'FeralA' decoder -- free-to-use

[fas42]

As a thought on doing a GUI, a simple solution could be something like this, https://www.justmastering.com/tools-soxgui.php

 - an interface running in Excel, or LibreOffice, which drives the SoX program. Just copying this spreadsheet, and modifying it to talk to FeralA instead could be an easy approach.

[fas42]

John, I just tried a couple of the tracks, after downloading - and I will have to say you've done a nice job on this ... 👍.

[fas42]

I completely missed the exchange that's apparently been excised ... just want to note that @KSTR , if he is the member at diyAudio with the same tag, is a very, very sharp guy - I would have liked to have seen what he said ...

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Try a similar thread on ASR. I’ve missed the posts here, but @KSTR did post his listening notes and analysis there ... which also didn’t end well.

 

Yes, the "Good status of the recording correction (FA) project" thread there paints the picture ...

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don't know if KSTR is posting any more, but is the basis of the critique that all these files cannot have been screwed up so much and in roughly the same way, and that therefore an attempt to "unscrew" them to such an extent and in roughly the same way cannot be correct?

 

Yes. In part. John is of the opinion that a high percentage of recordings are 'damaged', on their release. IME, and for others as well this is not so - flaws of the playback chain are what is revealed when these recordings are played, and by trial and error one can adjust the recording in many cases to make them more pleasant to listen to - it's an alternative to remedying the root cause, which is shortcomings of the replay mechanism. When John's algorithm gets it right, it certainly does a nice job of presenting the recording in a good light on an average playback quality setup, as I recently heard on my laptop speakers.

 

So his tool has great usefulness for many, and is therefore worthy of consideration by those who want to use such a method to improve the listenability of their music. But, just because the program can do this does not mean that "the files have been screwed up" - IMO, a far more effective solution is to resolve the lackings of the reproduction system, which then means that all recordings benefit ...

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Really Frank,

 

How many people do you really think are following your lead? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

So, you believe "a high percentage of recordings are 'damaged', on their release" - what makes you think this?

[fas42]

34 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

You have a knack for pulling things from your rear end. Where did I say I thought any recording was damaged?? Guesss you can't! 

 

It would be nice if you answered the question asked. How many people do you really think are following your lead? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

Dear me ... 🙄

 

Go back and study what I said,

 

Quote

Yes. In part. John is of the opinion that a high percentage of recordings are 'damaged', on their release. IME, and for others as well this is not so

 

Now, think really carefully about what I'm saying here ... a clue: I'm disagreeing with what John is saying ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

For those nay-sayers -- listen carefully to Nat King Coles vocals.  i don't have to listen carefully, but probably most people do have to listen carefully.

Listen carefully to a kind of inter-modulation of the envelope of his vocals on the FA material.   That modulation gives an impression of 'detail', but just like hiss, it isn't more detail.

 

 

John, would you be able to point to a specific, "worst" example of this? You may have a snippet uploaded already, otherwise just a track name, perhaps.

 

Thanks!

[fas42]

Just now, John Dyson said:

Take a chance on me (ABBA).   Since it is so bad, the decoder isn't quite as effective, but still does a fairly good job.  It is like anything else, if it isn't needed, then it does its job better :-).

A hint about detecting what I am talking about -- try to chase the choral groups down (distinguish them) on the RAW version.   Then notice that there is more coherency, independence of each singer/group on the decoded version.  Like I said before, since it is so bad, the decoder is less effective.  When there are so  many disturbances, the decoder can do only so much.

 

The main reason why I included it in the examples is exactly this fact.

 

 

 

Sorry, John, I should have worded my request more carefully ... I was after a Nat King Cole clip, that shows the behaviour you talk of in my quote.

[fas42]

Thanks for doing that, John ...

 

Quick listen, using my laptop media player, I'm afraid I prefer the RAW - this sounds like Nat; the DEC makes me feel I'm listening to a different person; the qualities in his voice that make him so appealing have been lost, to some degree. You could argue that this is due to artifacts of the mic, recording technology, mastering of those times - but it is what it is. For me, I would feel I have lost some of the Nat King Cole magic; and wouldn't listen to the DEC version, apart from the curiosity value.

 

Cheers!

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Okay -- I just uploaded the version with correct settings (same place.)  All of the settings were standard, except --fw=classical.   The calibration didn't even have to change.

You don't have to report back unless you want -- just wanted to correct an incorrect representation.

 

 

Thanks ... busy now, will check it later today ...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Okay -- I just uploaded the version with correct settings (same place.)  All of the settings were standard, except --fw=classical.   The calibration didn't even have to change.

You don't have to report back unless you want -- just wanted to correct an incorrect representation.

 

 

Okay, done that ... as one might guess, 😉, the new version is about halfway in between - subjectively, less 'personality' has been lost, compared to the first DEC. But I would still go with the original - this oozes, Nat King Cole; the 'repaired' version sounds a bit like he has been told by a singing teacher to, "Straighten up!!" - that is, sound like a "good singer" should sound ... which is not my cup of tea, 😉.

[fas42]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

The original ?

 

The RAW version, as in the dropbox clip John posted earlier.

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

@fas42 Frank, I could also say: If one likes the RAW better than the DEC then something is really amiss because that should not be so at all. As you have seen, it is my conclusion too. However, in comparison with the originals, the RAW versions **** (I am not allowed to use the word here because John goes bananas of that word and requires further explanation what I G-D provided).

 

 

So, his RAW version has been extracted from some remastering, which has done damage per some 'truly original' version? Which one, out there, would you class as "best" version of that track, then?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

It is totally obvious to me and my system that the RAW versions are not on par with any original as we know it from CD, because, well, please look again at my descriptions; apparently this was not clear at all ? So for example:

 

Well, I don't have that track on CD; but I have a nominally decent Capitol CD release which I have no troubles with; the RAW that John put up I merely alternated with his DEC - comparing apples with apples. If John doesn't tell us where he got it from, then we can't progress, 🙂.

 

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Because I don't give up easily (John should realize that I am not out of here and the harder he does not thank me, the more he will read my judgments what he asks for as sheer negative - I don't care much - not anymore), yesterday I tried to get some sense out of "original" ABBA albums. Well, they are terrible. They make me see how John may have started this great project because assumed he loves that music, you may want to improve on it, because it is necessary. So yes, if anything is one pile of distortion, it is that (the ABBA albums I possess).  Still, the Mama Mia on both DEC and RAW are more problematic. But this feels as logic to me, as all of the others have issues just the same (in -as I said earlier on- inconsistent fashion why I can't help more than expressing rigid notices).

 

I'm somewhat surprised you say this, Peter ... I have the 1975 album, ABBA, and it's quite superb - have yet to try it on the current setup; I'll try that tomorrow. As an adventure of sound, it's like consuming very rich, dark chocolate - I feel elated after playing the album from beginning to end.

 

1 hour ago, KSTR said:

Assuming you're an audiophile (in the non-derogative meaning of the term), you're first one I've heard of who actually owns and listens to stuff like ABBA, haha!

ABBA is great to teach people about excellent song-writing and clever arrangement of pop songs for the masses, but listening to this for recreational purposes on a HiFi rig? Of course everybody is entitled to like what they like...

 

Make that two 😉 - ignore any recent remasterings, they are quite grotesque; as regards bass balance, for a start.

 

The layering of the sound is quite remarkable; and is a delight. Putting on an audiophile approved effort after listening to something like this, is like being herded back into the monastery ... 😁.

[fas42]

Okay, John, it's been a long time since I tried listening to your standard set of clips - so, revisited Mamma Mia, by ABBA - to see where we're at ... 🙂.

 

Right, much better than from what I heard the last time I checked what the decoder was doing - the last time, many, many versions ago, the damage done was far too great - and I said this, at the time. This round, the coherence of the song is basically sound, but, it has been stripped of energy - the richness and harmonic density of the intro now sounds somewhat awkward, as if the producer didn't know how to make it more engaging - what has been done, is to suck the energy out of the backing instrumentals, which means that the vocals are more strongly highlighted; which are fine as presented here. But you can still hear that the tonality of the instruments is affected negatively - particularly clear is that the cymbal work on the drums is strongly muffled; as if a cloth had placed over each such instrument for doing the recording.

 

 

[fas42]

Something else to throw in the equation, John ... you're getting closer - by the time you finish, the DEC will sound identical to the RAW, 🤣.

 

But being serious, on the Mamma Mia track, on the "Just one more thing" crescendos, the sound is congested - it sounds harsh and closed, compared to the RAW ... hope this helps, 🙂.

 

Can't help on the bass, sorry - zero output below 200Hz on this setup ...

[fas42]

51 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

 

I gave up on making the release available tonight.

The thing that @fas42publically wrote about the decoder output sounding more and more similar to the FA signal, and in some ways, that is true.

His comments about the bass were also true, and I am trying to 'DO THE RIGHT THING' instead of hack a solution.   I think that we'd all prefer the best

solution rather than something that 'sort of' works.

 

 

 

Don't get confused about what I'm saying about bass, John - my laptop speakers are incapable doing any frequencies below 200Hz, irrespective of what they are fed. Which means that I'll be unable to comment on any aspects of the bass adjustments that you do - okay?

[fas42]

Crisis, what crisis? 😉 ... Just put on my standard copy of the Supertramp CD ... what's the problem?

 

 

is so mellow ... what an intro!

 

And,

 

 

is just downright amazing!!

 

Fabulous stuff ... 🙂

[fas42]

... 'cuse me - I was just boppin' and bouncing around the living room, listening to the other tracks on the Crisis album ... bloody good stuff!! 😁

 

At times, you forget how good these albums are ...

[fas42]

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

What's wrong with that is that all is in the background, especially the (singer) voice. Mind the horn of the car. It is there but nothing more. Try John's version and you'll jump to the sealing. So all exactly the other way around. Also, around 1:05, what do you actually hear for instrument ? OK, I know it is an electric guitar chord-played (famous Supertramp sound). But here ? it's mush. Mellow much if you want ...

 

Being in the background is the intent of the song, to my ears - people complain that there are no dynamics, or light and shade, in modern music ... then when they get a song with it, they still complain ... 😄.

 

Yes, the harmonically rich guitar sound - but I don't hear mush; I hear it clearly defined 🙂.

 

11 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Not so much so. Again the singer is way underwhelmed. Listen at 2:05. I am used to distinguish instruments. Here you can wrongly blend something like a ride cymbal into other noises. The cymbal changes (or disappears) because of those noises. So this is "nothing" in my book. I guess this is emphasized even more when I'd play this on the main rig (where all the highs pop out). 

 

 

That bit at 2:05 is the magic - it's rich, dense, subjectively so powerful - the impact of this section contrasting to the lead up just makes the track so satisfying ... okay, the mastering of it makes this very much a 'difficult' recording; but the rewards of getting it spot on are what it's about. There is little 'space' between the instruments, and the system has to be on its best behaviour for it all to make sense to the ears - in fact, in spite of the interference isolation tweaks I've been using, I did detect a slight edge to the sound - which turned out to be the TV, which was on, and is very close by - switching off fixed that. In conductive terms, the set is way down the end of the street; but there appears to be just enough RF, perhaps from the screen circuitry, to impact. For a 'normal' recording this causal link is close to being inaudible - but when the playback gets to the "everything matters!" zone, then I can hear it ... I will need to think more about some strategies to get this under control.

[fas42]

I will put this here, John ... just to let you know, as I monitor how it's going with the Mamma Mia track, that this latest version sounds good! Can't speak for how the bass sounds, as I have already explained - but elsewhere it all hangs together well; I can't pick anything obvious to complain about, 😉.

 

[fas42]

John, just had a quick listen, via the Dropbox player only - unfortunately, have to say I prefer the original; the decoded has a plodding quality about it, the liveliness and sparkle of the song has been somewhat lost. And the backing guitar has a more leaden quality about it, and is harder to pick out.

 

Sorry!

 

 

[fas42]

Thanks for sorting that out, John! Yes, version 2 is much better - I could live with both the original, and the latest decode; they are different flavourings, and both satisfy in the listening ...

[fas42]

John, you have mentioned ABBA's Super Trouper  several times, and I thought I would give you some immediate feedback - I presume 01 - Super Trouper-RAW-SNIP.flac is in fact the original track, yes?

 

Unfortunately, downloaded, the RAW is quite superior; it has lilt, and makes me enjoy listening; the V6.0.5X+5-0, DEC has a 'digital' quality to it, and does not engage, at all.