Search the Community

Here is the promised FeralA decoder. It hasn't been through the full Windows testing, but I have been beating the Linux version up for quite a while. There were a few last minute fixes -- like usual, as I am famous for 'stuttering' when I release software. I come from the good old days where there were actual software testing groups -- -no longer have that luxury. * I fully expect that the decoder might be frustrating to use at first -- contact me if you have problems. I'll try to answer/help reasonably quickly There is a .txt file that describes lots of various commands and options along with a general purpose manual for the full decoder -- too complicated for what is needed for FA decoding. This is a *command line* program, very ugly to use by today's GUI standards.. The program does work if you can get past the command line issue. This program also contains a DolbyA compatible decoder, but won't work as a DolbyA decoder unless you have a license file. I'll make you one if you want to try actual DolbyA decodes instead of FA decodes. The FA decodes are specified by using the --fa switch early in the command line. For just playing around, you can just use the command line in the same directory as you unpack the binaries. Eventually, you might want to stash the binaries (all of the files in the distribution) into another directory, and use the PATH environment variable... My guess is tha only 10% at most of the people who actually try to use the decoder will be happy, esp since the program is command line. So 1) Unpack the program. 2) find a CD .wav file 3) decode the CD .wav file 4) play the result, assuming that the file is 'normal' (which is probably 3/4 of the proper feralA recordings.) One note: many feralA recordings HAVE been molested by the distributor, so sometimes it can be hard to find a good .wav file. When you do find a good wav file, then the program should work fine... Here is how to do it: (assuming you have an AVX compatible CPU use da-avx.exe, otherwise for older SSE only CPUS, use the da-win.exe) (also, with --info=2 you get the full progress indicator, while if you use --info=1, you get 'dots' across the screen) > da-avx --outgain=-4.5 --info=2 --fa --basic --input=infile.wav --output=outfile.wav (command above is the lowest quality, but fastest decode -- still better than if you used a DolbyA) If you have a .flac file, and use/have sox -- you might be able to do this: > sox input.flac --type=wav - | da-avx --outgain=-4.5 --info=2 --fa --basic | sox - outfile.flac If everyting is working okay, you MIGHT be able to play the .wav file output instead of saving it to a file: > da-avx --info=2 --fa --basic --input=infile.wav --play Good luck, contact me either in this forum for general questions, or PM me if you want to talk about this privately. Remember to look at the documents in the download area. Note that I fully own the software, and have given you permission to do FA decodes to your hearts content. (Note that reverse engineering might be fun -- the binary is really evil/ugly :-)). When I have had to look at the binary to effect bug fixing -- it is really entertaining to see how efficient the compiler is, producing really good SIMD code... It is AMAZING. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1srzzih0qoi1k4l/AAAMNIQ47AzBe1TubxJutJADa?dl=0 I'll probably update the code as I find bugs (hopefully none or minor.) John

Dear Hornet's nest: The left over DolbyA imprint just struck again yesterday: I just ran into the 6th or more (not 100% sure) premium download album that didn't sound quite right. These are apparently still 'noise reduction' encoded. Note before reading further: I am not criticising anyone in particular, and definitely not codemning the people doing the mastering/remastering/etc, a lot of the time there are documentation problems and other complications that make their jobs a little tricky -- I am only commenting on the state of affairs, and the problem of not-so-good material reaching the consumer. I generally do not include proper NR decoding as a part of mastering, because it *should* be a part of the normal process to prepare for the consumer -- mastering should be considered the extra steps done to make the recording better/cleaner/etc for the consumer. (Mastering might include massaging the material to fit better on vinyl, for example.) This observation has happened on numerous pieces premium 'material', 192/24 or 96/24... I have 3/Simon&Garfunkel 192/24, Roberta Flack 192/24, Carpenters 96/24, PaulMc 96/24 and maybe a few others -- this is enough of a set of examples. It seems likely that the 'quality' problem is still a left-over DolbyA-like imprint on these recordings. The most ugly thing isn't the HF compression per-se, but the thin (compressed depth) stereo space left on these recordings. *This quality experience/difference is difficult to describe, and is best experienced. Suffice to say, I am NO golden ears, but can clearly hear the difference/improvement of proper handling of recordings. These more egregious examples are mostly from well-known pay-for-download sites ( the download sites are not especially at fault -- they are selling what is available to them. The distribution is the problem.) The problem doesn't come from any one seller -- I have some old CDs from eons ago also with the left-over imprint. Of course, we don't expect the old CDs to be perfect, but it would be nice. However, with proper re-EQ, and decoding, many CDs can be incredibly improved. This last Roberta Flack example was a bit of a 'oh, my' kind of moment. Luckily, I did borrow a song from a friend (I already had the normal CD) so I could determine if I wanted the 'pristine' copy. I guess I can say -- no bother about getting the 'premium' album, that is unless I need to hear the above 20kHz noise/other artifacts on the album. Unfortunately there appears also a DolbyA encoding imprint on the 'premium' album, but seems to have been further damaged by some compression. So, this 'premium' album is even less useful to me than the old CD -- at least, I can clean-up the CD. Why do I notice this FRUSTRATING problem? I am in a almost unique position that I can actually diagnose the problem, and can resolve it - not so much at the consumer level, however. The software to 'detect'/'correct' the problem is not a simple thing to do, and is definitely not a weekend project. Using the decoding software is NOT for the consumer either -- we need to advocate for more complete digital preparation before we are sent the digital copies. So, after these 30yrs of digital distributions, I am finding that many of them from over the years are 'just not right'. Very often, the material appears to be DolbyA encoded. Recordings are STILL being distributed not 'quite right' even nowadays. With all of the discussion over the years about mp3, opus, 16bit PCM vs 24bit PCM, 192/96 vs 44.1k, etc... to me, knowing what I have learned in the last 3-4yrs, it appears that they are all diversions, because only the slower lossy compression are more important than the 'damage' from non-NR-decoded material reaching the consumer. (choice between properly mastered 192kmp3 vs. undecoded 192/24, I'll take the mp3 quality anyday.) I am NOT advocating for mp3 though -- just that the un decoded material sounds worse. I almost blew a 'gasket' with this last album (Roberta Flack, 2012 remaster.) When purchasing/downloading a 'premium' album, I'd expect that the material wasproperly prepared for the consumer -- but it seems like a lot of material is just not properly handled. I do have some premium albums (Nat King Cole, for example) which also APPEAR to also have the residual DolbyA imprint, but cannot prove it, even for myself. Given the fact about MQA causing such an uproar (In my opinion ONLY, I still believe that the worst thing about MQA is the obfuscation/complication and possible DRM), I wonder why this missing-mastering-step travesty hasn't caused a riot!?!?!? :-). Is the thin stereo space, compressed high end material actually good enough? If that is good enough, then why worry about needing more quality than mp3 at 128k? (rhetorical.) PS: I am only pushing for the distribution chain to do the right thing and properly master the material -- no need to get attention by hypercompressing conventional releases, just do the basic preparation correctly!!! Every user cannot practically do their own mastering (or re-mastering), it is the job of the distributors with the actual master tape copies to finish the job!!! John

I took a bit of advice -- trying to see if people might agree about the possibility (I say probablility -- give opinons). Sometimes the decoding can sound okay, likewise sometimes undecoded (with EQ) can sound okay. Things to look for: HF compression improvement, Stereo depth/ambiance (fullness) Problems with DolbyA decoding: choosing the correct calibration and corrective EQ. I tried to do my best on the examples. Problems with decoding unencoded material: serious surging. really/dead highend (sometimes), but crazy/extreme sibilance. Problem with undecoded: sometimes hiss, sometimes a little strident high end, HF compression I am using slightly long snippets (still under 1 minute), if I get complaints -- I can shorten them or segment them if needed. They are mp3, but the Dropbox player sometimes gives 'phasing' sounds -- I make them mp3 for quick online evaluation, flac available if desired. First example, Bread -- Audio Fidelity AFZ5 197 This album is in question. This is a *difficult* choice!!! I don't even know for sure. I have also included the 'before' decoding. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fopp4ll0ua6hrue/AABm-3EVloApEihtnBV29rf9a?dl=0

This a separate thread because this doesn't apply only to the DHNRDS, but the general state of the old recordings originally created/mixed down in the 1960s through early 1990's... First, the original 'Harsh digital sound' complaints didn't come from only one cause, as there were at least three reasons (not in the order of impact): 1) Early state of 'digital audio' technology. 2) Unexpected signal detail that was partially covered up by complex dynamics in vinyl production 3) Different final/production mastering for digital media vs. analog media. I believe that items 1 and 2 have been well understood all along, and the relative magnitudes of items 1 and 2 have been discussed for 30+yrs. Item 3 has been underestimated or ignored in the public/consumer arena. This is a real problem, and has varying magnitude depending on the exact difference. I dont' know enough about the final mastering (I am not speaking of mixing the material, I am writing here about the two track stereo being prepared for distribution), to know all of the steps, but there are some deviations between the handling of digital vs. analog material. --- This discussion is not solely intended to shill for the DHNRDS -- that is NOT the goal here, but maybe to explain why the 'love' for vinyl and other analog media had been sparked and even sustained for so long. There are definitely recordings which cannot sound as good as they should, some are simply NOT available in their natural form. Instead, some material is still mostly available in the 'harsh digital' form unless on vinyl or properly mastered tape. For an example of the 'natural' Carpenters sound -- refer to the link below -- it must be removed in a few days, but it is here for illustrative purposes. TRY to find a natural sounding Carpenters distribution... You might have problems doing so -- unless you have vinyl or a VERY VERY special digital copy. Even the Carpenters 'singles' on HDtracks is NOT DolbyA decoded!!! It does NOT have the natural sound. (I haven't been able to 100% accurately decode the Carpenters until recently, only possible once I found the correct inverse equalization...) I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MP3s -- believe me, they are better than any normal digital release of the same material!!!! www.dropbox.com/sh/g7bye8uii2ashq1/AACyGhV4R5FYZXDFlAz3HNFoa?dl=0 --- I have listened to a LOT of CDs made from older recordings, both CDs mastered/produced in the early days of digital, and CDs/digital produced more recently, and it is extremely clear to me that the differences can be enumerated as below: 1) No DolbyA decoding, substituted by EQ 2) No DolbyA decoding, not substituted by EQ 3) Additional manipulation, incl compression. In recent years, becoming much more prominent starting in the middle 1990s, and even more egregious in the 2000's and beyond, dynamic range has been deemphasized as a desirable trait, and loudness seems more important to the distributors. This dynamic range matter is well understood, and even some of the motivations for decreased dynamic range are understood -- it is the other items that I am writing about here. Actually, this missing step of DolbyA decoding, and the oassociated decrease in high frequency dynamic range MIGHT have been a contributing factor to the current 'loudness wars' and the consumer toleration for decreased dynamic range! --- Here is the scenario that has happened REPEATEDLY in the past: DolbyA Recording -> EQ -> distribution to consumer Instead, the following should have happened: DolbyA Recording -> DolbyA decode -> distribution to consumer One my ask: Why did this happen? I have no firsthand knowledge, but just existance proof. It has taken some time to collect the information, but there might be several causes: 1) Material already in digital form, archived by LOC (Library of Congres) procedures that make NR decoding before archiving an optional step. 2) Insufficient metadata/documentation and/or missing calibration tones making the decoding effort inconvenient. 3) Time/cost of realtime limited for HW DolbyA decoding, much slower & inconvenient than copying digial files directly. When looking at these items above, and the fact that distribution moves a commodity around, ti is not an artistic endeavor from the standpoint of the business people, I'd suspect that there is sometimes an explicit financial decision to do EQ to attempt to hide the DolbyA encoding instead of the actual decoding operation itself. EQ can be done digitally fast, while decoding actually takes 1:1 time on recording vs. time to decode. Mentioning the details of the problem again: when the mastering was done by the distributor, instead of DolbyA decoding, they did an EQ operation like this: Recording -> EQ -> distribute instead of Recording -> DolbyA decode -> distribute... So, what the remastering does is this: distribution copy -> inverse EQ -> DolbyA decode -> 'better sound results' The problem is that the original EQ isn't documented, and also the ongoing problem was that I didn't realize how precise the EQ needed to be... ---- What is my goal here -- mostly to do what I can do to resurrect the old recordings. These recordings are important to history and will NOT be heard correctly unless correctly and accurately processed.... John

How do I get 5.1 dolby digital surround sound from imac? Hi everyone, I am very very new to this forum so if I do something inappropriate, I apologize for that. =) Here are my questions. I have got a mid 2007 iMac and a Creative inspire p7800 7.1 speaker. What I want to do is to hear 5.1 dolby digital surround sound from the creative speaker (which does not support DD and DTS like Logitech z5500 and Logitech Z906 do). I have done tons of research and spend a lots of time in the internet to look for answers. I did find some solution on this issue but I am not 100% sure. And some more questions pop up. So I am hoping that some expert here can clear my mind. Thank you so much ^^ So, here is some solution that I got from the internet. (please correct me if I am wrong) 1. Buy a Griffin Firewave and connect it to my mac and thats all I need to do. As Griffin Firewave has dolby digital processor, so I think I will be getting 5.1 DD surround sound from the speaker. (Am I right?) Amazon.com: Griffin 4019-FIRESS FireWave Surround Sound for Macs: Electronics But the problem is, there is only one firewave listed on amazon and one listed on ebay. The amazon one is really really expensive that I think it is really unreasonable to buy it. So as I may not able to get a Griffin Firewave, this lead to my second solution. 2. Buy a external sound card like this: Amazon.com: Diamond External Xtreme Sound 7.1-Channel USB Audio Device: Electronics and connect it to the mac. But my question is, As I do not have any Dolby decoding device connected, will I getting 5.1 DD surround sound in my speaker? Or the program in my mac (i.e: VLC) already done the decoding and output as 5.1 multichannel analog so I don't need a extra decoding device? 3. As I am not sure about those method on the above will get 5.1 DD surround sound in my speaker, I keep digging and find out there is actually one more option. Since the iMac supports s/pdif output, what I need is to buy a Digital to Analog converter(DAC) and use the mini Toslink to connect my mac with the DAC. Then connect my speaker to the DAC. Some DAC I found: Amazon.com: Digital to Analog Audio Decoder Converter - Transfer the DTS/AC-3 Digital Signal and Stereo(R/L) Audio Signal into 5.1 Analog Output: Electronics Amazon.com: Digital to Analog Audio Decoder Converter - Transfer the DTS/AC-3 Digital Signal and Stereo(R/L) Audio Signal into 5.1/2.1 Analog Output: Electronics Amazon.com: Sewell Direct SW-29767 Digital to Analog Audio Converter: Electronics and most of DAC support DD/DTS decoding, I should be able to get 5.1 DD surround sound at the end. Is it correct? My question is, is this the right solution to get 5.1 Dolby? If Griffin Firewave is available, will the result of method 1 same as the result of method 3? Or is it better to use a receiver instead of DAC? I know I have so many questions, I hope I did not make it too troublesome. But I really want to know the answer from you guys. I really appreciate for those who read through this. I know my english sucks and cannot express myself very well. I do apologize for that. Anyway, please leave any thought on this, even a sentence or yes/no Thank you sooooooo much Frank