Jump to content
IGNORED

'FeralA' decoder -- free-to-use


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

No, not true at all.

On a side note: Things got heavily out of context by now, with deleted posts and such and not posted posts which refer (and quote) deleted posts (including my own).

 

I guess I can't keep on responding similar in an always changing slight context difference (me knowing what I read and wrote), so I will try to be brief now (if I ever can):

 

Communicating as such includes plain listening to what people have to say. Or, what they deem impossible to happen (for measurements). Communicating is - I guess, also not scoffing even the slightest too much. This is not about being a jerk, but about you being the controller collecting all the data, being happy that ears are around to help out, you being responsible for the intellect of bringing all together into something sensible, which includes the iteration(s) of listening and for example the judging of something going down hill. This obviously (!) in combination with your math now having an other bug less. --> Usually in such situations something very else is just amiss. 

 

A new one (I thus did not type in vain today) would be:

We must realize that all we have is ears and not any of your math or further knowledge. So all we can really do is have one or another complaint of something - unless all sounds as good as we are used to (yeah, what to do with that eh ?). Thus sadly, all what ever can be there is complaints.**

 

**): This is born by the sheer fact that we don't have complaints otherwise. So for example, not only I - but also my customers with some more full-fletched setup, don't even want anything better. We are done with improvements (although I will continue and people will keep on buying the presented novelty).

John, please, how much chance does that give you ? ... it can only happen when things sound enormously better all the way. Meanwhile you'd have to give the people the fair headstart with their own systems they almost exclusively will find OK (in whatever stage of their ($) life). So if they deem that the decoder makes it worse, if just is so. It would be your task to bring all the comments together and make "chocolate of that" as we say over here. ... Things are only out of the way if nobody complains about the same thing any more and with sufficient contenders in the first place.

So indeed, people should not be scared away.

 

 

 

My messages are so long that I regularly use emphasis to direct people's vision.   I NEVER SHOUT!!! (there we go :-)).

 

* I want to make something clear -- one of my big bugaboos about FA is the 'telephone' sounding vocals.   When you compare, you'll hear what

I mean.  (I added this, because I never explained exactly what I hate about FA.)  This is only ONE of the defects.

 

I hesitated to respond, but the message came my email...   I'll give you some background on the situation as I see it:

---------------------------

The project has been going slower than I had hoped, and I feel it to be vulnerable.   it is to the point where some people might actually believe

foolish nonsense by people who pontificate on things that they simply do NOT understand.   Remember, also I am spending almost all waking hours,

which I fortunately have, to finish this project.

 

Some people on AS have kindly tried to help, but unfortunately partially by my hearing, partially by my over enthusiasm, the project wasn't ready for external help.  I regret that.

 

The design of the FA in general is NOT documented and has about 5 layers of EQ (pre-emph/de-emph, sum is pretty much flat), gain changes, etc on top of the truly simple EQ between DolbyA expander layers.  My various folly wasted a lot of time  on the LF EQ, which I had been working on for about 1yr -- and it was the wrong approach.  The correct approach of two low pass shelving filters BETWEEN EACH LAYER (VERY simple) was the correct answer.   The complex mess, violating my rules, should have been very simple as it is now.

 

I am TOTALLY exhausted, and sometimes respond without the flourish of politeness -- that is a main way that I am a jerk -- but think about it, I have all kinds of complex things, reviewing what next to fix, previous mistakes, and what is coming in the corrections...  Yep, I am sometimes short because I am scared to death of distractions (I also have a brain reset about every 5-10 seconds -- which makes my concentration totally wild to control. -- that is why I don''t work at a job.)   I so appreciate the attempt to help, and ANY positive comment gives me a little bit of strength.  Maybe you don't see the private thank yous -- but they are there.


The previous folly let me make some other mistakes that I  had been correcting on the 2.2.5 releases.  I did a lot of desperate changes to try to fix the LF, but I violated my reverse engineering rules INCLUDING the really odd (but correct) tapered MF compensation...   I did not violate the 3dB type rule or the frequency rule, but instead NEVER BREAK WHAT YOU KNOW TO BE CORRECT!!!  I have several rules like that, but I broke them.

 

These delays and more are making me feel very bad that the true gift will not be well received...   The design is pretty much 'finished'* (really this time) and all I need to do, and might have succeeded almost make the EQ between the RAW vs. DECODED almost exactly the same in V2.2.5D -- except for the bass which is waveform distorted.  Any super fast compressor wil l distort the bass, so the decoder, which undoes the waveform distortion sounds a little different on the bass.  If not perfect, the EQ is now similar, and closer to the original that we cannot hear -- how can someone say that the decoder isn't flat when ANY multi-band scheme (or almost any) are NOT flat at one signal level or another?  There is no basis to claim that, other than as a destructive almost-fact.

* give me one more release -- I am making beaucoup mistakes lately.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, imagine that the program REALLY is in the really finished state, I am in the state of mental exhaustion, and the demos will show it to be the truth within reason (including the harsh highend being fixed.)

 

Somewhere else, some pontificator and local 'expert' decides (including his buddy who used to visit in this site) were making all kinds of comments about the decoder not being 'flat' as he measured it.  Not only that he complains about the spectrums being different between RAW and decoded ON AVERAGE over the recording -- answer, WELL, OF COURSE!!!

The decoder increases the peaks, and slightly suppresses the middle levels, and significantly hits the lower levels -- that is called expansion.  Not only that, any comment that I make as correction (with extreme frustration) is blow away by further pontification and not trying to understand.  Not only that some 'questionable competent' person effectively says that the single LAYER (corrected from band) expander was better than what is here now...   What?  Well the rest of the comment is that I am misguided.

 

To make along story short, one of the pontificators, effectively saying that the decoder is wrong -- follows me here to this site.  I am SO TIRED of trying to prove something to someone who will not, and probably never listen. With the greatest respect, there are few people here who can truly understand the decoder (GEESH, I BARELY UNDERSTAND IT, AND I WROTE IT!!!).   How can I publically answer a charge -- when the attacker presents pretty, almost convincing pictures?   On the surface, they are true, but also totally wrong.

 

I am tired.  I warned people (honestly) I am on the edge of quitting -- and I am not pouting or acting in a 'prima donna' way.   Even though I have not been perfect, a little kindness is in order.  Most people here have been kind.  But I have no more strength.  I know that everyone is tired of this -- I AM ALSO, but have needed *something' positive.

 

I guess I didn't make it generally  known that I am at my limit, and pushed it for a long time.  When @PeterStreminded me of my defects -- it pushed me over the edge.   The latest V2.2.5D is going to be uploaded soon, with an explanation about the bass.   If you cannot access it -- PM me.   I deleted the demos, then restored them -- I don't want to take anything away.  I was, and still am pretty much finished (I mean, the decoder is really good -- SOMETIMES it is hard to tell if the material is decoded or not, and when the material is crappy like what always bothered me, especially the stuff that I listened to in the 1980s, it does a great job of correcting it.  Just thought of putting the latest release with the demos -- no docs, it works the same as before

 

No more strength -- just PM me if you want something, PM me if you are interested in the near perfect demos and cannot access them (NOT EVEN HARSH HIGH END -- I accepted the feedback from a few people, because they were correct.)  (They are truly not perfect -- but damned close.)

 

Too tired -- just contact me if you are interested -- it will be free forever.  Not interested much in publically communicating anymore,

because  there will always be someone making excuses for people who aren't interested, but will deeply criticize.  Just cannot do it any more.

 

Thank you for kindness, but I have no strength for dealing with those insulting the project without competent basis, and disappointed with those

defending the original attacker.   Perhaps the attacker should have said:  Could you explain why?   I don't remember that he wrote that question, and if he did write tha,n then I apologize.  Otherwise, those who support the attacker -- tell me why the decoder design is wrong --- please be specific.

 

JUST TOO TIRED...

 

 

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Perhaps the attacker should have said:

 

John, John, John ...

There are no attackers. How can there be, towards anyone who so enormously spent so much effort in squeezing out the best for everyone. And since you mentioned my name, why would I not be that attacker at not pressing "submit" at my PM from by now many hours ago. But I guess this is what happens when things are made inconsistent in an unnatural way (again my complaint about the removal of posts).

 

So I repeat, ... Johan, John, John, ...

Can't it suffice for you to know that you did your stinkin' best for the all of us ? ... just because I tell you ?

I only wished I had pressed Submit at that PM from 4 hours back. It so genuinely clarifies how all your followers are into this. And I claim: Yes, including those who don't know what the heck I am talking about. ... Bet ?

Nobody ever is allowed to be so driven by the best for us all, in order to find out the impossible after so much time. But who is going to bring that actually prosperous news ?? ... I tell you: Alex. But he couldn't and can't.

 

So John, you can't be on your own with this. Therefore I am with you. And I like to quote from someone you don't like to see quoted from:

 

Quote

 

2) Source code.

It would be a pity if this valuable project were lost.

 

 

I saw the valuable merit this guy saw ... you apparently can undo (at least some of) the DolbyA noise (read his posts positively).

Why not grab that.

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

My messages are so long that I regularly use emphasis to direct people's vision.   I NEVER SHOUT!!! (there we go :-)).

 

I assume and hope that you know that using CAPS is considered to be shouting, When you used them in the above sentence, I also assumed that you used them here for humour and/or irony. But then you continued to use them numerous times in your post. Oh well, life is full of contradictions! 🙂

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to comment
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 ...

Link to comment

 

So ... after this last post from John, another post from me disappeared.

 

Edit: No, it didn't. But something's wrong with the forum now;

Ctrl-F5 does NOT load the latest posts. Well, actually it does, but without my own new posts. The two posts above (from Paul and Frank) did not appear on this new page (33), while after making this very post they do and my own post on the previous post is back again. The one starting with

 

Quote

John, John, John ...

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment

My FR measurement is correct and fully applicable to the decoder's function and it's easily proven. The decoder does nothing at high signal levels (say, at least down to -10dB), this has been pointed out many time by the designer. When the log sweep, MLS noise or other content used to obtain the transfer function is playing above the "action threshold" it is fully resembling any static EQ applied. I've used all three methods and the results were always identical. Only when the content falls below the action threshold (actually there's a multitude of threshholds because of the multi-band and multi-layer nature), the additional(!) dynamic EQ effects Mr.Dyson explained are popping up and spoil the accuracy of the FR.

 

The proof that the FR is correct: when I precisily de-embedded that FR so I could successfully subtract the original and processed file, a Null was obtained down at -40dB thereabouts... which exactly is what's expected. The difference showed what the encoder actually does in great detail at those levels and below (see ASR thread, including a listening example, I won't repeat everything here). Had I erred on the total FR the subtraction would have completely failed on the large signal sections, no way to get a 40dB Null (content is the same down to 1% of full-scale level).

 

It all started because in listening trials I immediately noticed the skewed tonal balance on all the test snippets provided which hugely dominated all the subtle dynamic detail changes. Same when trying to decode my own source tracks. Proper analysis then showed why. And I've not been the first one to find this and point it out.

 

So that overall static EQ is real, there cannot be a single microsecond of doubt about that. I'm not saying that no EQ whatsoever should be placed to obtain the best results (which are strongly subjective anway), what I'm saying is that this gross tonal change of more than +-6dB variation accross the audio band impressed on each and every decoding is 100% sure *not* what the original master tape (without any DolbyA compression to pimp the CD versions) sounded like.

We can only speculate about Mr.Dysons rationale for this EQ, as he never explained why so much of static EQ is deemed appropriate to "restore" the original, Even comparision with vinyl would not warrant that much of change, plus viny masters also processed to unknown amounts, both static (EQ) and dynamic stuff (the last in chain being the cutting head vertical limiter).

Link to comment
1 hour ago, KSTR said:

EDIT: I see my original post has been removed.... this one will share that fate I guess. I'm out of here.

 

Here is a snippet of a larger post I created yesterday, in response to yours:

 

@KSTR - in my view - deserves a little backup, although I am sure he can do without just the same. However, like me in the beginning, he spent a lot of time understanding what you are doing, John.

 

But before I could post it, your post was deleted.

I would not worry too much, as some try to protect John's work for a good cause. I feel that we can all be more open now, including John himself. All he wants is finishing his project. All he needs is listening to people like you. He recognizes that (now).

 

 

18 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I guess I have been a jerk -- but I need people to COMMUNICATE DETAILS to me -- my hearing has been tricking me for a long time.

I really tried to give a gift.  Sometimes the 'gift horse' syndrome has manifest, but I have given EVERYTHING (literally.)

 

The project is suspended.

 

But John is a very sensitive guy with a small heart (as we say it), and it is very tough on him to learn that his work has been partly in vain. His major problem, in my view, is that he works with theories, can't listen well himself these days, and could not digest criticism meanwhile. I am almost sure that this attitude can - and will change. So @John Dyson, offline we talked about critique.  This is criticism in a positive sense - over here it is.

 

What I personally see too, is that the measurement means John uses to check his theories, should change *or* we must learn from him what it actually is he thinks can go through in valid fashion; at this moment I don't see that, but who knows. The first thing what needs to happen IMO is that he/we go back to a basis which is listenable. Build up from there.

The project sure has merit. But whether all is so severe (with DolbyA) is an other matter. Here too: personally I don't see it, but I also can't see it (hear it) as long as the audible results are as they are.

So John, work to do, man !

 

Peter

 

PS: All is quite difficult for me because I speak relative to posts which got deleted or posts which I did not post.

 

 

 

 

Lush^3-e      Lush^2      Blaxius^2.5      Ethernet^3     HDMI^2     XLR^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Someone was a virtual stalker. I don't have time for virtual stalkers who want to poison every thread on a topic on every site that will allow it.

That seems a bit rich.. I have never seen (KSTR) on this site in the past couple years of me visiting here.  I am not suggesting what you should do, only an observation from the sidelines. John should have known what he was getting into when posting on the "other" site. Objectivists at the "other" sites are a bit more demanding of emperical evidence for improvements, and this was given by said member(s). Nobody forced John to post elsewhere. I wish him all the best, and can relate to both sides. 

 

.02

Link to comment
Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

That is a mischaracterization of @KSTR and it is really unfortunate that his technical and subjective reports are being actively erased.

I received other information that lead me to my conclusion. I'm certainly open to additional information being provided on the other side of this.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

It's tough to know. 

 

You could try asking 'What exactly is this alleged 'poison' he's dispensing?'. And why use such emotive language as 'stalking' and poisoning? Isn't that generally indicative of loss of impartiality?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...