowledge of C which I don't have - lossyWAV is Delphi & IA-32 assembler....


http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/

I briefly tried it and one of the first problems is dealing with the "uses Windows" import.
But you should be able to workaround that.

If i've read it correctly, it runs in several platforms and *is able to crosscompile* (as in compiling in windows for linux).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Sep 4 2008, 22:20
Post #30


lossyWAV Developer


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



Thanks [JAZ], that's certainly worth a look - if it means that other platforms can be accessed simply by changing my compiler I'll give it a try!


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
servimo
post Sep 5 2008, 04:04
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 146
Joined: 8-April 07
Member No.: 42330



QUOTE
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
What happen if I use lossywav - --standard and flac -8 ? will I have more compression? and why not use it in this default config for foobar2000? if there is some problem.

I did some tests in a little file (an acoustic guitar flac file), this is what happen:

original file:
7.741.294 bytes bitrate 572kbps

lossywav - --standard flac -5:
5.722.908 bytes bitrate 423kbps

lossywav - --standard flac -8: (here I lose the tags(?)) don't know if I did something wrong here, but in the next conversion the tags are all there.
5.713.914 bytes bitrate 422kbps

lossywav - --insane flac -8: (the size is increased)
8.029.224 bytes bitrate 593kbps

This post has been edited by servimo: Sep 5 2008, 04:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sauvage78
post Sep 5 2008, 05:23
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 677
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 53282



servimo:
RTFM
-b 512


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
servimo
post Sep 5 2008, 06:04
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 146
Joined: 8-April 07
Member No.: 42330



I should have did it this way: FLAC -> WAV -> lossyFLAC
Is this?
Sorry smile.gif I didn't see it is a Development thread and there is others threads. I was just looking for some explanation about lossyWAV

This post has been edited by servimo: Sep 5 2008, 06:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Sep 5 2008, 08:19
Post #34


lossyWAV Developer


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



servimo, the foobar2000 settings work perfectly - if you're having problems, check the converter settings carefully. Please ensure that the "-b 512" remains in the flac element of the command line as this is what ensures optimal flac block length during encoding.

Alternatively, if you create a batch file containing the following:
CODE
@if exist "%1" flac -d "%1" --stdout --silent|lossywav - --stdout --standard|flac - -b 512 -o "%~n1.lossy.flac" --silent && tag --fromfile "%1" "%~n1.lossy.flac"
and drag-n-drop single files onto it then that should also work.

This post has been edited by Nick.C: Sep 5 2008, 08:20


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 5 2008, 08:26
Post #35





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



QUOTE (servimo @ Sep 5 2008, 05:04) *
...lossywav - --insane flac -8: (the size is increased)...


a) -b 512 usually is essential as sauvage78 said.

b) You encoded a solo instrument. This is the situation where lossyWAV + FLAC doesn't come out well.
If you can use WavPack or TAK instead of FLAC the situation is better.
I have a series of tracks like that, but as they form a very minor portion of my total collection I don't care
and keep using FLAC. It doesn't sound good that in these cases lossless wavPack yieds smaller files than
lossyWAV + FLAC, but in practice it's insignificant. Moreover though in theory lossyWAV + FLAC is lossy in
these cases the error of the procedure is extremely close to zero if not really zero.

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 5 2008, 08:28


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[JAZ]
post Sep 5 2008, 11:25
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 1706
Joined: 24-June 02
From: Catalunya(Spain)
Member No.: 2383



QUOTE (servimo @ Sep 5 2008, 05:04) *
What happen if I use lossywav - --standard and flac -8 ?


The usage of flac -5 vs any higher compression was chosen because of the nature of FLAC.
Higher settings usually improve on compression, just because they can work on a bigger chunk of samples. But since lossyWav needs to work on a small chunk (so that it can maximize the reduction of bits. That's why the -b 512 setting is required for optimum results), the gains are few, while the encoding time increase.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
servimo
post Sep 5 2008, 21:56
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 146
Joined: 8-April 07
Member No.: 42330



In all those tests I'll keep the -b 512 I didn't change anything alse excepts the parts bold in my post above, --standard and -5. It just happen that when I used -8 for FLAC I didn't have the tags copied between. Nothing more...
I have a DVD with various albums in wav format and I encoded some of them to lossyFLAC and I like the result. The compression and what I hear is very good. The only thing, I think I could notice is that mp3 is more muffled(Google translation) than the lossyFLAC and it reminds me a little of the AAC convertion when I hear it.
As i said above I will keep using these defaults settings, not much gain at all if I use FLAC best compression.

This post has been edited by servimo: Sep 5 2008, 21:57
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 6 2008, 17:01
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



QUOTE (servimo @ Sep 5 2008, 12:56) *
The only thing, I think I could notice is that mp3 is more muffled(Google translation) than the lossyFLAC and it reminds me a little of the AAC convertion when I hear it.


So far only one person has posted transcode listening tests and they had trouble hearing any difference in the mp3's even on problem samples and with "lossyway -P" setting. See http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=65637

My understanding was that (theoretically at least) the lack of psychoacoustics should make it a very good format for transcoding. Can anyone confirm is that correct?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post Sep 6 2008, 17:08
Post #39





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



QUOTE (uart @ Sep 6 2008, 18:01) *
...My understanding was that (theoretically at least) the lack of psychoacoustics should make it a very good format for transcoding. Can anyone confirm is that correct?

It is expected to be a very good format for transcoding though just 1 test backs this up. This test was done at low quality setting -q 1, and as people with the target of transcoding are expected to use a higher quality setting this should give some confidence regarding lossyWAV for this one test.

This post has been edited by halb27: Sep 6 2008, 17:08


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 6 2008, 17:14
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



I'm new to lossywav and I've just tested started testing it with a few files. So far I really like it. With the "lossywav - S" setting I'm getting about one half the files size of my previous "monkey audio -extreme" files. smile.gif

A couple of questions though.

1. When I make a correction file it only seems to contain a small amount of noise without even vestige of the original music. I'm guessing this is a good thing. Is that small noise in the correction file exactly equal to the added noise in the lossywav file or is correspondence between the two more indirect.

2. I see that currently people are mostly interested in the correction file for the purpose of inspection only. Say however that I wanted to keep the correction file for archiving purposes, the correction file seems to compress much more poorly than the actual lossywav so the total storage is larger then with lossless (tak or monkeyaudio). Does anyone know if it would be possible (at least in theory) to make the correction file more compressible, or perhaps for a compressor that "understood it" to compress it more efficiently?

This post has been edited by uart: Sep 6 2008, 17:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 6 2008, 19:16
Post #41





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



HELP I'm getting double file extentions in all my lossy.tak's converted from foobar (latest 0.9.5.5).

I used the following guide to set up a custom command line encoder in foobar : http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LossyWAV

It works perfectly except that the output files are named like "my_song_title.lossy.tak.lossy.tak" and I cant figure out why the double extention. Can anybody help?

BTW, here's the exact code as per the guide. I have exactly this except for different path names where appropriate.

CODE
lossyTAK settings:

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


This post has been edited by uart: Sep 6 2008, 19:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Sep 6 2008, 20:14
Post #42


lossyWAV Developer


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



uart:

1: The correction file is made up of the difference between the lossless original and the bit-removed samples. Essentially it is white noise, louder where more bits have been removed.

2: The compressibility of the correction file has long been an issue - I suppose if we could find a compressor which would handle it better we might not need lossyWAV at all!

Transcoding problem: try deleting the contents of the "extension" box in the converter settings in foobar2000, then retype "lossy.tak".


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 6 2008, 20:35
Post #43





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



Thanks for the info Nick.

QUOTE (Nick.C @ Sep 6 2008, 11:14) *
Transcoding problem: try deleting the contents of the "extension" box in the converter settings in foobar2000, then retype "".


No that didn't fix it.

BTW, if I remove the "lossy.tak" from the extention box then the conversion fails. When I put it back in it works but with the double extentions.

When I right-click (in foobars playlist) the file I want to convert and select "convert to..." etc, just before it does the conversion it pops up a "save as" dialog and the filename in the dialog is "my_song_name.lossy.tak. However when I click save and it start converting the "converter" states that the destination is "my_song_name.lossy.tak.lossy.tak

If I edit the save dialog and delete the ".lossy.tak" extention before I hit save then it names the file correctly. That is, if make the save file dialog read just "my_song_name" without any extention, then when I hit save it adds the correct extentions just once. This works ok but I have to do it manually every time.

BTW. I have my file system settings (in winxP) set to display file extentions (the default windows XP setting is not to do so, but I'm guessing that many others like myself enable it). Could that be a problem?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Sep 6 2008, 20:38
Post #44


lossyWAV Developer


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



I have all file extensions visible by choice too.

How are you naming your files in the converter?

I use:
CODE
[[%album artist% - ][$char(91)%date%$char(93)] %album%\][%discnumber%-]%tracknumber% - %artist% - %title%
for single tracks and:
CODE
[%album artist% - ][$char(91)%date%$char(93) ]%album%[ - CD%discnumber%]
for albums.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 6 2008, 20:48
Post #45





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



UPDATE.

Previously I've just been testing this with a single file. Just now I tested it with multiple files selected for conversion. Whereas a single files displays the actual filename in the save dialog box in the case of multiple files it only display the destination folder name. Well what do you know, it names the multiple files correctly.

I'd still be interested to know if there's a fix, but at least the work-around is not so bad now that I know I only need to do it (that is, to delete the extention in the save dialog box before clicking save) for the case of converting single files.

QUOTE (Nick.C @ Sep 6 2008, 11:38) *
I have all file extensions visible by choice too.

How are you naming your files in the converter?

I use:
CODE
[[%album artist% - ][$char(91)%date%$char(93)] %album%\][%discnumber%-]%tracknumber% - %artist% - %title%
for single tracks and:
CODE
[%album artist% - ][$char(91)%date%$char(93) ]%album%[ - CD%discnumber%]
for albums.


I haven't edited those fields. They currently read,

Single track
CODE
[%list_index% ]%title%


Album Images
CODE
[%album artist% - ]%album%


Is that a problem?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nick.C
post Sep 6 2008, 20:55
Post #46


lossyWAV Developer


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



Your track / album naming strings shouldn't be a problem. I am at a loss with respect to a solution as I have never encountered this phenomenon using foobar2000.


--------------------
lossyWAV -q X -a 4 --feedback 4| FLAC -8 ~= 320kbps
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Sep 6 2008, 21:03
Post #47





Group: Members
Posts: 757
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



Thanks anyway Nick. I've just cut and pasted your filename settings into foobar and they work fine. With your settings it no longer puts the filename in the save dialog box, it just puts the folder name and everything works fine. I guess I'll have to learn the syntax of those foobar settings if I want to change anything there, otherwise I'll just keep your setting.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
foosion
post Sep 6 2008, 21:52
Post #48





Group: FB2K Moderator (Donating)
Posts: 4336
Joined: 24-February 03
Member No.: 5153



My theory is that some part of the software checks if you have set the file name has already the extension .lossy.tak, but compares it against .tak only. Of course, that doesn't match, so it will helpfully append .lossy.tak to the file name. Since this occurs only when converting single files, I suspect that the culprit may be the standard Windows "Save As" dialog, but I'm not sure.


--------------------
http://foosion.foobar2000.org/ - my components for foobar2000
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sauvage78
post Sep 8 2008, 10:30
Post #49





Group: Members
Posts: 677
Joined: 4-May 08
Member No.: 53282



As I wanted to know if it was usefull to include a lowpass filter to lossywav (with the hope to save some space) I did a quick test with Adobe Audition:

Album: Darkness, The - 2003 - Permission To Land:

CDImage Original + Tak -p2e ==> 286mo
CDImage Lowpass 20Khz + Tak -p2e ==> 280mo
CDImage Original + Lossywav Portable + Tak -p2e ==> 97.3mo (102 092 800 octets)
CDImage Lowpass 20Khz + Lossywav Portable + Tak -p2e ==> 97.3mo (102 054 995 octets)

Album: Fantômas - 2001 - The Director's Cut

CDImage Original + Tak -p2e ==> 246mo
CDImage Lowpass 20Khz + Tak -p2e ==> 243mo
CDImage Original + Lossywav Portable + Tak -p2e ==> 97.3mo (102 080 296 octets)
CDImage Lowpass 20Khz + Lossywav Portable + Tak -p2e ==> 97.3mo (102 090 392 octets)

needless to say it is completely useless sad.gif ... but I still wanted to share the result with everyone ...

This post has been edited by sauvage78: Sep 8 2008, 10:33


--------------------
CDImage+CUE
Secure [Low/C2/AR(2)]
Flac -4
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Gow
post Sep 9 2008, 04:11
Post #50





Group: Members
Posts: 233
Joined: 14-June 06
From: Fort Wayne, IN
Member No.: 31824



Anyone know of a way to set up up a Lossy WMA-L string for foobar2000? Zune 80 supports WMA-Lossless and I was reading WMA-L also works with Lossy WAV, so I figured I would go Lossy WMA-L and replace the Mp3/m4a library that I sync my Zune with.

Though so far it looks like I am going to have to convert to another lossy WAV format and then to WMA-Lossless if I use just foobar2000.


--------------------
Zune 80, Tak -p4 audio library, Lossless=Choice
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

27 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 17th April 2014 - 02:40