Stereo Tool :: Stereo Tool 6.10

About

: True, and that's another very good reason to keep optimizing.

Still, for some users (for example those who operate a big FM station with hundreds of thousands of listeners), 5% increase in quality is A LOT, regardless of the costs. And to audiophiles too.

Quote:

I downloaded the latest Performance Test from there, and, sure enough, the CPUMark score was 757.6.

Based on that number, I'm actually surprised that you're having problems with the performance. My own Q9450 CPU is listed (I'll download the test to check) as about 4000, which is 1000 per core - so per core it's only 1/3rd faster than yours, and Stereo Tool does most of its processing on a single core.

Quote:

So, my suggestion to you all is to look up "Wirth's Law". Here's a preview:

•Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster.

Try if you can still find Stereo Tool 1.0 somewhere... It used about 90% on my P4 at the time... And that was with only stereo image (no azimuth or stereo boost), 8-band multiband (without clippers, filtering the output and flat frequency response) and a singleband compressor.

Ok, one last note from me to the cpu discussion, i´ll try to make it as understandable as i can with my broken english.

@Brian: You talking about inefficiency?
Here are my thoughts: I think Hans is optimize his code as well as he can, but code optimization which maybe could lasts several weeks - just to get at least 1% less cpu load (or something like that) - that is really inefficient, and i would say most of software developers thinking the same way. Sure, code optimization is important, but at some point it hits the border where it makes no sense anymore.

Hope you get it.

Quote:

If something can be done efficiently with the same results, then unless there is a significant burden of time and effort to make the process more efficient, then it should be done efficiently rather than non-efficiently.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. At the same time, this is also a good reason to get a new CPU. They *also* are doing the same thing much more efficiently. Especially in terms of power use.

One thing I will interject is that you're critiquing what's essentially ALPHA development versions of software. Some of the things that Hans is doing are simply to find out the audible viability of any additions and changes. For an audio processor, that's ALWAYS the first step. If something benefits the audio side and you want to keep it around, then you figure out how to make it work efficiently.

For LOUD (recent) CD's, much more boost is needed. Which is automatically applied because they are louder

add ass little ass possible

I might re-introduce the detection (that was there earlier, in a version that I never placed online) later, but first I want to get the processing right. And right now it's not.

If it's already dynamic - add ass little ass possible

If Michi95 hadn't taken the aggressive tone that he took,...

Is it possible to split and put 'Dynamic Boost' every band in MB? How that would sound ?
Of course this same adjustment for every band separate.

or to 5bands...

Author:	Brian [ Mon May 23, 2011 6:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: About : True, and that's another very good reason to keep optimizing. Still, for some users (for example those who operate a big FM station with hundreds of thousands of listeners), 5% increase in quality is A LOT, regardless of the costs. And to audiophiles too. To be honest, both of the things you're working on right now do not have any significant value for me personally. I don't have a real large audio collection, but out of hundreds of tracks, the declipper only has any noticable impact on one track - an overdriven rip of "Goodbye Horses" by Q Lazzarus. As for the Dynamics Booster, while you all that are audiophiles might knock X-Fi cards, the fact remains that Creative's Crystalizer does what the Dynamics Booster is attempting to do, but does not consume 50-60% of my CPU. So, I could really choose to ignore testing of those two things, but I don't. I feel it's my duty to report to you that the performance issues make it to where the value of those items are so far out of line with any value added that they should be investigated for inefficiency. That said, you have mentioned that you feel that multiband is in need of a rework, and that you feel that there are problems in the Loudness filter. Both of those items would impact everyone, not just a small segment of your users. Quote: Quote: I downloaded the latest Performance Test from there, and, sure enough, the CPUMark score was 757.6. Based on that number, I'm actually surprised that you're having problems with the performance. My own Q9450 CPU is listed (I'll download the test to check) as about 4000, which is 1000 per core - so per core it's only 1/3rd faster than yours, and Stereo Tool does most of its processing on a single core. Your CPU has more L2 cache. I suspect I'm right about the FFT ops running within the cache, or if they need main memory access, you have more CPU-to-RAM bandwidth available, so the CPU doesn't have as many stalls waiting on memory. Also, there is still the possibility of an AMD penalty with the Intel compiler and/or Intel libraries. Quote: Quote: So, my suggestion to you all is to look up "Wirth's Law". Here's a preview: •Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster. Try if you can still find Stereo Tool 1.0 somewhere... It used about 90% on my P4 at the time... And that was with only stereo image (no azimuth or stereo boost), 8-band multiband (without clippers, filtering the output and flat frequency response) and a singleband compressor. I'll look. Odds are my system will handle it much more efficiently. The positions are reversed. My AMD has a larger L2 cache vs. a P4 (1M vs. 256K or 512K), as well as an on-die memory controller. Athlon64 processors ran circles around Pentium 4. Now, Intel processors have larger L2 and even L3 caches, and with the Core i series, the memory controller has been brought on-die. Edit: The oldest version I've been able to find is 2.xx...

Author:	Brian [ Mon May 23, 2011 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: Ok, one last note from me to the cpu discussion, i´ll try to make it as understandable as i can with my broken english. @Brian: You talking about inefficiency? Here are my thoughts: I think Hans is optimize his code as well as he can, but code optimization which maybe could lasts several weeks - just to get at least 1% less cpu load (or something like that) - that is really inefficient, and i would say most of software developers thinking the same way. Sure, code optimization is important, but at some point it hits the border where it makes no sense anymore. Hope you get it. I do understand what you're saying, but if you look at the discussion between me and Hans, you'll note that he agrees with looking into optimization. Based on what he said about the expected final load of the dynamics booster being around what Multiband's load is, instead of a 50-60% consumption, I'm anticipating 2-5% consumption for the final product. I have no complaints about 2-5%, but I do about 50-60%. I hope you get it...

Author:	Brian [ Mon May 23, 2011 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: Quote: If something can be done efficiently with the same results, then unless there is a significant burden of time and effort to make the process more efficient, then it should be done efficiently rather than non-efficiently. I don't disagree with anything you've said. At the same time, this is also a good reason to get a new CPU. They also are doing the same thing much more efficiently. Especially in terms of power use. I understand that. My plan was to build a new system in late 2009. Unemployment put a stop to those plans. I have to work with what I have. Keeping health insurance and paying my bills until I am able to find a company that will hire me is much more important than acquiring a new computer. Finding a company that will hire is more difficult than it might seem, for a variety of reasons. I was recently rejected by a company for an entry-level system technician job that handled data backups. I was given a reason of that it was felt I didn't have the skillset. Given that my unemployment was self-inflicted (I made a mistake in judgement), it's my belief that the reason I was given was not the real reason, especially given that my previous job duties were intertwined with people doing backups, to the point of the fact that I specifically worked with them to compress data so that the backup process took less time... Quote: One thing I will interject is that you're critiquing what's essentially ALPHA development versions of software. Some of the things that Hans is doing are simply to find out the audible viability of any additions and changes. For an audio processor, that's ALWAYS the first step. If something benefits the audio side and you want to keep it around, then you figure out how to make it work efficiently. If Michi95 hadn't taken the aggressive tone that he took, this discussion would've ended when Hans told me that he anticipated the load to be around what multiband's load is... Could I have just ignored Michi? Perhaps. I was just not in the mood to be mocked that day. Again, mea culpa.

Author:	Bojcha [ Mon May 23, 2011 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: For LOUD (recent) CD's, much more boost is needed. Which is automatically applied because they are louder Exactly! but... is it automatically ? I think not. You cannot do that without some Dynamics detection/detecor (?) You don't know my input signal level! Maybe it's around -18dB and maybe it's at around -3dB... If it's Highly compressed material - add more this filter If it's already dynamic - add ass little ass possible Then it's all usable. Leif explained that very well! His Dynamic detection filter is even 5-band. + expander

Author:	Brian [ Mon May 23, 2011 9:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: add ass little ass possible

Stereo Tool https://forums.stereotool.com/

Stereo Tool 6.10 https://forums.stereotool.com/viewtopic.php?t=3065	Page 50 of 213

Author:	hvz [ Mon May 23, 2011 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Bojcha, the idea is this: If you play 2 CD's, on the same player, and one is loud and compressed (recent CD) and the other isn't (1980's CD), then the Stereo Tool input level is already very different - much higher for the louder CD. This assumes of course that no gain has been changed. What I do is basically making loud sounds even louder. So if the input is louder, the effect is bigger. I might re-introduce the detection (that was there earlier, in a version that I never placed online) later, but first I want to get the processing right. And right now it's not.

Author:	Bojcha [ Mon May 23, 2011 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: I might re-introduce the detection (that was there earlier, in a version that I never placed online) later, but first I want to get the processing right. And right now it's not. ok. Quote: If it's already dynamic - add ass little ass possible Phail xD

Author:	Bojcha [ Mon May 23, 2011 11:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Just maybe stupid idea... Is it possible to split and put 'Dynamic Boost' every band in MB? How that would sound ? Ofcourse this same adjustment for every band separate. or to 5bands...

Author:	hvz [ Tue May 24, 2011 12:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Bojcha: If I would place it after the AGC, that's exactly the same as adding it in Multiband (actually it's already in there, I have several Multiband instances, one does normal multiband, one does stereo boost and one does dynamics boost. Combining those functions is as easy as typing 'true' twice when creating the instance...

Author:	michi95 [ Tue May 24, 2011 12:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Stereo Tool 6.10
Quote: If Michi95 hadn't taken the aggressive tone that he took,... Ok, I do confess. I am guilty. I am the bad boy here. That's the reason why I think that this: Quote: Is it possible to split and put 'Dynamic Boost' every band in MB? How that would sound ? Of course this same adjustment for every band separate. or to 5bands... is a very good idea. More fun for Brian's CPU !

Page 50 of 213	All times are UTC+02:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/