[Industrial One]

How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates? The clips in question
are 48 KHz 128 kbps CBR/VBR and a couple at 96. I don't understand why
those assholes can't downsample to 32 KHz if they're gonna use such
low bitrates.

[Randy Yates]

Industrial One writes:

How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Industrial One]

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do. If I can imagine in my mind a high quality version of the
audio without the ringing from a low quality source, a computer can do
the same.

[isw]

In article
,
Industrial One wrote:

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do. If I can imagine in my mind a high quality version of the
audio without the ringing from a low quality source, a computer can do
the same.

It's not enough that you can *imagine* it; you must know *precisely* how
to *do* it. Then you can teach a computer how to do it, only a lot
faster than you can.

Or alternately, the computer can indeed "imagine" it, but can no more
deliver that as a usable output than you can "output" what you imagined.

Isaac

[Industrial One]

On Oct 15, 4:02 am, isw wrote:
In article
,
Industrial One wrote:

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do. If I can imagine in my mind a high quality version of the
audio without the ringing from a low quality source, a computer can do
the same.

It's not enough that you can *imagine* it; you must know *precisely* how
to *do* it. Then you can teach a computer how to do it, only a lot
faster than you can.

Or alternately, the computer can indeed "imagine" it, but can no more
deliver that as a usable output than you can "output" what you imagined.

Isaac

I know, which is why I'm asking this group for suggestions. There must
be a way, just like there's a way to improve the quality of low-
bitrate DivX clips by applying a deblocking algorithm -- the most
advanced out there cannot completely restore the original quality but
still looks WAY better than if you left it alone. So what's my best
option? To leave my song as it is?

[jamesgangnc]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 4:02 am, isw wrote:
In article
,
Industrial One wrote:

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do. If I can imagine in my mind a high quality version of the
audio without the ringing from a low quality source, a computer can do
the same.

It's not enough that you can *imagine* it; you must know *precisely* how
to *do* it. Then you can teach a computer how to do it, only a lot
faster than you can.

Or alternately, the computer can indeed "imagine" it, but can no more
deliver that as a usable output than you can "output" what you imagined.

Isaac

I know, which is why I'm asking this group for suggestions. There must
be a way, just like there's a way to improve the quality of low-
bitrate DivX clips by applying a deblocking algorithm -- the most
advanced out there cannot completely restore the original quality but
still looks WAY better than if you left it alone. So what's my best
option? To leave my song as it is?

Your best option is to go find a better original.

[Eeyore]

Industrial One wrote:

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

There are different software decoders I think. Or is it just encoders Try
some anyway..

Graham

[Randy Yates]

Industrial One writes:

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Which is a ridiculous request. Sorta like "improving the quality" of the
output of an 8-bit A/D. The noise is (or in your case, artifacts are)
there to stay.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Mr.T]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Which is a ridiculous request. Sorta like "improving the quality" of the
output of an 8-bit A/D. The noise is (or in your case, artifacts are)
there to stay.

Sure, but since he doesn't define what HE means by "improve", maybe he *can*
do it.
IF silence is an "improvement" (sure is in many cases IMO) then it's
actually very EASY! :-)

MrT.

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

It depends on what you mean by quality and what Mr. Yates means by quality.
Information in the original waveform was discarded in the encoding process,
so fidelity to the original sound is irretrievably lost. All you can do now
is fiddle with it to see if you can find some further distortion that is
more to your liking.

Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do. If I can imagine in my mind a high quality version of the
audio without the ringing from a low quality source, a computer can do
the same.

I can imagine all sorts of things that no computer is or ever will be
capable of.

[Richard Crowley]

"Industrial One" wrote from Goooooooooogle Groups...
Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do.

Nominated for silliest remark of the year.
But then it is only mid-October.

If "I-1" keeps up the good work, he will make 1st
Class Troll and give Troll Emeritus "Radium" a run
for his position.

[Richard Crowley]

"Randy Yates" wrote ...
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

Hence the term "lossy compression".
Does I1 have a list of troll questions that he posts regularly?

[Industrial One]

On Oct 15, 3:39 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote ...

Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

Hence the term "lossy compression".
Does I1 have a list of troll questions that he posts regularly?

"I1..." I kinda like it, despite how robotic it sounds.

On Oct 15, 9:56 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
Which is a ridiculous request. Sorta like "improving the quality" of the
output of an 8-bit A/D. The noise is (or in your case, artifacts are)
there to stay.

Bull****, the noise can be removed via noise-removal techniques and re-
saved as 16-bit.

On Oct 16, 12:46 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message

...

Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

Which is a ridiculous request. Sorta like "improving the quality" of the
output of an 8-bit A/D. The noise is (or in your case, artifacts are)
there to stay.

Sure, but since he doesn't define what HE means by "improve", maybe he *can*
do it.
IF silence is an "improvement" (sure is in many cases IMO) then it's
actually very EASY! :-)

MrT.

**** you Mr.T. Didn't I tell you to stay outta my threads?

On Oct 16, 5:22 am, "Chronic Philharmonic"
wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in message

...

On 15 Okt., 02:41, Randy Yates wrote:
Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

No ****. I said "improve quality," not "replace."

It depends on what you mean by quality and what Mr. Yates means by quality.
Information in the original waveform was discarded in the encoding process,
so fidelity to the original sound is irretrievably lost. All you can do now
is fiddle with it to see if you can find some further distortion that is
more to your liking.

By quality I mean presentability. By running a smart deblocking algo
on a low-bitrate DivX clip, do I "restore information?" Not exactly,
but I interpolate/extrapolate the information I already have to make
the video much more presentable and perceivably higher quality. How do
you think your own mind can simulate a higher quality image of the one
you seen on your grainy TV? Some information is "gone" but the
information already present makes it obvious what would be there if it
wasn't gone. Neural networks just aren't at the stage yet where it can
restore images automatically without heavy human guidance.

I'm asking if the same can be done for sound. Can I "de-smear" and "de-
ring" it? If you insist I can't, then ok.

Btw, you should know that machines are capable of whatever we can
already do. If I can imagine in my mind a high quality version of the
audio without the ringing from a low quality source, a computer can do
the same.

I can imagine all sorts of things that no computer is or ever will be
capable of.

Like how the members of the Fraunhofer committee back in 1984 thought
consumer CPUs will never reach the stage to decode MP3s in real-time?

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Industrial One" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 3:39 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote ...

Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

Hence the term "lossy compression".
Does I1 have a list of troll questions that he posts regularly?

"I1..." I kinda like it, despite how robotic it sounds.

On Oct 15, 9:56 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
Which is a ridiculous request. Sorta like "improving the quality" of the
output of an 8-bit A/D. The noise is (or in your case, artifacts are)
there to stay.

Bull****, the noise can be removed via noise-removal techniques and re-
saved as 16-bit.

If that were true, we'd just save everything as 8-bits, and do the noise
removal. Noise removal techniques are iffy at best, and obnoxious at worst,
even when meticulously tuned and applied by hand.

[Industrial One]

On Oct 17, 4:02 am, "Chronic Philharmonic"
wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in message

...



On Oct 15, 3:39 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote ...

Industrial One writes:
How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from smearing/
ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You cannot. You cannot replace information that has been lost.

Hence the term "lossy compression".
Does I1 have a list of troll questions that he posts regularly?

"I1..." I kinda like it, despite how robotic it sounds.

On Oct 15, 9:56 pm, Randy Yates wrote:
Which is a ridiculous request. Sorta like "improving the quality" of the
output of an 8-bit A/D. The noise is (or in your case, artifacts are)
there to stay.

Bull****, the noise can be removed via noise-removal techniques and re-
saved as 16-bit.

If that were true, we'd just save everything as 8-bits, and do the noise
removal. Noise removal techniques are iffy at best, and obnoxious at worst,
even when meticulously tuned and applied by hand.

Because it's useless if I'm gonna compress to MP3 since it'll smear
and **** up the noise, making it harder to detect and remove. But as
long as the noise dB are significantly lower than the signal, it can
be easily removed, especially by hand.

[Arny Krueger]

"Industrial One" wrote in
message


How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from
smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You might be able do obtain a perceived improvement with filtering and noise
gating.

The clips in question are 48 KHz 128 kbps CBR/VBR and a
couple at 96. I don't understand why those assholes can't
downsample to 32 KHz if they're gonna use such low
bitrates.

Downsampling to 32 KHz can actually improve the results when you use such
low bitrates.

32 KHz isn't that ugly of a sample rate - it allows some kind of frequency
response up to about 16 KHz. Please remember that FM stereo pretty well tops
out at 15 KHz.

Some general rules for coding to low bitrates are to forget stereo and go to
mono, and decrease the bandwidth as much as you can without losing too much
intelligibility. Spoken word in mono with a 5 to 8 Hz bandwidth isn't
usually all that bad, and classical music with 11 KHz bandwidth can often be
quite satisfying.

[Industrial One]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in
message


How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from
smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You might be able do obtain a perceived improvement with filtering and noise
gating.

Such as?

The clips in question are 48 KHz 128 kbps CBR/VBR and a
couple at 96. I don't understand why those assholes can't
downsample to 32 KHz if they're gonna use such low
bitrates.

Downsampling to 32 KHz can actually improve the results when you use such
low bitrates.

Duh, all of my MP3s in the past were 32 KHz 96-128 kbps. No artifacts
at all. Unfortunetaly, I can't control how other retards encode their
material, and the **** I downloaded was some old anime ripped from a
Laserdisc. I really doubt there is a higher quality copy available on
the net beside the one I snatched which already took forever to
download.

32 KHz isn't that ugly of a sample rate - it allows some kind of frequency
response up to about 16 KHz. Please remember that FM stereo pretty well tops
out at 15 KHz.

I doubt there is any significant difference at all, as most can't hear
over 16 khz anyway. I'm 18 and can hear up to 17, which is probably
why I sometimes notice a difference if I concentrate really hard. For
all intents and purposes, even 22 KHz is allright -- you lose some
cymbals but meh.

Some general rules for coding to low bitrates are to forget stereo and go to
mono, and decrease the bandwidth as much as you can without losing too much
intelligibility. Spoken word in mono with a 5 to 8 Hz bandwidth isn't
usually all that bad, and classical music with 11 KHz bandwidth can often be
quite satisfying.

**** on that ****! With the advent of spectral band replication and
parametric stereo there's no need for downsampling or downmixing
anymore.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 16, 10:39 am, Industrial One
wrote:
I'm 18

And that explains everything.

and can hear up to 17,

have the technical skills of 15, social skills of 12, and
most of the time act like a 2 year old.

How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers
from smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium
bitrates?

Perhaps your best choice is to not use the computer without
your Mom and Dad's permission.

[Industrial One]

On Oct 16, 3:12 pm, wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:39 am, Industrial One
wrote:

I'm 18

And that explains everything.

and can hear up to 17,

have the technical skills of 15, social skills of 12, and
most of the time act like a 2 year old.

How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers
from smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium
bitrates?

Perhaps your best choice is to not use the computer without
your Mom and Dad's permission.

You got a problem?

P.S. I own this computer and apartment. My mom probably OD'ed and my
dad is in a nuthouse.

On Oct 16, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in
message


How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers
from smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium
bitrates?

You might be able do obtain a perceived improvement with
filtering and noise gating.
Such as?

At really low bit rates there is often background noise and echos. Low pass
filtering can mitigate some of the irritation due to the noise, and a noise
gate can help with the some of the background noise and some of the echoes.

Oh **** it, the audio stays. The problem is not the noise and removing
any echo would probably remove legitimate reverb effects in the audio.
I don't even know why I'm bitching. It doesn't sound bad, it's just
not not up to par to the quality it could've had. Oh well, I doubt the
mental lonely ****s on eBay would care after they buy my "remastered"
copies. The picture is fine and that's all I care about.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 16, 11:45 am, Industrial One
wrote:
Perhaps your best choice is to not use the computer without
your Mom and Dad's permission.

You got a problem?

Nope, but it seems you're willing to share yours with
the world.

P.S. I own this computer and apartment. My mom
probably OD'ed and my dad is in a nuthouse.

No, they're probably hiding under a rock, regretting the
day they didn't pay attention to the "birth control" chapter
in sex ed.

I don't even know why I'm bitching

Because you're an unsocialized annoying little ass
with poor impulse control whose best skill is attention
seeking behavior. Once in a great while, you're a
source of mild entertainment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Industrial One" wrote in
message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in
message


How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers
from smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium
bitrates?

You might be able do obtain a perceived improvement with
filtering and noise gating.

Such as?

At really low bit rates there is often background noise and echos. Low pass
filtering can mitigate some of the irritation due to the noise, and a noise
gate can help with the some of the background noise and some of the echoes.

[Randy Yates]

Industrial One writes:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Industrial One" wrote in
message


How can I improve the quality of a clip that suffers from
smearing/ ringing artifacts due to low-medium bitrates?

You might be able do obtain a perceived improvement with filtering and noise
gating.

Such as?

The clips in question are 48 KHz 128 kbps CBR/VBR and a
couple at 96. I don't understand why those assholes can't
downsample to 32 KHz if they're gonna use such low
bitrates.

Downsampling to 32 KHz can actually improve the results when you use such
low bitrates.

Duh, all of my MP3s in the past were 32 KHz 96-128 kbps. No artifacts
at all. Unfortunetaly, I can't control how other retards encode their
material, and the **** I downloaded was some old anime ripped from a
Laserdisc. I really doubt there is a higher quality copy available on
the net beside the one I snatched which already took forever to
download.

32 KHz isn't that ugly of a sample rate - it allows some kind of frequency
response up to about 16 KHz. Please remember that FM stereo pretty well tops
out at 15 KHz.

I doubt there is any significant difference at all, as most can't hear
over 16 khz anyway. I'm 18 and can hear up to 17, which is probably
why I sometimes notice a difference if I concentrate really hard. For
all intents and purposes, even 22 KHz is allright -- you lose some
cymbals but meh.

I agree.

Some general rules for coding to low bitrates are to forget stereo and go to
mono, and decrease the bandwidth as much as you can without losing too much
intelligibility. Spoken word in mono with a 5 to 8 Hz bandwidth isn't
usually all that bad, and classical music with 11 KHz bandwidth can often be
quite satisfying.

**** on that ****! With the advent of spectral band replication and
parametric stereo there's no need for downsampling or downmixing
anymore.

So you've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Stereo?

These are some impressive new developments in audio ENCODING - won't
help you too much with DECODING your files.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Chronic Philharmonic]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Industrial One writes:


[...]

So you've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Stereo?

These are some impressive new developments in audio ENCODING - won't
help you too much with DECODING your files.

Interesting article. I thought it was quite telling that the effect doesn't
work particularly well at higher bitrates. Of course, other encoding schemes
use sum and difference, taking advantage of the fact that the difference
between the two channels channels is usually much smaller than the mono sum.
That goes all the way back to stereo encoding on vinyl as well as FM and TV
stereo, and later, FLAC, et. al.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote in
message
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
...
Industrial One writes:


[...]

So you've read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Stereo?

These are some impressive new developments in audio
ENCODING - won't help you too much with DECODING your
(existing) files.

Interesting article. I thought it was quite telling that
the effect doesn't work particularly well at higher
bitrates.

I suspect that it works no better or worse at higher bitrates in an absolute
sense, but it is not as acceptable because listener expectations are so much
higher at higher bitrates.

The mention of Satellite radio in one of the Wiki articles is telling,
because the audio quality standards for the best known satellite radio
network in the U.S. are abysmal. They might be good enough for Howard Stern
or a NASCAR race, but they are not for what most people here would call
quality audio.

Of course, other encoding schemes use sum and
difference, taking advantage of the fact that the
difference between the two channels channels is usually
much smaller than the mono sum.

IOW, you don't need a high quality, full-bandpass difference channel to
create the perception of space and directionality.

That goes all the way back to stereo encoding on vinyl as well as FM and
TV
stereo, and later,

For most of the life of FM stereo, real world FM stereo receivers
characteristically lost lots of separation at high frequencies.

FLAC, et. al.

AFAIK FLAC is lossless, and makes no compromises at all.

[Earl Kiosterud]

"Chronic Philharmonic" wrote in message
...


"Randy Yates" wrote in message ...
Industrial One writes:


[...]

So you've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Stereo?

These are some impressive new developments in audio ENCODING - won't
help you too much with DECODING your files.

Interesting article. I thought it was quite telling that the effect doesn't work
particularly well at higher bitrates. Of course, other encoding schemes use sum and
difference, taking advantage of the fact that the difference between the two channels
channels is usually much smaller than the mono sum. That goes all the way back to stereo
encoding on vinyl as well as FM and TV stereo, and later, FLAC, et. al.


I know this is getting off-topic, but I thought it might be interesting to point out the
there wasn't really any "encoding" of stereo as such on vinyl. The two channels
independently moved the stylus, each at 45° (thus at 90° to each other). Today it's called
"discrete" channels. The result was that if there was no LR difference, then the stylus
moved only laterally, which means that a mono record would play properly on a stereo system.
That's also why stereo records would not play properly on a mono cartridge, because it
probably wasn't designed to allow much vertical movement, and would cause damage to the
extent that there was LR difference. In the worst case of LR difference, such as where one
channel was the same stuff as the other, but of inverse polarity, the stylus moved only
vertically.
--
Earl