Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Diffing LPCM vs. BRR Formats
I am interested in hearing what kind of information is being discarded when
going from linear PCM to bit-rate reduced formats like AAC, MP3 etc. In theory, one could get the difference between the two formats by flipping the phase 180 degrees on one file and then summing them back together. Listening to audible comparisons of different formats and bit rates might be quite interesting. I have Googled a number of different search strings, but I got no hits. Before I embark on my own experiments, I thought I'd ask around a bit. Has anyone here done something like this, or can you point me to some existing results? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Diffing LPCM vs. BRR Formats
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ... I am interested in hearing what kind of information is being discarded when going from linear PCM to bit-rate reduced formats like AAC, MP3 etc. In theory, one could get the difference between the two formats by flipping the phase 180 degrees on one file and then summing them back together. Listening to audible comparisons of different formats and bit rates might be quite interesting. I have Googled a number of different search strings, but I got no hits. Before I embark on my own experiments, I thought I'd ask around a bit. Has anyone here done something like this, or can you point me to some existing results? Anybody? |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Diffing LPCM vs. BRR Formats
I am interested in hearing what kind of information is being discarded
when going from linear PCM to bit-rate reduced formats like AAC, MP3 etc. In theory, one could get the difference between the two formats by flipping the phase 180 degrees on one file and then summing them back together. Listening to audible comparisons of different formats and bit rates might be quite interesting. As a control, you should experiment with the same sort of cancellation/nulling using two identical audio signals, time-shifted by one or more samples. This will help you learn to recognize the sorts of sonic artifacts which occur purely as a result of time offsets in the signals being nulled (it's a comb-filtering effect). This may help you adjust the nulling tests you do between lossy-coded and original signals, so that you actually end up hearing the effect of the coding (i.e. removed or altered information content) and not just minor errors in setting the timing between the two signals. I have Googled a number of different search strings, but I got no hits. Before I embark on my own experiments, I thought I'd ask around a bit. Has anyone here done something like this, or can you point me to some existing results? A Google search on "lossy audio coding" turned up the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compression_(data) which is a reasonable start. As I understand it, most lossy audio codecs operate through two basic mechanisms: - Figuring out which portions of an audio signal are likely to be audible to the human ear/brain system. The encoder attempts to preserve these, but may discard (not-encode) other portions of the audio which are below the expected threshold of audibility. - Figuring out how accurately (or inaccurately) it can encode the aspects of the signal it wants to keep. The intent here is to use a more accurate encoding (e.g. more bits) in cases where inaccuracy would probably be audible, and a less accurate encoding (fewer bits) where the resulting distortion is likely to be inaudible. A common example of this is that higher audio frequencies can usually be encoded with fewer bits of accuracy... the distortion (quantization noise) which results from this inaccuracy will lie at frequencies near or above the human hearing range, and will thus be difficult or impossible to hear. So, in general, a lossy codec of this sort will discard some frequencies entirely, and will have reduced accuracy at reproducing the amplitude of other frequencies... thus adding some amount of harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Lossy codecs are usually block-oriented - they break the incoming signal up into chunks, and encode each chunk individually (often with some overlap between the chunks). Some encoders can reportedly be prone to create a sort of "warbling" or "watery" sound, which might occur if the encoder makes different decisions about encoding a particular frequency range when it goes from one block to the next (i.e. some frequencies might appear, disappear, reappear, etc.). I understand that some of the encoding algorithms/implementations can also have the effect of "smearing" transient signals or creating pre- and post-echos of such transients. This can be seen as a loss of accurate *timing* information about the signal, as opposed to *frequency* information. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Diffing LPCM vs. BRR Formats
"Dave Platt" wrote in message ... I am interested in hearing what kind of information is being discarded when going from linear PCM to bit-rate reduced formats like AAC, MP3 etc. In theory, one could get the difference between the two formats by flipping the phase 180 degrees on one file and then summing them back together. Listening to audible comparisons of different formats and bit rates might be quite interesting. As a control, you should experiment with the same sort of cancellation/nulling using two identical audio signals, time-shifted by one or more samples. One of my assumptions was that I would need some kind of vernier adjustment capability (of both time and amplitude), since it is unlikely that two completely different file formats would have exactly the same gain and time offset. I would need to null out the majority of the sound by ear, most likely. This will help you learn to recognize the sorts of sonic artifacts which occur purely as a result of time offsets in the signals being nulled (it's a comb-filtering effect). This may help you adjust the nulling tests you do between lossy-coded and original signals, so that you actually end up hearing the effect of the coding (i.e. removed or altered information content) and not just minor errors in setting the timing between the two signals. We used to do "flanging" using analog tape recorders playing back identical signals, sometimes with one inverted in phase. I assume the effect will be similar. I have Googled a number of different search strings, but I got no hits. Before I embark on my own experiments, I thought I'd ask around a bit. Has anyone here done something like this, or can you point me to some existing results? A Google search on "lossy audio coding" turned up the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_compression_(data) which is a reasonable start. Yes, there is lots of information about BRR on the web, but I could not find anything specifically about differencing source files and their compressed version. I was hoping to find a site featuring samples from someone who had already tried this. As I understand it, most lossy audio codecs operate through two basic mechanisms: - Figuring out which portions of an audio signal are likely to be audible to the human ear/brain system. The encoder attempts to preserve these, but may discard (not-encode) other portions of the audio which are below the expected threshold of audibility. - Figuring out how accurately (or inaccurately) it can encode the aspects of the signal it wants to keep. The intent here is to use a more accurate encoding (e.g. more bits) in cases where inaccuracy would probably be audible, and a less accurate encoding (fewer bits) where the resulting distortion is likely to be inaudible. A common example of this is that higher audio frequencies can usually be encoded with fewer bits of accuracy... the distortion (quantization noise) which results from this inaccuracy will lie at frequencies near or above the human hearing range, and will thus be difficult or impossible to hear. So, in general, a lossy codec of this sort will discard some frequencies entirely, and will have reduced accuracy at reproducing the amplitude of other frequencies... thus adding some amount of harmonic and intermodulation distortion. Lossy codecs are usually block-oriented - they break the incoming signal up into chunks, and encode each chunk individually (often with some overlap between the chunks). Some encoders can reportedly be prone to create a sort of "warbling" or "watery" sound, which might occur if the encoder makes different decisions about encoding a particular frequency range when it goes from one block to the next (i.e. some frequencies might appear, disappear, reappear, etc.). The first ever bit rate reduction I ever heard was at a National Association of Broadcasters convention about 20 years ago. The "wateriness" was quite objectionable. I don't remember what technology they were using at the time. The compute horsepower was certainly not what it is today. I understand that some of the encoding algorithms/implementations can also have the effect of "smearing" transient signals or creating pre- and post-echos of such transients. This can be seen as a loss of accurate *timing* information about the signal, as opposed to *frequency* information. This is exactly the kind of information that I'm trying to get an intuitive sense of by listening to the mix-minus, or residual error information. I think it would be fascinating to hear the effects of time smearing vs. lower resolution. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Where did all the file formats come from ? | Pro Audio | |||
Is SPDI/F abel to carry multichannel LPCM | Pro Audio | |||
LPCM Stereo ? | High End Audio | |||
need converter from dp3 or dp4 formats to wav or ses formats | Pro Audio |