'FeralA' decoder -- free-to-use

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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!

I think that you are hearing the defect about having a different voice that I am also hearing (the tentative nature of the dynamics) -- that bothers me about it being FA.  I haven't tested using a different setting of --fw=classical.  I just remembered that the defect that I am hearing can easily come from an incorrrect choice about --fw=classical.   My memory sucks at times.

 

I really don't think that the buzz didn't come from the 'mastering' of the times.  Here is why I don't think that -- the same defect can reoccur elsewhere.  It isn't local to Nat's recordings and can (the word 'can', not 'will') easily happen on other recordings.  In essense, it could be a very common defect.

 

It is okay to disagree though.   I am getting ready to claim that it isn't FA, but gonna think about it, look at more alternatives.  There are things that I have forgotten that just might fix the recording -- for example, the --fw=classical setting - that can cause exactly the defect that I am hearing.   That might be some of the reason why you don't like the non-buzz version -- because the envelope around the voice has a strange kind of gating.

but I won't put words in your mouth though, and your opinion stands.

 

I hesitate to give the status report about 'decoding' non-FA in this reply, and will do so on another reply.

[John Dyson]

I cannot find the original post about doing the decoding test with proven non-FA.

The test mostly shows that trying to do a decode of the non-FA  material is very unpleasant, but not a total disaster.  You can hear the music without trouble, and the response balance isnt horrible.  The results are grainy.

 

There isn't a major difference in bass, but the recording is not bass heavy.

The highs have a breakthrough effect with a hint of intermod  It is like moderately strong intermod at high frequencies -- maybe the opposite of smush, the sound really DOES make me want to itch all over. This is on a true natural dynamic range tape.   Maybe a similar effect might be playing HF information on a power amp that doesn't have idle bias on the output stages.  Kind of like a dead-zone sound -- yea, thats it, thats the ticket!!! Sound as if there is a dead-zone of a an amplifier gain curve.

 

Basically, the result isn't quite like listening to the apparently defective Nat King Cole decodes.   It is more like an HF grain and almost scratching with a similar effect, but different sound as chalk on a chalk board.   It is strong enough that if I compared the normal FA recordings with these decoding results, I'd much much much much prefer the FA recordings, and most of the time I do not like them at all.

 

Bottom line, with this test, the results sound NOTHING like the Nat King Cole tape.   The results are definitely good for encouraging people to itch themselves :-).

I'll do another test soon -- with material that has very different characteristics.

 

NOTE:  I haven't done DolbyA except for testing in a very long time.  It is nice to see the decoder run quickly even in the greater than FA quality modes.   FA is REALLY slow in comparison.  That is to be expected though -- instead of 7 virtual decoders, DolbyA mode uses only 1.

 

John

 

 

[John Dyson]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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!

One more thing -- remember when I mentioned --fw=classical?   That solved the specific problem that I was worried about.  It might not improve how you think of it.

I have so many things going on in my mind, some are very complex -- forgetting things is the norm.

 

I will replace the recordings -- it will take about 1Hr because of the numerous mistakes that I make, but look at them if you want.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

56 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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!

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.

 

[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 ...

[John Dyson]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

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

Okay, I understand -- critique is okay, but you MIGHT like this better than previous.   The difference between --fw=classical or not can be profound.

With this fix, I think that I can say that the Nat King Cole Story IS FA.

 

If the recording wasn't, the screech, dead zone effect would be happening.

 

If I had non-copyright, no-promise DolbyA copy -- because it wont'  liekly be FA, then I would be happy to show you all.

 

[Don Hills]

13 hours ago, John Dyson said:

...

Anyway - after REALLY REALLY thinking about it, maybe it really was intended to shape the spectrum for FM radio???   There has to be a real reason for FA...   This would also be a good reason why the 'smush' would happen much less often nowadays.

Waddya think?

 

 

There's more to it than that. In many cases, trying to make a track "radio friendly" can make it sound worse on the radio.

For many years radio stations have used specialised compressors / processors in the feed to the transmitter. Their job is to multi-band compress, de-ess and phase rotate to maximise the on-air loudness. Traditionally, they were designed to work best with uncompressed sources. With the rise of hypercompressed sources, the on-air sound quickly became unlistenable. Modern iterations of the processors now try to reduce the adverse effects of hypercompressed material.

Hypercompression arose for several reasons:

- Artists saying "Make my CD as loud / louder than the competition."

- As an artistic effect (such as Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Californication".)

- When a track was auditioned for including on a station's playlist, louder tracks stood out more.

 

Here's a piece about broadcast processing, written at the height of the loudness wars:

What Happens to My Recording When it’s Played on the Radio?

[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, 😉.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

But I would still go with the original

 

The original ?

[fas42]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

The original ?

 

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

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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

 

Frank, that is nothing like the original. You may try that too.

[PeterSt]

@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).

 

[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?

[MarcelNL]

great info on radio stations, it likely explains why I cannot stand most stations for more than half an hour but the few that broadcast with little messing around and those tend to be oriented at classical music (BBC classical, WDR classical, Belgian Klara station etc).

 

I am getting a bit lost without a clear reference to specific versions, I'd like to try something...that is IF possible at all...as I know that the availability of masters is ultra low...long ago I heard some original master tapes played back on a large studio recorder through a serious audio set and was blown away with how much detail and musicality gets lost in translation when we compared to the first pressing of the LP....

 

start with a unadulterated master, compare to the released track, clean that up in any which way and compare those three/four. 

[PeterSt]

44 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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?

 

Frank, I don't think this is a legit question, because the RAW versions are not something to really listen to or judge, unless John tells differently. Anyway, the RAW versions are already a "decode", which as far as I understand it, undo the DolbyA "encoding". From there, however, it is not finished because for a reason I never understood (yet) "some" EQ is necessary to restore all to something which should revert to the master prior to DolbyA encoding. John, am I right ? If not I obviously stand corrected.

 

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:

 

 

if I write/judge this about the RAW versions (the above is an excerpt from that) then this relates to one or the other CD version. I should make it clear in the largest capitals that this is not just some judgement and that I could also have dug out positives (like John asked me in aftermath so he could be more happy) ... but that nothing positive is to be found anywhere because the negatives are "beyond". It just is so. But I repeat : This coincidentally is about the RAW versions because you ask, while John will tell that formally we should not listen to the RAW versions (though they still will be a reference).

The bad/sad part of course is, that the DEC versions are worse again (per my personal judgements - again see in that link).

Btw, a "voice too profound" looks okay-ish but this is not meant to be like that at all. I means that there's no music left (I am serious).

 

Oddly enough I did not have any comments about the bass; for the DEC versions this is probably caused by my brain not being up to that because all the other things being off/wrong, but for the RAW versions this is not so (I described those as "I was able to listen to the RAW versions"). Still I have no remarks about that, or it was about "power" (you see me talk about "power" quite often (too much or lacking). But this is not bass at all. Otoh, maybe these weren't bass-prone tracks anyway.**

 

**): A danger in itself, because tracks without bass should not be used to calibrate bass.

Maybe a small reminder: my system goes straight to 19Hz (+/- 0.5dB) and is distortion free in that region (0.27% THD max at 88dBSPL).

[PeterSt]

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).

[John Dyson]

New demos for V2.2.5H -- Decoder in +18Hrs (9PM USA Eastern)

(Remember, I use bold type to help people shortcut reading, NOT for screaming or anything like that.)

 

This version makes the bass less muddy, sometimes, at low levels, I cannot hear the difference.

Also, In very limited cases, I let myself do:  "simple mastering" (just simple EQ.)

The recordings that benefit most are the Carpenters and Linda Ronstadt.  Recordings that were unlikly to be improved weren't touched.

Like usual, the 'mark' was probably missed  a little, but with minimal  imagination, and remembering what the raw sounds like,

you might hear more of the potential for decoding success.

 

My hearing is very carefully trained to hear distortion and artifacts like that - it doesn' work well for frequency response balance,

so this EQ thing took  a long time, but the decoder has an amazing lack of distortion.  It would seem like EQ is easier than minmizing

and mitigating distortion, but not for the program's author.   This EQ thing has been difficult from day one, but at

least for the internal EQ,I had more 'tells'.   The last step was almost impossible because I found few 'tells' or 'beahvioral hints'..

 

When listening to the decoding results this morning.  This being morning wake-up for me, I didn't want to listen at my normal

'critical listening level.'    Was I surprised!!!  At levels lower than my critial listening levels he differences were very small,

and the dynamics (the 'edge' the sound) were weaker.

 

Geeze...   This might be a deficiency that some people hear, and I don't.  This lack of 'edge' might be  the effects of one

of the 'anti-distortion' mechanisms.  Even though some of the edginess in recordings are a kind of distortion from dynamics processing, itt

makes a recording sound 'sharper' and 'cleaner'.   I might have to selectively turn off some of the anti-distortion and give up

some technical quality for better listening.  (There are processors  in recording studios that add distortion to 'irmprove' the listenability.)

 

EVERYTHING in the decoder has been devoted to technical purity, which is sometimes at odds for best listenability.  I have only

been working for creating/maintaning  'perfect waveforms' not not listenability.  Dynamics processing has more choices in that direction

than just EQ.

 

The items above might take several hours to review and fix.   Therefore, the release isn't planned for +5Hrs, but instead +17Hrs.

There the actual decoder version will be a V2.2.5I or V2.2.5J..  (I keep internal versions for certain control reasons,

so there might be a skip from H to J). The goal is to make this release much more effective as a user tool, so

will probably be more quiet than usual today.   I truly didn't realize until this morning that some 'bad' in a recording is actually

'good' for certain listening conditions.

 

Since the EQ is coming very, very close now,  it is time to 'make the recordings more listenable'.  We are finally getting

to the position that I thought that we were at 1.5yrs ago...   I will probably make 'listenability' the default, and have a switch that

disables/enables whatever needed to produce the pure technical quality.

 

 

 

 

[KSTR]

The original master is from 1952, no DolbyA ;-)

On the CD releases, they may or may not have used DolbyA to pimp it, whatever n-th generation copy of the master they had as source. The source could as well have been a professional vinyl rip with all the bells and whistles.

 

What we know:

- John's raw version has been resampled to 48kHz (why?)

- decoded version(s) (which would have been 88.2kHz) have been resampled as well to 48kHz (why?)

- decoded version(s) have the JD house EQ as ususal, making un-skewed comparisons very hard (IHMO)

 

To check out which CD version John used (unless he's telling us) would be to use DeltaWave to check against available CD versions. DW takes care of the resampling back to 44.1, and any larger differences in the mastering would quickly pop up (setting filters at 20kHz to keep the resampling stuff out of the picture would certainly be needed).

 

[KSTR]

1 minute ago, John Dyson said:

The items above might take several hours to review and fix.   Therefore, the release isn't planned for +5Hrs, but instead +17Hrs.

Take your time, John.

I think many of us would be perfectly happy with weekly updates. This gives you the headroom to check things out, let impressions settle (and collect impressions from others), find early bugs sneaking in and of course start working on side topics like the --no-global-eg switch ;-) Plus the time to update the docs. Take a break when needed.

[KSTR]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

[...]yesterday I tried to get some sense out of "original" ABBA albums. Well, they are terrible.[...]

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...

[John Dyson]

Hey -- you'all (yes, I do have some US South roots) --  I saw some messages come through and will read them in a few hours.  This is NOT rudeness, but I might have troubles trying to meet the goal today.  Totally focusing on a narrow part of the project, but I promise to divert and possibly learn something from someone, I promise, before about 12:00 Noon USA Eastern time (about +7Hrs) ..  Gotta add more distortion (kidding), or loosen some of the dynamics controls -- just don't know yet.  Reading messages is NOT just reading messages.

 

More than likely, earlier.  This is going to be a busy day -- the brain seems to be less 'nervous', and I think most of us would like to see this thing come close to wrapping up.

Once the code is stable, some cleanups can be done, then the source code is planned to be released.

The clean-up isn't just for vanity, but I'd really like for the code to be better readable, to help other developers with some ideas to think about  -- maybe might help someone do a dynamics processor someday...  The source code is an important goal, likely +6 to +12 months, shooting for the shorter time.  Have to have a 'perfect' decoder first.  Don't want to muck around with code that is still being modified.

 

 

[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 ... 😁.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, KSTR said:

you're first one I've heard of who actually owns and listens to stuff like ABBA, haha!

 

Yeah, LOL. But yesterday was the first time I tried to listen to ABBA. Actually that was day before yesterday because they're in John's DropBox for us to listen to. And they sound the worst of all of the tracks (really), so I felt the need to be honest to Johan and actually have a listen. ... Good that I did because IMO it could explain the sheer reason that John dove into this; what you may not know is that John's first couple of months over here were all about ABBA only. So John, you may focus too much on stuff beyond repair. Still, if what's molested is caused by DolbyA, then it just is the good reason.

But the decoding so far does not show it.

 

@John Dyson, you also talk so often about sibilance (in voices). This is something I am not bothered by, although it is one of the most difficult things to get rid of. Diana Krall, Eva Cassidy, Adele - and in that sequence (going worse from left to right). But, all solved and not by means of a DolbyA remover. But now the thing:

 

ABBA won't work out on my system at all, because of sibilance and distortion on top of it. I really appreciate it as sheer distortion of a worst kind. Now what does my system contain as such, that could emphasize this distortion ...

 

There's one quite explicit property and this is speed. So actually all in my system (or the Phasure systems in general) work by means of speed speed speed. This is up to the LPS in the PC, that again explicitly made to throw out current per the fastest means any linear PSU ever could (although as per my own design capabilities).

The most contributing would be the speakers, with their 118dB of sensitivity. This is so easily "moving" (with so few current) that it really shows all anomalies when there. It is actually extra difficult to purport decent playback, just because of this. No warm rounded "sibilance-smoothing" exhibit, but the opposite: following all of the higher frequencies "precisely". And thus it shows the best what ABBA did wrong back in the days ?

... I did not know this, and I also don't know it from any other band from those days (and beyond / older).

 

And to me it now looks like that John is trying to shave off that sibilance (?) but that nothing remains of the original either. That's how it comes to me ...

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yeah, LOL. But yesterday was the first time I tried to listen to ABBA. Actually that was day before yesterday because they're in John's DropBox for us to listen to. And they sound the worst of all of the tracks (really), so I felt the need to be honest to Johan and actually have a listen. ... Good that I did because IMO it could explain the sheer reason that John dove into this; what you may not know is that John's first couple of months over here were all about ABBA only. So John, you may focus too much on stuff beyond repair. Still, if what's molested is caused by DolbyA, then it just is the good reason.

But the decoding so far does not show it.

 

@John Dyson, you also talk so often about sibilance (in voices). This is something I am not bothered by, although it is one of the most difficult things to get rid of. Diana Krall, Eva Cassidy, Adele - and in that sequence (going worse from left to right). But, all solved and not by means of a DolbyA remover. But now the thing:

 

ABBA won't work out on my system at all, because of sibilance and distortion on top of it. I really appreciate it as sheer distortion of a worst kind. Now what does my system contain as such, that could emphasize this distortion ...

 

There's one quite explicit property and this is speed. So actually all in my system (or the Phasure systems in general) work by means of speed speed speed. This is up to the LPS in the PC, that again explicitly made to throw out current per the fastest means any linear PSU ever could (although as per my own design capabilities).

The most contributing would be the speakers, with their 118dB of sensitivity. This is so easily "moving" (with so few current) that it really shows all anomalies when there. It is actually extra difficult to purport decent playback, just because of this. No warm rounded "sibilance-smoothing" exhibit, but the opposite: following all of the higher frequencies "precisely". And thus it shows the best what ABBA did wrong back in the days ?

... I did not know this, and I also don't know it from any other band from those days (and beyond / older).

 

And to me it now looks like that John is trying to shave off that sibilance (?) but that nothing remains of the original either. That's how it comes to me ...

It is getting better.

Also, as mentioned elsewhere, I am incredibly mistake prone.  I can use a perfect program, that I perfectly know and make cr*p.

 

Reasons why there are troubles:  I listen for things that are different than a normal listener.  For example, I listen for distortion.  Most people do  not.  In a way, I work backwards.

Now, we are working backwards to get good EQ.  Before this phase, I had numerous tells for the internal EQ because the EQ was before the last phases of processing.  When there were 'next steps', then I could divise ways to find the correct answer.   The last answer is about how it sounds...   I am VERY 'how it sounds' challenged.  I am almost blind to the

EQ -- REALLY.

 

1) I cannot hear well.

2) there are absolutely -- I mean 100% none, tells for the last LF EQ...  That is exactly code that is being focused on.  There are SOME tells for the HF -- so I could get pretty close, eventhough we had problems there for a while.

 

I made the choice to get sick so I could better understand  the HF pre-emphasis/de-emphasis problem and fixing it.  I a still recovering -- mostly well now.  However LF is still challenging and we found an MF matter that would be impossible to predict, but fixed in a few minutes.

 

Also, some people will never be satisfied because they are happy with status quo.  I try never to say 'sounds better' -- sometimes it slips.  I can say sounds better to me,

but again, I listen for different things than you.   I am working on a dynamics processor -- and where are the challenges in a dynamics processor, then I fix the problem easily.  Also, for me 'tolerably clean dynamics ' is not good enough.  A DolbyA HW unit is 'tolerably clean', which obviously was not good enough for me. For me, dynamics characteristics must be perfect.  Problem: some of the dynamics are dependent on some  EQ -- chicken and egg.

 

So far, there are NO basic dynamics problems other than this previously unhearable issue -- it is all about the surrounding EQ, which I cannot easily do without tells.  No one here to help with hearing and checks&balances.

 

* I might be happy with the results before you are -- because my focus is in a different place.  Like I said, at this point, I am working backwards likely opposite how you think.  Also, in  the earlier phases, there was a bounce back and forth. (Using tells, trying to listen for distortions/balance, etc.)

 

Now, it is time to continue working  into correct EQ.  With this new, morecorrect EQ, I noticed 'deadness' biut otherwise results actually DO sound similar now -- I started working on the deadness right away.  Maybe someone else would have noticed sooner, telling me that something is wrong, AND HOW it is wrong.   There is no such luxury here. I doubt that

many people at all could have detected this specific problem given the poor EQ.  I'll bet you that NO-ONE, even otherwise competent engineers could have found the deadness problem..  Probably started tweaking something wrong.

 

* as the EQ improves, then other errors can be detected, back and forth.

 

The current demos (no-one has probably listened yet), have mostly tolerable EQ, but have a disappointing deadness to them.   I recognized  'we have a problem'.   .  A totally missing part of the internal EQ apparently caused a lack of dynanism. The EQ block hat I just did, never existed before 2-3Hrs ago.  I really don't think anyone could have noticed it -- the change does not affect the static frequency response.

 

* Note: Frustrating thing for me -- defects are sometimes preferred as a personal version of 'musical' -- for example,  prefer the sound perceptually more bright -- distortion can certainly do that, right? I have totally given up on that matter -- whatever floats your boat.  On the dynamics matters -- nothing other than technically perfect will happen.

 

 

BTW,also, the Nat KingCole examples were NOT decoded correctly until I corrected them.   Even after correction, the deadness effect was still there.  A component of the deadness along with incorrect --fw=classical mode, made me start thinking that good old Nats' recording wasn't FA.

 

Any Tom, Dick, Harry can do the perceptual EQ, except me.  However, the difficult stuff is VERY easy for me.

 

What is the solution for the deadnesst?  there needed to be midrange pre-de emphasis.   This was a similar problem at HF.   The cool thing about the MF problem is that I have already worked through all of the characteristics , so the only decision is which of two scheme to use.  Basically, I know that there must be a 9dB dip before decoding and a 9dB compensation after deocoding, but what kind of EQ structure.  This dip is between 1kHz and3kHz, and when implemented, the dynamics are corrected.  (Once I metioned that I recognized the  problem earlier this morning, within 15minutes I had the solution.)  I though that it would be a more complex problem -- but there is a difference between thinking and guessing.    This EQ was driven ENTIRELY by the choice of the original designer -- there would have been no way of guessing UNTIL listening to FA material.  

 

There were a few other issues, mostly already fixed last night, and running the demos right now for HOPEFULLY the new release.   If it passes the test of better dynamics while keeping the samegeneral response, then I think that most people who are open to the natural differences will be satisfied that it is very close to correct.

I really tried to avoid the forums today -- they distract me, and now I am alredy having problems typing.  I gotta finish todays project work before everything that I do is a mistake.

I can no longer reliably type -- so if there are typeos or language errors-- thems the breaks for now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The current demos (no-one has probably listened yet), have mostly tolerable EQ, but have a disappointing deadness to them.   I recognized  'we have a problem'.

 

Quick question:

 

When you are finished with the new decodes, what would you like someone like me to listen for, and how would you like to have that reported ?

So John, all I genuinely did a few days back was trying to help you with reporting per the only means I seem to have in me: report negatives. At that, I am not even looking for negatives. Of if things ain't right, they aren't.

So you cry for help with hearing, and I should be able to just do that.

 

A few years ago I was a technical listener only; Is that bass right, is that bass without distortion; is it low enough or is the low fake (that's distortion again), how/where does less jitter attribute to better sound, are the cymbals long enough, are they too long but cause fatigue elsewhere, do I listen to a cable or to the software, is the music OK for this type of test, how does my wife respond to my loud playing.

All technical merits. I still can do that, but as all hurdles have (mostly) been taking, I am not merely into the foot tapping sensing. Does it, or does it not. If not, why not. Is it my mood ? is it the aspirin ? could it be the vaccine ? is the music really physically worse behaving ? does the PC need a reboot ? must I switch off and on something ?

 

With the technical listening one can focus for one aspect, like the cymbals. But meanwhile I hear the bass as well. Is the bass no good then the cymbals can stuff it (the hell with them) because all must be equally goo to the standards of the moment (and they continuously change - they upgrade).

 

So I can't do a "but listen to the voice !" because if the music disappeared with it, it is technically not OK and in addition no foot tapping will happen (already because of annoyance).

 

So regarding all this, and simply knowing that my judgment should be fine when (the decodes) compared to real life, how could you pick up goodies from that, while I still report per means I did a few days back ? I myself would be able to work with it, because of (hidden) common denominators. Like the example of voices being too much forward in just too many cases, that pointing to the too strong mid.

 

John, energy won't get lost and it wont be created either. These days it is a golden rule for me when tweaking with (configurable) cables. If the mid is too strong, the energy will have been taken from elsewhere. And if the bass is too string, the highs will be muffed. Physically - and if not that, because of overwhelming.