PGGB upsampler: DeltaWave null analysis

[TNT]

Are you skeptikal because you have an adamant belief in your testing script's ability to express audible differences?

LOL... -200 dB

Thats like an atom bomb exploding standing 3 meter away.... get a grip...

//

 

[tuga]

LOL... -200 dB

Thats like an atom bomb exploding standing 3 meter away.... get a grip...

//

Sorry, I know nothing about bombs. Which parameter does -200dB refer to? Is it another oversimplistic mish-mash like SINAD?

 

[pkane]

Which parameter does -200dB refer to? Is it another oversimplistic mish-mash like SINAD?

The A-weighted difference between the two files in the time domain is -204dB. Without A-weighting, it's -187dB.

 

[fatoldgit]

Practically?

sox INPUT OUTPUT rate 705600

Probably doesn't make sense to aim for better noise rejection than 16 bit.

But I guess we don't care about practicality Then one of those:

sox INPUT -b32 OUTPUT rate 705600
sox INPUT -b32 OUTPUT rate -v 705600
sox INPUT -b32 OUTPUT rate -s 705600

depending which tradeoffs one prefers:

Note that the latest version of sox has "-u" option which is one level above "-v"...not done any testing to see if it makes any diff.

The quality-level options are as follows. If none is chosen, the default is "-h" (high):

-q = quick
-l = low
-m = medium
-g = medium-high
-h = high
-e = extra
-v = very high
-u = ultra

On Linux at least you typically need to download the source code and compile as most distro's dont use the latest version.

Peter

 

[theREALdotnet]

The A-weighted difference between the two files in the time domain is -204dB.

That means there is still a 0.000000006% difference between them. You call that inaudible?

 

[Blumlein 88]

That means there is still a 0.000000006% difference between them. You call that inaudible?

6 billionths of a percent different.

 

[danadam]

Note that the latest version of sox has "-u" option which is one level above "-v"...not done any testing to see if it makes any diff.

It looks like it gets rid of that ripple in the middle and at the end:

 

[pkane]

That means there is still a 0.000000006% difference between them. You call that inaudible?

Painfully audible, but only to Rob Watts from Chord, who claims to hear noise floor modulation down at -300dB

 

[pkane]

Note that the latest version of sox has "-u" option which is one level above "-v"...not done any testing to see if it makes any diff.

The quality-level options are as follows. If none is chosen, the default is "-h" (high):

-q = quick
-l = low
-m = medium
-g = medium-high
-h = high
-e = extra
-v = very high
-u = ultra

View attachment 268723

On Linux at least you typically need to download the source code and compile as most distro's dont use the latest version.

Peter

When I get a few minutes, I'll give the -u option a try to see if it makes a substantial difference.

 

[GXAlan]

So, DeltaWave upsample result is closer to PGGB than SoX with -v option, but overall, the difference is still completely inaudible and well below 23 bits.

What you mean to say is
“My ASR-tested, ultra-precision $500 upsampler software based upon the field-proven, instrumentation-grade DeltaWave technology provides results nearly identical to the twice as expensive PGGB but at world-class speed and convenience. My hand-selected algorithms provide superior matching to PGGB’s maximum quality setting than even the open source SoX upsampling tool.”

 

[pkane]

What you mean to say is
“My ASR-tested, ultra-precision $500 upsampler software based upon the field-proven, instrumentation-grade DeltaWave technology provides results nearly identical to the twice as expensive PGGB but at world-class speed and convenience. My hand-selected algorithms provide superior matching to PGGB’s maximum quality setting than even the open source SoX upsampling tool.”

I was going to charge $900 for it, actually

 

[GXAlan]

I was going to charge $900 for it, actually

$900 with $400 coupon code

Then you can say “performs as well as software twice the price”

 

[pkane]

Oooh, I may have to discount DeltaWave upsampler after all!

SoX -u flag produced an even better match to PGGB. The difference between PGGB and SoX is now well below -200dB, unweighted (rms of -207dBFS and -209dBA):

 

[danadam]

depending which tradeoffs one prefers:
View attachment 268181
View attachment 268182

Ouch, the steep (-s) conversion clipped and that's why the noise floor was elevated. After fixing that, the noise floor is now comparable to the non-steep version (and the same applies if you use it together with -v or -u):

 

[danadam]

I was going to charge $900 for it, actually

I hope it's a typo and you really meant $899.99

 

[fatoldgit]

Ouch, the steep (-s) conversion clipped and that's why the noise floor was elevated. After fixing that, the noise floor is now comparable to the non-steep version (and the same applies if you use it together with -v or -u):

I may be wrong... but "-s" isnt a quality setting... so without a quality setting specified your quality will default to "-h" (and the related combo settings it drags in, as per my original post above)

"-s" relates to Bandwidth (Audio Passband Percentage):

-s = -3 dB 99% (steep filter)
-b <74 .. 99.7> = -3 dB percentage
-B <53 .. 99.5> = 0 dB percentage

I would imagine you need to use a quality setting and "-s" in combo?. I theory "-u -s" gets you the good stuff from "-u" (as per my original post above) plus a steeper filter.

Maybe play around with that?

Also in theory "-b 99.7" is an even steeper passband!!!

Peter

 

[danadam]

I would imagine you need to use a quality setting and "-s" in combo?

Yes, that's what I meant by "use it (the -s) together with -v or -u."

 

[fatoldgit]

Yes, that's what I meant by "use it (the -s) together with -v or -u."

cool.

Hate to think you spend time doing the analysis to find the wrong params were in play.

I am really enjoying this thread... like many I use sox over other options (although I have play around with camilla) so its great to have empirical evidence that sox is very very good....and its free!!!.

Peter

PS. might want to change the graphic to read "-u -s"... or are you saying that "-s" buggers up anything it touches (maybe overrides all other options when used)?

 

[danadam]

PS. might want to change the graphic to read "-u -s"... or are you saying that "-s" buggers up anything it touches (maybe overrides all other options when used)?

I'm not sure I understand. The gray graph is the result of "rate -s" (implied "-h") conversion. Now that I fixed the clipping in the generated files, its noise floor is more or less the same as the noise floor of the magenta graph, i.e. "rate" (implied "-h") conversion. So as the documentation says, "-s" only affects the passband.

If I plotted the result of "rate -u -s" conversion, it would be more or less like the green graph, only with wider passband.

 

[manisandher]

SoX -u flag produced an even better match to PGGB. The difference between PGGB and SoX is now well below -200dB, unweighted (rms of -207dBFS and -209dBA)

Is it clear that PGGB and SoX are more accurate than DeltaWave?

(Not that it matters in the least bit for all practical purposes. Purely out of interest...)

Mani.