A better version of The Blue Rain Coat

[STC]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I did not post that link to attack your video. Even compared with the original LPCM version the improved soundstage and instrument separation should be quite obvious. I do agree with others though that the effect is currently a little extreme.

I wasn’t attacking you. I thought you may wanted a better resolution which is fair considering I am in a high end forum. I think I am just more preoccupied with my thoughts that I respond without really trying to understand what the other person trying to say. Anyway, try listening to the hires file and tell me what you think?  Thanx. 

[sandyk]

Just now, STC said:

I wasn’t attacking you. I thought you may wanted a better resolution which is fair considering I am in a high end forum. I think I am just more preoccupied with my thoughts that I respond without really trying to understand what the other person trying to say. Anyway, try listening to the hires file and tell me what you think?  Thanx. 

 ST

I can't get the link to work, and in any case, I don't really need it to tell me that you may be on to something that can benefit certain recordings, although that may not be the original artistic intent, which in this case is to focus on her lovely voice

Regards

Alex

[STC]

Neither could I. Saw 16 downloads but most likely those are the numbers of tries. Maybe AS server is slow. 

[fas42]

ST's latest link worked for me ... first time. And the piece does come over nicely on my laptop's speakers - nothing obvious to complain about, 🙂.

[STC]

I saved those files but without the original. The Yt version is the closest. Anyway, those did not come out as I expected. I will be doing a proper one in a week or two. Been busy redoing the wiring which has taken me 5 days for only half of the job completed. 
 

 

[semente]

17 hours ago, STC said:

The original signal is not touched. All the cancellation is done by the copy of the the original signal. if you take the measurement of the first sound emerges each speakers of the processed and unprocessed file, they are identical. What is altered is the copy of the original signal delayed and inverted and send to the other channel. 
 

A better way to understand and to do is, Have one pair of speaker that is producing the original recording and another pair for the processed file. It is important that the original signal is produced untouched to avoid any coloration otherwise this method is no different from any other DSP attempt. 

 

So the left speaker is putting out a mix of the left channel and phase-inverted + time-delayed right channel?

[semente]

17 hours ago, STC said:

The processed file I refer to the above is the processed file with system of having two pair of front speakers. In my example since the whole thing is utilizing one pair of front speakers. Those processed files will be a different type but the original sound is reproduced in bothe instances untouched. 

 

I see you are using two speakers; one for the originl signal the other for the inverted/delayed signal of the opposite channel?

 

I wonder if this might work better with 2-way coaxial time-aligned speakers. What are you using?

[STC]

The stereo at 60 degrees progress here. In the previous version there were comments about the stage being too wide. Frankly, this is not easy to address because I really have no idea how big was the original stage.  I am really on my own recording to determine the correct stage and so far the feedback is encouraging. 
 

Here are two samples and which one you perceive better depth and stage? State whether you used headphones or loudspeakers. The volume level was not matched so you need to adjust from your side. 
 

the lossless files:-

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Avexw_l7DM5sgqt9Jry6P8b5N9jPXw

 

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Avexw_l7DM5sgqt88Tx48P1asifoMg

 

[John Dyson]

9 hours ago, STC said:

The stereo at 60 degrees progress here. In the previous version there were comments about the stage being too wide. Frankly, this is not easy to address because I really have no idea how big was the original stage.  I am really on my own recording to determine the correct stage and so far the feedback is encouraging. 
 

Here are two samples and which one you perceive better depth and stage? State whether you used headphones or loudspeakers. The volume level was not matched so you need to adjust from your side. 
 

the lossless files:-

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Avexw_l7DM5sgqt9Jry6P8b5N9jPXw

 

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Avexw_l7DM5sgqt88Tx48P1asifoMg

 

I use normally use headphones and used heaphones for the comparison -- the B recording is more natural sounding, it appears that the A recording was matrixed somehow.   The B recording IS FeralA, and sounds REALLY GOOD when decoded.   A snippet of B, but decoded is here. (At low levels llater in the recording, if not encoded would jerk badly.)   The response balance might not be perfect -- there is a small amount of room for adjustments for frequency response balance and still be within spec.

 

B.mp3

[STC]

15 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I use normally use headphones and used heaphones for the comparison -- the B recording is more natural sounding, it appears that the A recording was matrixed somehow.   The B recording IS FeralA, and sounds REALLY GOOD when decoded.   A snippet of B, but decoded is here. (At low levels llater in the recording, if not encoded would jerk badly.)   The response balance might not be perfect -- there is a small amount of room for adjustments for frequency response balance and still be within spec.

 

B.mp3 2.1 MB · 12 downloads

Thanks for taking your time to listen but did you download the old file?  Your sample is not the files in my post. BTW, my samples were from Chesky and I don’t think DolbyA was involved here. 

[John Dyson]

34 minutes ago, STC said:

Thanks for taking your time to listen but did you download the old file?  Your sample is not the files in my post. BTW, my samples were from Chesky and I don’t think DolbyA was involved here. 

He might have started with a FeralA master.   All I know is what I hear...  If there isn't any jerking in my result (because of the low levels), then *some kind* of compression is being undone by the attempted decoding.   I cannot really 100% claim that it is feralA, but I can definitely note the compression.   I'll review the old file also -- I was just astounded when I heard the recording and heard the compression (my hearing is 10000% attuned to compression FOR SOME REASON :-).)   I don't know if other people can hear compression -- you know about the perception thing, a huge part of it is the 'brain' processing.  Mine is trained to hear those things.  I promise that I will look at the other recording poste haste.

 

BTW -- the YouTube copy was also FeralA (the 'tell' on that is the boosted highs at the low levels. I did do the decode on that also.)

 

*  I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO PESTER PEOPLE ON THE *FeralA* SUBJECT, but stereo imaging is very significantly modified by dynamic range compression, and I wanted to make the *compression* known, the FeralA is secondary.

 

John

 

 

[STC]

7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

He might have started with a FeralA master.   All I know is what I hear...  If there isn't any jerking in my result (because of the low levels), then *some kind* of compression is being undone by the attempted decoding.   I cannot really 100% claim that it is feralA, but I can definitely note the compression.   I'll review the old file also -- I was just astounded when I heard the recording and heard the compression (my hearing is 10000% attuned to compression FOR SOME REASON :-).)   I don't know if other people can hear compression -- you know about the perception thing, a huge part of it is the 'brain' processing.  Mine is trained to hear those things.  I promise that I will look at the other recording poste haste.

 

BTW -- the YouTube copy was also FeralA (the 'tell' on that is the boosted highs at the low levels. I did do the decode on that also.)

 

*  I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO PESTER PEOPLE ON THE *FeralA* SUBJECT, but stereo imaging is very significantly modified by dynamic range compression, and I wanted to make the *compression* known, the FeralA is secondary.

 

John

 

 

Are you referring to post #33?  

[JoeWhip]

Sorry but I lost track of this thread as I have been away a good bit since the original post. My speakers are Vandersteen 3A Signatures with no toe in at all. In a dedicated room out into the room about 4 feet and about 6 feet apart.

[John Dyson]

26 minutes ago, STC said:

Are you referring to post #33?  

Yes...   I also successfully decoded the file 'Allegro*.wav'. (Not 100% if 100% correct, but the decoding is reasonably ok.)

 

I didn't try to decode A.wav because it twisted my perception on my headphones.  (Headphones are the only thing that I trust for my work, so I am not critical enough & my listening is technically incompetent on speakers.)

(As always, sorry for the mp3 on Allegro , but it communicates what I am talking about..)

 

Also, I included a better decoded B.wav...  It is sometimes tricky, especially since I just developed new, simpler and more accurate formulas....

 

John

 

Allegro Energico e Passionato.wav-decoded.mp3

B.wav-decoded.mp3

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I use normally use headphones and used heaphones for the comparison -- the B recording is more natural sounding, it appears that the A recording was matrixed somehow.   The B recording IS FeralA, and sounds REALLY GOOD when decoded.   A snippet of B, but decoded is here. (At low levels llater in the recording, if not encoded would jerk badly.)   The response balance might not be perfect -- there is a small amount of room for adjustments for frequency response balance and still be within spec.

 

B.mp3 2.1 MB · 12 downloads

I saw all of the downloads of B.mp3...  Please try the better attempt below (I am still making mistakes with the new decoding formula):

 

John

 

B.wav-decoded.mp3

[STC]

47 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Yes...   I also successfully decoded the file 'Allegro*.wav'. (Not 100% if 100% correct, but the decoding is reasonably ok.)

 

I didn't try to decode A.wav because it twisted my perception on my headphones.  (Headphones are the only thing that I trust for my work, so I am not critical enough & my listening is technically incompetent on speakers.)

(As always, sorry for the mp3 on Allegro , but it communicates what I am talking about..)

 

Also, I included a better decoded B.wav...  It is sometimes tricky, especially since I just developed new, simpler and more accurate formulas....

 

John

 

Allegro Energico e Passionato.wav-decoded.mp3 1.91 MB · 0 downloads

B.wav-decoded.mp3 2.44 MB · 0 downloads

 

 

But this  is my version of specially crosstalk cancelled for typical stereo setup at 60 or so degrees.

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

But this my version of specially crosstalk cancelled for typical stereo setup at 60 or so degrees.

Okay -- the A version is not as headphone compatible as the B version.  That is one of the problems with audio sutff -- it is the reverse compatibility thing.  Mono vs. Stereo masterings were an eary version of a similar matter.

There is opportunty for software or HW adjuncts, but not in mastering (at least, I don't think.)

I 99.9% live in the headphone world, so I need to make sure that my opinions are mostly based on headphones.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

Follow-up on my previous comment -- I think that there can be benefits to improving stereo imaging, but it is a good thing to start with material that is correct to begin with.   Part of the testing/verification of a design should contain properly mastered materials with an non-dynamic-range-compressed stereo image along with the ubiquitous compressed masterings.

 

I do NOT intend to be a damper on your effort -- I am on your side.  The damned compression screws up a lot of stuff, and the music is so much better when not mangled.   Too often, the consumer gets material ONLY in mangled form, and the stereo image is messed up too often.

 

John

 

[STC]

@John Dyson, I am now very confused. You decoded my file and not the original. So which one you preferred?  And did you look at the spectrogram and compared both files?

[John Dyson]

10 minutes ago, STC said:

@John Dyson, I am now very confused. You decoded my file and not the original. So which one you preferred?  And did you look at the spectrogram and compared both files?

 

POP material doesn't usually show much of a difference on the spectograms, but more naturally recorded classical can show significant differences.  (Material with lower average levels will tend to show more differences.)

 

So, whether or not the B version is you corrected version, it is still definitely better for headphones

 

It makes me wonder if the A version was manipulated some how -- because to me it doesn't sound right -- sounds like the L-R signal was messed with.

 

I do NOT want to make this about 'FeralA', and trying to maintain your subject.  I am mostly commenting on the stereo image -- and the fact that the original material appears to be compressed.

 

off-topic:

Regarding being able to 'decode' modified materials:  DolbyA decoding doesn't appear to be extremely phase sensitive -- it is very robust as long as the spectral content is reasonable.  I know that it is almost totally phase insensitive at about 1kHz on up.  So, it is very feasable (however slightly inaccurate) to be able to process a FeralA signal that has different phasing.   (There is a choice to do M/S or L/R decoding, one or the other of the modes can mitigate a lot of prpoblems.)   The DHNRDS DA is even more robust than a true DolbyA, because it is designed to be able to process non-compliant material -- such signal processing can be disabled.

 

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

I am SOOO sorry for diverting the topic.  Your evaluation/comparison project is good.  FORGET anything about the word 'FeralA', as I was more intending that 'dynamic range compression' being a variable often not considered.  FeralA happens to be one of the manifestations of dynamic range compression.

 

JOhn

 

[STC]

55 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Sorry but I lost track of this thread as I have been away a good bit since the original post. My speakers are Vandersteen 3A Signatures with no toe in at all. In a dedicated room out into the room about 4 feet and about 6 feet apart.

 

No worries. Hope you met the penguins .

 

Try the recording in post #33. 

[STC]

7 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I am SOOO sorry for diverting the topic.  Your evaluation/comparison project is good.  FORGET anything about the word 'FeralA', as I was more intending that 'dynamic range compression' being a variable often not considered.  FeralA happens to be one of the manifestations of dynamic range compression.

 

JOhn

 

 

You are contribution is important. Anyway I only one feedback so I have to make use of it.  

 

I usually let music students and non audiophiles to do the blind tests live. Audiophiles live in their own world with their own rules which they themselves cannot be sure of. 

 

In your case, with only one valuable feedback, I am unable to make use of it because your decoded version was  A. You also mentioned that you decoded the original file and the decoded version sounded much better than the original. However, your sample was a decoded file mine. So the version you thought better was my version which you decoded. Anyway, now it is too late as the opinion will be clouded due to this confusion. Thanks for the contribution.