Quote:
"Are you saying you managed to produce mp3s that sound better than CD?"

Better-than-CD? Yes, as audacious as that sounds. But don't take my word for it. Please visit the links in my orginal post above, give a listen, and judge for yourself.

Having spent over 30 years in live performances, I've always been disturbed by the many qualities lacking in CD playback. It's not a matter of how much you spend on your stereo; a great deal of the information required for authentic playback is simply missing. Rather, it's actually resident within the recordings, but indecipherable and unavailable for playback.

I've found it absurd that in codec development everyone is striving for 'lossless' or 'CD-quality' as a standard. Frankly, CD is a terrible disappointment to anyone accustomed to the dynamics of live performances. My standard is the actual live performance itself rather than CD, and restoring that magic in compressed formats has been my goal.

So please give a listen, and decide for yourself. Your feedback is most welcome here!

Regards to all Stereophiles,
Tuvia Wertheim, Compaxx Producer & Stationmaster
email: stationmaster@compaxx.org

Quote:
John Atkinson: "Thank you for making comparisons available. The Compaxx versions were made from the original CD, correct? Not from the MP3 versions that you label as "CD"

Thank you for your listen, John. Believe it or not, the Compaxx-remastered files were actually made from the mp3 files labelled as 'CD' that precede them. The forensic data-mining technique used in Compaxx is capable of restoring even the 'lost' data from mp3. The difference in terms of results between this method as opposed to applying Compaxx to the original PCM-wav would be extremely slight at the bitrate used (192k, stereo). For the sake of a fair comparison I've presented in this fashion as stated on the webpage: "ALL COMPAXX FILES HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY FROM THE ACCOMPANYING CD FILES THAT PRECEDE THEM." (In my production work, I prefer to work wherever possible directly from CDs for optimal restoration.)

> Regarding the Compaxx EULA: You may freely torture-test the downloadable samples for evaluation purposes. It is forbidden however, to retag or redistribute these files without permission (such as web samples for promoting the sale of CDs). I'd be delighted if you were to review these if you wish, and you may certainly reference them freely both here as well as in print.

I appreciate your asking about this, John. We're all cautious these days about legal issues. I do the best I can to always remain DMCA and RIAA compliant in my work, and respect how trying this must be on an audio/stereo website such as "Stereophile".

> Decoding to WAV for analysis: You're welcome to try this, but bear in mind that a significant amount of the embedded subcode risks damage in the process (in particular the spatial cuing and subwoofer subtracks). For best results I'd recommend analog-playback analysis, or digital i/o reads taken directly off the decoder chipset.

I also have these samples on both CDROM, CD, and CD-Extra for laboratory testing and will forward to Stereophile if you wish. An 8 1/2 hour Feature-length Compaxx Masterworks Classical mp3 disc is also available upon request.

If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to post them here or contact me directly. Your feedback is most welcome.

Tuvia Wertheim, Compaxx Producer & Stationmaster

Response to John Atkins' Review of Compaxx mp3(May 24, 2006)
-----------
Part 1: Basic approach & issues - Part 2: Tech items

Part 1) John - My sincere thanks for your feedback. You've raised some very potent and pertinent issues. Hopefully your comments and my response will stimulate rethinking here, and others will join us in this dialogue. This is the goal of the Stereophile forum as I understand it. Beyond the basic exchange of knowledge, by interacting here we also gain some understanding and hopefully, a pinch of wisdom.

Please don't apologize for declining to endorse Compaxx on the basis of your expertise and authority as a stereo/electronics expert. I am foremost a musician, and only secondly a research scientist in audio physics. (My background is interdisciplinary, so I tend to think out of the box a bit.) I am by NO means an electronics engineer or expert, so my approach, tools, and goals are most probably very different than yours. For me, it begins and ends with the music itself. If the listening experience is pleasurable, people will buy it. Music that sounds better and gives more pleasure, sells better. The goal of Compaxx-mp3 is to make portable music content itself as pleasureable as possible, not to conform to engineering specs (which are important, and I'll address in Part 2 of this).

IMPORTANT: I find it fascinating that your comments regarding your listening experience of Compaxx as opposed to your lab analysis vary so extremely. As a music listener you state that you find Compaxx "vivid, more detailed, and more reverberant." (vibrant?) These are VERY positive comments, which you then discard and contravene because your analysis specs don't conform to your listening experience. You MUST decide in this debate on Compaxx which side of the fence to come down on, John. What comes first to you, a pleasurable listening experience, or engineering specs? For me personally as well as professionally as a producer, pleasure in listening will ALWAYS come first. Likewise with consumers.

Stereos are a tool for enjoying music, not a goal in themselves (status- and ego-challenged minorities notwithstanding). I've followed the debate elsewhere in Stereophile regarding musicphiles vs. audiophiles. It's a subjective argument, but in the marketplace it's much more objective. The music industry in the US generated over $11B in hard copy sales last year (RIAA claims $14B), and a similar amount in Europe. The stereo electronics market doesn't even come close. In the new world that's emerging, I envision the music and electronics worlds converging and becoming one, so my approach is a bit more holistic. The pleasure-giving qualities of the music content itself is the single most important market factor (in addition to portability, multiplatform useage, value pricing, etc.). In the music business there are 10 Commandments. They are: 1. Content is King. 2. Content is King. 3. Content is King, et al thru 10. By design, Compaxx is applied to content, not playback devices.

Summary Part 1: Compaxx is designed primarily for music lovers, not electronics or stereo afficianados. Which is REALLY more important to you personally, John?

Part 2 (techie stuff) Ok, I'll get the following out the way up front: I do NOT use volume or multiband compression, nor do I apply reverb. No way, no how, not EVER. Please rethink, and try again.

Issues you've raised...

a) Peak Volume Cutoffs: I'm not surprised that, after decoding to wav despite my warning, you produced a few (4) minor peak cutoffs in the Vivaldi sample. When stripping the mp3 envelope during decoding you've removed critical cuing information, resulting in a 2.2% increase in volume level with resulting cutoffs. Therefore, when I produce Compaxx in PCM format for CD application, I do so at a 2.2% lower peak volume than when producing Compaxx mp3. (On the Compaxx Benchmark CDROM I present both versions. When measured WITHIN the mp3 envelope, the peak volume is idential to the CD version.) Further, the original Deutche Grammophon master had several peak glitches. These were plastered over in postmastering by depressing the volume for these sections, as well as the filtered removal of certain fast-breaking sounds in upper bandwidths. Sometimes in restoring data, glitches and defects may reappear.

b) RMS: Yes, there are significant differences. Many times Compaxx restoration leads to higher relative amplitude due to the significant increase in playable data. (In Compaxx remasters of tracks that have had volume compression applied such as Enya's "Book of Days", the RMS will be lower.)

> 3 things about the RMS issue:

1. Can you raise the RMS of the CD original to the level in Compaxx (without using volume compression) without creating massive peak cutoffs and other ugly distortions? I invite anyone here to try it.
2. Have you compared the dynamic range between the files? Try it. Compaxx has a wider range, hence no volume compression. The answer is a wider bandwidth flow of MORE data, not pumping up the RMS. (That's ITunes' special trick, not mine. EAX does the same, but throws in reverb as well.)
3. VITAL: The zero crossings tell the tale. Zero crossings are strictly the result of the amount and type of data read and played. Compaxx remasters have more zero crossings (by 10-30%) than the originals even when compressed, because they contain MORE data. This is particularly so for fast-breaking sounds in the upper ranges. In graphic spectrograms, you can actually see the additional data presence, and in playback detail and articulation it's easily heard as well (you'll note the appearance of instruments and sounds that don't 'exist' in the original). Zero crossings, nuff said.

BOTTOM LINE: The REAL question remains: Does Compaxx SOUND better? As you yourself said about listening to Compaxx: "(Compaxx) is vivid, more detailed, and more reverberant (sic)."

Trust your ears, John. The ball's in your court!

With utmost respect,
Tuvia Wertheim, Compaxx Producer & Stationmaster

P.S. Brightness: It's easy enough to trim this, but an in-depth survey of 10,000 Compaxx subscription listeners shows that 89% prefer it this way. The consumer is always right by me.

Late here, so I'm going to sleep on this one before responding. It appears I've unintentionally pushed some buttons, for which I apologize.

Tuvia

P.S. mp3 is here to stay for a long time. I think that discussion here of the best way to produce it is beneficial to everyone. I also think that feedback from other forum members might add substantially and round things out a bit. I've received over a dozen email responses to the posts here from active forum members who are moving to iPod or similar, and encourage them to post in here as well.

I've also noticed that many forum members have logged on to my 192 classical listening libraries (URL in first post), and are spending a great deal of time there. Thank you for listening; let's hear your feedback.

And thank you, John, for making this forum available to us.

Well, this is getting personal and acrimonious, so it's time to wrap a few items up, and move on...

I never intended to get in deep here on numbers, graphs, and scientific debate. As I said, it's about the music, not the printouts.

From John's list of tech items he's taken issue with, I'll address only 2 for now. For the record, I'd like to note once again that I am NOT an electronics or stereo expert, and don't pretend to be.

Zero Crossings:

John: "I am beginning to suspect you do not know what the words you use mean. If you get more zero crossings, it is because you are increasing the signal's high-frequency content."

Perhaps you're right, and I don't have a clue. However... While in the past it was commonly-accepted wisdom that Zero-Crossings related only to high frequencies, even Rice & Logan suspected that zc's may indicate sympathetic activity throughout the entire spectral range and be a valuable indicator of total bandwidth activity. In the ongoing development of the Gaussian filters, this has been taken into account, even though this approach is still in it's first stages in terms of both theory and application. B. Kedem has published some excellent papers on this for those who wish to explore further.

Again, what really matters most? What we hear and enjoy, or what the numbers say? (Perhaps instead of spending time listening first, we should just run out and buy the stereo system with the best specs. It would be ever so much faster and intellectually satisfying.)

WinAmp: I am intimately familiar with WinAmp, and was one of Justin Frankel's first financial backers for it back in 1997. WinAmp is exceptionally gentle and forgiving in its handling of mp3, which is why it's still by far the most popular mp3 software player out there. HOWEVER, Compaxx was primarily designed for hardware playback, and this is where its full potential really shines. While people do use their PCs for listening and preview, the overwhelming trend is towards portable (and perhaps the emerging HD console) players for extended listening. This is why I recommended analog hardware playback for your review. I could go on, but won't.

I see that attempting to discuss here a better application of today's popular portable formats is not only highly provocative, but quite possibly an affront. Stereophile IS about hirez top-end stereo, not 'lowrez' media, no matter it's quality or popularity. I do get it. My mistake, silly me.

A forum member emailed me: "I'd be totally embarassed to admit on Stereophile that any form of mp3 is acceptable. I'm also ashamed to say out loud that I'm beginning to spend more time listening to my iPod than my obscenely expensive stereo. If I could get my compressed audio to sound like Compaxx, I'd just sell it all and go with iPod." Perhaps this is the answer to my questions of yesterday to forum members.

I suspect that stereo orthodoxy as it appears here will shortly become a thing of the past, a select minority aside. For nearly 40 years our cities and malls were all aglitter with expensive camera emporiums. How many remain today in the digital age? How long will the top end stereo emporiums and magazines survive?

I'll leave it to others here to debate this if they wish. For my part, I'm taking an extended breather. If other members post here, this will stay alive. If not, this topic will expire in 30 days and be relegated to the boneyard. It's up to you folks now.

From my first post here through this, all has been said with respect, and in the sole interest of creating enjoyable and fruitful discussion.

Regards until next,
Tuvia

Dear Stereophiles:

I apologize sincerely and without reservation if I've offended here, it's the furthest thing possible from my intent.

I also wish to thank John here for taking time from his extremely busy schedule to evaluate and comment. I can see how much you love and care deeply about your work. The world needs more people who truly care. I thank you in particular for your patience. I note that you've come halfway to meet me by expresing yourself yesterday in listening and music terms I can understand. This is greatly appreciated. Thank you for all of the above.

I haven't said that I'm leaving here, just taking a breather until others join in and expand the dialogue. As long as it remained strictly between John and myself it was becoming increasingly difficult, as well as defeating the purpose of a forum which is to generate discussion, not private chat. I'm thankful that others have joined in, as I believe this to be a worthy topic of general interest. So, thanks to all who joined in for helping expand. As long as this topic stays alive, I'm in. Please try to overlook my style, we musicians aren't easy people.

If there are specific issues I don't respond to, it's either because of my lack of professional knowledge on your terms, or shortness of time. (John has his trade fairs and clients, I have my own. It's summer music festival time once again again.) I'm not dodging here. I'm a music person; you folks are stereo experts. It's not easy to have a dialogue on this basis, but I believe it vital to try in a world where are our mutual spheres are becoming increasingly interlinked. (As Abe Lincoln put it succinctly: "Gentlemen, either we all hang together, or we'll all hang separately.")

Please note that I am NOT using Stereophile to promote myself in any way. I came here to invite people to listen, enjoy, and explore the possibilities of the emerging world of portable digital as I am attempting as a producer to enhance.

Believe me, not a single one of my listeners reads audiophile magazines of any kind, so there would be little point in promotion here. If I thought so, I'd pay and take out advertising. Your audience spends their money on hardware, mine spends no less than yours, but on music. And while my audience may not have state-of-the-art systems or be professional listeners by stereophile standards, they all spend a minumim of 6-8 hours daily listening to music and care very passionately about what they hear. All of them play instruments, so they know what's authentic in sound, unlike those who grow up on a strict diet of CDs. A significant number are professional musicians and artists. Their feedback is what drives the direction of my work. In summary on this, I haven't approached John to solicit a review, though I am extremely grateful for it and have learned much. I greatly respect your professionalism, and appreciate your time.
-----
On to issues (in the positive sense)....

Although primarily intended for music-philes, I do welcome audiophiles to listen to Compaxx, and feel I have a great deal to gain from their feedback. I've learned a great deal from this interchange itself, though it's hard for me to tune in properly to a jargon which isn't my native bailiwick.

Sidebar on the above: Tone is as important as content. I'm having a hard time not being provoked by what appears as backhanded dissing, hence my defensiveness. Example: "I have said that your treatment might well make MP3s sound better, particularly on compromised-quality desktop systems and particularly to naive listeners." Please try 'lowrez' and 'non-stereophile' instead of "compromised, naive". It gets the message across clearly, without offending.

> Data-recovery issues: I'm having a problem discussing this in here, and it's probably the result of my lacking your perspective and vocabulary. I've stated my case as clearly as I can for my listeners on my webpage, but here I find myself fumbling to express the concept in your terms, and apologize if you feel misled. 'Data-mining' was probably a poor choice in my attempt to fit my concept into your jargon, and my apology is rendered.

To the point - No, I do NOT recover non-extant or damaged data, nor do I claim such. What I do, and state very clearly on my webpage, is make RESIDENT but unheard (or relatively unheard) delicate sounds of specific types hearable (not an easy task given mp3's extremely restricted bandwidths). It's like being in a well-furnished dark room with only a candle; all you would see is a small circle of light and maybe a chair or two around you. Turn on the halogens (or spotlight as you call it), and you see everything. I'm not a magician conjuring up the furniture when you're not looking. (Nor am I a psychoacoustic wizard dropping LSD into your mix to make you see things that aren't really there.) I simply 'turn on the lights'. You may prefer that they be incandescant rather than halogen (the brightness issue), and that's a legitimate and highly worthy comment I take to heart. Compaxx is restoration in the musical sense, not in the way I now understand stereophiles and DSP folks use this term.

Case in point: Joni Mitchell. On the original CD recording the bass line appears to be a regular solid-body instrument. You now notice the bass 'breathing', and suspect it's some type of reverb or air techinique. If I recall properly from seeing this piece performed live, the instrument used was a hollow-body horizontal dreadnought hybrid bass by C.F. Martin. (I myself play a 1972 Martin D18s, and am a great fan of the Martin sound.) The Martin bass is an unusual instrument used by several folk artists at that time, and has a very rich and resonant sound.

Way back when, my start in music was as a folksinger back in the 60s-70s. Guild also had a similar bass back then, and I hear Taylor also makes these today on a custom basis. I've played with many of these artists, and seen, played, and know their axes well. It's lovely to be able to hear this instrument come back to life after turning on the lights. (note: I used to have the original LP of this, and the hybrid bass was more apparent there.) I'll check with Joni if I can and get back on this regarding the specific model. (btw, I hear that Joni's been fighting a hard battle with cancer. If you go to her webpage and drop her best wishes, I'm sure it would be appreciated.)
---------
Regarding mp3 as a worthwhile way of listening in terms of quality, here's how it was put to me in 'non-scientific' terms by a well-known rocker: "mp3 is sh*t, but there's good sh*t and bad sh*t. Compaxx is PRIMO sh*t!" (pardon the french, but you get the idea.)

All in, I find John's comments on what he's hearing very positive and enlightening. I have a great deal more ahead of me in getting Compaxx right; it's a work in progess.

Thank you one and all. Hang in please, and we'll enrich each other's lives. What else is music for?

Regards,
Tuvia

P.S. John notes the pleasant effect of space and 'wideness'. I hope you find it pleasing and natural. This is perhaps a topic for next time.

P.P.S. Cheapskate: I've been visitng these forums as a non-member for some time and have found a great deal of thought-provoking discussion and valuable info. It was your reference to the IPO's Vivaldi that drew me in, as I know the recording and it's background. Thank you for leading me here.

P.P.P.S. Jim T: I caught your comments. What you note is intentional, and by design.

Quote:
Jeff Wong: "I have thousands of LPs and thousands of CDs, as I suspect many other members here do as well. A lot more money is getting spent on music than gear."

Great to hear it; I was starting to wonder. Whew, people who don't listen to music make me nervous. What are your favorite genres, pieces, etc. When you take a disc to a stereo store to check out new gear, what's your 'benchmark'?

You've made my day Wong, and restored my faith in stereophiles! Keep on posting.

Quote:
kana813: "Wonder how the Compaxx technology compares to the EQ the Burwen Bobcat applies to MP3?"

Could you tell us more about this, such as where/how you've heard it, what do you like in the effect, etc.? Compaxx isn't the only gig in town when it comes to working on nextgen quality mp3. There are quite a few groups and individuals burning the oil to bring the world's portable digital music up to a worthier level. What's ESPECIALLY interesting and different at this time, is the work being done on the music itself (post-process) prior to encoding on extant codecs, as opposed to reinventing/inventing new and better codecs.

Quote:
John Atkinson: "I look forward to your comments..."

I'll read, think, and do my honest best on it, John. Believe it or not, I really do look forward to yours as well. Your comments warrant some serious thought and time, so I'll only get to this Sunday or Monday. Ego isn't a factor for me, so if through your feedback I learn that things need to be changed or made better, I am more than willing to go with it. I'm not in Compaxx for the fame (I'm a pretty private person) or the money (this has been non-profit for 10 years already; my income derives elsewhere.) This is a search for the best possible way to render music in today's preferred portable formats, so my mind is open to what I learn here. I do use Compaxx as my foremost tool in publishing and broadcasting (my listeners and clients love the sound), but it's not something I sell. Just wanted to say that and dispel the notion that there might be an agenda here. My only agenda is to share and learn with you folks.

> In addition to responding to John, I'll be posting some new files to my site with url's here just for Stereophile. These will include both original wavs of CD as well Compaxx redos, in full length versions. 60-sec doesn't work very well and really can be skewed in terms of relative dynamics to a whole piece. On my public site I'm constrained to limit pop samples to only 59 secs so as to conform to copyright issues, and only use mp3 vs mp3 there so as to conserve on general listeners' bandwidth. You folks are definitely NOT general listeners. (LOL)

Please note that the link to my classical listening library (http://www.compaxx.org/php/00pvt.php <-copy & paste to new browser externally) was created only for people here and is not for the public at large. I notice that since last Wednesday some Stereophiles have been listening in at length (about 5 gB's daily) and thank you. As long as I can handle the bandwidth and the visits continue, I'll leave it open for Stereophile.

Keep Posting!

Some topics I'm thinking of including in future posts here for general chewing in relation to our shared hobby/interest:

> Dolby audio cassette hiss removal - If it were now 1972, and we were there with Stereophile, how would we react if Dolby joined this forum and posted about it? ("Audio cassettes for stereophiles???? hahahahah" or "Hm, can/should this be really be done?")

> How do we hear? The relationship between physiological & neurological evocative cognizance and audio signal modulation. (This is where I started with Compaxx while on a project in NC, 1995. Duke Universtiy is a world pioneer in hearing impairmentment research, and has some excellent papers bearing on this topic as well as the nature of hearing itself. Of course I wondered at the time how this could be used in music, and here I am with Compaxx today.)

P.S. To Jim & John: Jim caught something at the end of his last post which derives from the above (frequency pattern modulation) from Duke, and is by design. Without going into details at this time (long, and probably esoteric), it's one of the results of 'phasing', which I use significantly in Compaxx. This is perhaps why John perceived reverb or multiband compression. I do use equalization of various types, but again without compression. Also, please note that Compaxx runs at 48k, not 44.1k in mp3 (several good reasons for this), so if you're using a software decoder please don't resample (dithers can sound awful).

Quote:
John: "As I said, such changes are "trivial," in that they can easily compensated for in a fair comparison."

Please tell me how you'd recommend doing this. I work on Sound Forge, and if there's anything I'm capable of doing to obviate the need for compensation to make comparisions more fair, I certainly will.

Just for general info: Compaxx is a multi-layer offline process. There are 35 steps (process layers) applied to the entire file one at a time on top of one another prior to encoding. The effect is cumulative. STF process time on a Pentium IV with 1gB RAM is 2 hours processing per 1 hour of source audio (2:1). (Just in case you were wondering.)

Keep on Posting!
Tuvia

I've had a look at Burwen, and given it a trial spin. There are several excellent DSP plugins for both WinAmp and WM. Many are also in hardware form (such as DFX and EAX, which come in both).

My philosophy in developing Compaxx is to embed the DSP within the music itself, rather than creating an external plugin.

Thanks for posting about Burwen. I'm sure many here will find it effective and useful.

Tuvia

Amongst others, Jim Tavegia has been generously doing some serious homework on Compaxx and emailing his initial comments. I've asked his permission to post excerpts from his emails here, as I think it will benefit everybody. I believe that Jim's responses together with JA's analysis and questions will help paint a more comprehensive picture. Also, Jim speaks excellent 'stereo talk' (which I don't) which helps clarify in this forum's jargon. - Tuvia

May 27, About Compaxx 56k and 32k files (Jim will only be commenting on the 192k after working on hard-copy later this week.)

"Tommaso Albinoni: 56K file. Very nice. Full sound with decent power at the low end. Certainly the quality of a good NPR classical broadcast on a good FM stereo tuner. Just because it sounds like analogue is not a bad thing to me. I own three turntables. I could listen to this quality all the time. I hear nothing artificial in this recording or stream."

Beethoven/Emperor: 56K file. Nice sound, but a slight bit too much reverb on the piano. I do not seem to notice the reverb on the rest of the orchestra. The extra reverb make the recording slightly bright. This is one of my favorite pieces. When it comes to the piano I really am a purist. Longer into the piece I do hear the reverb on the orchestra sound tails."

"Chopin Concerto 1: 56K file. The sound when playing was very good, natural sounding. I have lps that sound much worse than this stream. A full bodied, smooth recording and sound stream."

"Mussorgsky/Pictures: 56K. Nice sound appears as in a large hall, long decay lines. Very natural to me. Good low end extension."

"Tommaso Albinoni: 32K Nice sound, with some minor loss of smoothness, but still good low end and violin character."

"Beethoven/Emperor: 32K file. Little less resolution, but still to much reverb on the piano to my liking. It does not sound natural. Sound is still well balanced freq wise. This is one of those times I wish I had a pair of AKG 414 BLIIs and a DW Fern 2 channel vacuum tube mic pre and got to do the recording."

"I found the wave forms that JA put up interesting. Plenty of dynamic range left in for sure."

Given that FM is broadcast at 96k/44k and the Compaxx 'FM Quality' is only 56k/22k, I find Jim's comments ("Certainly the quality of a good NPR classical broadcast on a good FM stereo tuner...I could listen to this quality all the time.") extremely helpful. - Tuvia

May 28: "I am listening to your streams through my TV Room Pioneer Elite 5.1 HT system. I have listened in stereo and through all the Dolby Digital and DSP settings for enhanced sound. I have enjoyed all the music played in every format. The Beethoven Emperor still has too much reverb for me, but the rest are very good."

Thanks, Jim, extremely helpful. Please post your comments about the Compaxx 192k when you're ready.

Other Stereophiles are invited to join in and respond to the above!
Tuvia

P.S. Best wishes to all attending the SHE exposition this weekend. Have a blast, and keep your eyes open for what's new in mp3 for Stereophiles.

Axon,

Thanks for your reply. As I noted yesterday, there are many external DSP 'enhancers' out there today, both software plugins and hardware. Some are very good, others less so. As mp3 is temendously popular today, many of the people who use these are compressed music collectors rather than CD/SACD/DVD listeners. There is a tremendous interest in improving playback for compressed formats in mp3 in its current form, as it's so popular.

Most of the enhancers I've tested seem to rely on 2 basic methods, reverb and EQ manipulation (either bass boost or multiband compression). These are applied either together or separately. Some folks swear by these devices, others swear at them, and consider them gimmicks. I have to state again here that I don't use reverb in Compaxx, nor do I use EQ multiband compression. I don't even own the tools for these.

What I've done in Compaxx is to embed DSP within the music files themselves so as to eliminate the need for external devices. I've been even a bit more audacious in trying to create in Compaxx a multilevel process that works equally well for all types of acoustic recordings and all genres. (Since a large part Compaxx works on harmonic resonance, the process does very little for midi and electronic pieces.)

You'll note that all external enhancers use a variety of presets for different genres (classical, rock, etc.) If the process works properly, this shouldn't be necessary. So, whether you may like the achieved sound of Compaxx or not, Compaxx works equivalently accross the board.

I'm a music producer and broadcaster, not a hardware or software developer. As such, I believe that music that sounds better will sell better. I am also solidly convinced that the market opportunities and future belong to compressed formats for the wider market, and that mp3 is here to stay. The only serious limit to widespread commercial sales of mp3 is its inherent poor quality. This is what Compaxx was designed to overcome.

I believe in music.

For those serious about DSP plugins for high-end rendering (especially analog fans) you may wish to try iZotope Ozone 3.

Dear Stereophiles,

It's been a holiday week here, so my apologies for the lag in posting. On Sunday I'll write and post a summary of this chain to date.

In addition to the critiques and posts here I've received over 4 dozen emails from this forum with feedback and questions. I'll do my best to respond and summarize in operative terms what I've learned here.

Thanks to everyone who's participated thus far,
Tuvia