'FeralA' decoder -- free-to-use

[Skip Pack]

typo above -- I processed the files in v.2.2.0F

[Skip Pack]

John,  I listened to the snippets and ran my own set of test files through 2.2.3C, and feel they are the best yet partidularly with respect to the textures on the low bass. Your comments about the 20hz to 40hz range being important makes sense to me as they probably affect everything up to 160hz to 320hz qute a bit. I like bass, but I don't have a setup that really goes much below 35hz, and I am content if that seems right. While many may want even lower frequencies to be present and correct, very few have systems that will play them correctly or even audibly. The joy of music is fully available to me if 35hz up is fully present and correct.

[Skip Pack]

To me, the improvements from G to H are distinct. What you describe as 'graininess' I would call 'congestion' that gets in the way of the upper midrange. 

[Skip Pack]

One thing that popped into my mind was a suggestion for a new category of  test music. In the snippets, at least, I don't hear and example of solo accoustic piano with the long-tail reverberations that a piano is capable of producing with it's tonal range and pedals. 

You may well be using selections of this music but not including them in the snippets we hear, but It seams to me that you this music may illuminate the effects and balances you are addressing at this point.

 

If you think such example might help, those of us following your efforts could suggest specific performances. I would expect examples from the '70's or so that were popular enough to get mass-market CD releases in the 80's or 90's.

[Skip Pack]

48 minutes ago, Jud said:

Me for one, as I get little snippets of time here and there. When I retire in a few weeks I hope to have more time (but of course my wife may have other plans).

 

 I mentioned to John what you did, that the latest were improved. And then in fact I suggested he would likely get constructive criticism/feedback from you.

I'm another. I have communicated with John more by PM. I fear that the 'dancing about architecture' effect is maginfied in multi-sided conversations, so I hope that the vocabulary I and John use one-on-one will be a little clearer than including the word/thought set of a larger group of participants. 

[Skip Pack]

I agreed with @PeterSTs comments on the dynamics with the sense that, while they were still an issue, they have steadily improved with the frequency balance was good the the clarity was distinctly better than the input. With this last group of snipps, I think the improved dynamics are a jump in the clarity department as well as sounding richer and more vital. Not helpful vocabulary, but I think this is the first time 'Orange Colored Sky' has not had gross problems either in the normal sections or the ridiculous blasts. It all sounds like music you could hear someone perform in real life this time. 

 

I hope you can give any percieved minor flaws a lot of time before you chase them. We'll need that time to give  you more considered feedback. We might want to take months with this one.

[Skip Pack]

I agree -- Herbdemo-fixed is all there in proportion. Herdemo-plain and Herbdemo-antisib were both unbalanced while different, and lacking. The lack of congestion that is my motivator to stick with this project is very present and the components naturally fit together.

[Skip Pack]

Two questions/curiousities:

 

What does DEC2 specifically mean? My guess would be '--fa2'

 

Regarding hiss, I don't hear any hiss in the magnetic tape sense (fa version). I do hear what I would describe as an aspirated mid-high his which would be produced in the back of mouth to throat area by a closely miked singer. Pretty normal and often too much. In my mind sibilance is excessive ssss or th sound produced by the front of the mouth/lips/tounge. The aspirated hiss is reduced nicely in the DEC2 version. I expect one's choice here would be strongly determined by their system's response.

[Skip Pack]

Certainly right down my fairway. In songs where the bass plays a fair range of notes, all the notes sound like they come from the same instument, a failing in many recordings and in many earlier decodes. Give us some time to play with this one!

 

[Skip Pack]

--outgain numerology

 

John, is there any reason to prefer any step size to settings we enter for --outgain?  I like to run severval different songs and get a feel for the maximum level I want on the 24 bit output. I'm usually happy to have a peak around -4 to -6 which seems to preclude any subsuquent oversampling induced clipping. You tend to think of 3db steps, and I tend to use 2db steps. Any reason to standardize on a step size?

[Skip Pack]

On limited exposure, I agree that the standard decode covers all I've tried (seven different source inputs). I mostly have been checking to calibrate output levels, and --outgain seems to be centered nicely on =0. I test results by openining a playing in Audacity and like to see the peaks at -3 to -6, leaving some room to avoid oversampling induced clipping during play when oversampling is used. I did try --lfeq on a couple of cases and am happy without it. I did not hear a problem with the default. I just wanted to get a sense of that eq.

[Skip Pack]

I'm very happy with F. I had planned to comment on D this morning, but waited to see what had transpired overnight. i'm with Bogi, though a little more on the 'F' side.

 

A long-term topic on audiophile circles is the contrast between those who prefer to optimize the very highest quality recordings as heard through their systems while not playing poorly recorded music versus those who are willing to compromise the highest quality recordings somewhat to make inferior recordings at least bearable. A newer term for the latter group (in which I fall) is the 'All-Music' group. 

https://jeffsplace.positive-feedback.com/the-all-music-trend-that-is-emerging-in-high-fidelity-audio/

We cherish a lot of poorly recorded wondrous music, and aren't willing to sacrifice it. I do appreciate the impressive result of the highest quality recordings played over the most highly optimized systems though. I'm a diy'er, and I think diy folk visit both camps as they bring in new builds and rebalance their systems after each new piece. Just for reference, let's call a system maximized to the best recordings a "Pinnacle' system

 

The last paragraph is included because I think the 'F' balance is closer to an optimal result where the greatest number of serious listeners will find enjoyment. It will sound great on a Pinnacle system and an All-Music system. John often refers to striving for a 'perfect' result. I'm not sure what 'perfect' is, so I look towards 'optimal'. I suspect the two are virtually the same in the end. In any case, the decoder is virtually there.

[Skip Pack]

I'm in full agreement that this release is 'Final' quality. It highlights what I viewed as a false choice. During the discussions of v5.7.1.D versus later versions there was an undercurrent that fixing the highs would alter the 200-500 hz range which was exquisite. Now the midrange is still exquisite in 'X' with evereything else just as nice. Wonderful job, John!

 

[Skip Pack]

As I have already communicated to John, I'm 'diggin-in' on this one. Can you (John) point us to a recent one of you brief useful command summaries so we can get into our use of v6.1.0H without going down almost abandoned rabbit holes?  Thanks.

[Skip Pack]

Eagerly awaiting!

 

[Skip Pack]

Next week is fine too, for me. Don't wipe yourself out or shorchange your larger life.

[Skip Pack]

WRT 44.1k inputs yielding the best decodes. Is the problem tied to the 44.1 vs 48k family difference or any resolution higher than 44.1k?

 

Thanks

[Skip Pack]

Looking at your elaboration here, I am prompted to make a couple of comments:

 

1) Everyone knows the old saying: "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem wants a nail". I have thought for a long time that the modern tools of note are the sine wave and the gaussian distribution.

 

2) I became less comfortable with A/B tests long (25-30 years?) ago. We have to use them, and they do provide useful direction, but I now refuse to commit myself to a conclusion/characterization until I have listened for several weeks. And, I trust those conclusions more if a good bit of the time that listening is with my internal "audiophile analyst" mode turned off or way down. Sadly, I can't control that, hardly at all, but it does happen.

 

Appreciate your monumental efforts,

 

Skip

[Skip Pack]

I'm curious to know if you have a sense of which groups/artists/producers/labels might fit one of your 'versions' (algorithmic or parametric) better versus another group of source material fitting another approach. If such loose correlations are detectable, the differences might inform either progress toward either a semi-optimal compromise solution, or multiple tailored solutions selectable as options in the software. 

 

Skip

[Skip Pack]

Posted 4 hours ago

I like the V9.9Y snippets - I have no objections. I feel no harshness. Maybe HQPlayer PCM to DSD conversion filters that? I hope the next release will not change much.

 

I second Bogi's comments. I particularly like the decay characteristics in V9,9Y

 

Skip

[Skip Pack]

Slightly off to the side, but extremely relevant:

https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/worst-audio-threat-of-all-times-woatoat.402059/

 

I think this discussion supports the position that the phenomenon you have been addressing is more a broad form of (mal)practice that has shifted over time and and has many, somewhat different, manefestations. If that is the case, an end product that provides the "most useful" balance with flexibilty would be the best outcome, and is likely to be harmed by focusing on specific instances to the detriment of the optimum balance.

 

An interesting discussion, in any case.

 

Skip

[Skip Pack]

Love options! One listener's 'enhancement' is likely to be another's . . .  

[Skip Pack]

Quote

As this is being written, I hear no major flaws so far, except perhaps the highs like cymbals/high hats might be very slightly repressed sounding.   Strings/plucked strings probably sound as good as they can be given the recordings being used for testing.

Hello John,

Hope you are having a good day today and not working on the decoder. I'm happy to note your recent comments on the various issues in recordings that cannot be fixed in a systematic way. I have always felt that the recording, mixing, and mastering chains invovle a lot of sub-optimal components and practices that are widely variable and idiosyncratic across time and at any given time. I look forward to the next release and am eager to start runnning my test cases which are, deliberately, very different stylistically than yours.

 

Skip