'FeralA' decoder -- free-to-use

So far, good news, got a few responses -- not all totally positive.

There are apparently two kinds of problems -- the HF detail is a bit amorphous, like a blob and a bit too strong...   This is where the slightly strong 'lower HF' comment came from.

Also, the bass hasn't matched the FA version very well.

I have been doing research on both issues, and the decoder can easily adapt to fix the concerns.   However, having the capability, and finding the most accurate solutions are two different things.   The new discriminator gives oodles of freedom, and can easily overshoot the HF requirements, but might be having a little trouble with an LF match.

The HF detail problem is probably now close to being corrected.   It wasn't trivial to fix, or come close to fixing.  I am about ready to privately demo this correction.   The bass is closer to similar than before, but I am not quite sure.   The FA encoding process produces LF distortion, and we definitely do not want to reproduce any kind of distortion, including LF.  This LF distortion in FA recordings makes judging the comparisons a bit challenging.

Clarifying the 'lower HF' problem.   Think of it like this:  casually, the highs are mildly too strong, but the subtle details in instruments (trumpet kinds of sound) seem to be attenuated.  When decoding, the sound of a trumpet should have more modulation in the lower-middle HF, but less of the 'itchy' kind of HF, kind of less of the edgy fuzz.   The decoded result (in the experimental version) now shows that any of the higher registers should be waveform-wise are totally synchronized with the lower registers.   FA tends to 'spread' the HF time-wise, causing it to be less correlated sounding, FA splatters the HF range of the trumpet sound across some number of low-milliseconds, and doesn't really sound like a trumpet at all.

It is good to get the feedback, both the initial private comments and the public (embarrassing) results like this version.  I thought that the decoder was in better shape when doing the release, but the myriad of types of subjective commentary, and the lack of almost objective comments has made this a challenge.   The most frustrating issue is that I hear 'well' perhaps 20% of the time now, and never know when my hearing is accurate. Also, I had earlier rejected some misguided, perhaps well-intentioned objective comments, making the assumption that the comments were not well intended.   The tools available are poor at measuring this challenge -- the reason why it has taken so long.   The comments, still coming forward, help to re-baseline the results.   To some degree, we all know the goals.

I am pretty sure that the missing HF modulation problem will be resolved, and I hope that the bass will be correct.   My single FA/never-FA recording example doesn't have enough variation to be an adequate example for comparisons.   As mentioned above, the missing HF modulation problem is probably solved, or close to being solved.  I am not sure about the LF tonality matter yet.

John