KVR Audio

Shabdahbriah · Post by **Shabdahbriah** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:20 pm

mfa wrote:I stumbled into this a couple of days ago: http://www.jobfox.com/Web/Seeker/Landin ... plyhired75

Could be related to what the fellow was talking about.

Very different company.

Interesting gig though.

DaveHoskins · Post by **DaveHoskins** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:22 pm

Looks like Dolby's a bit slow on the uptake!

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:22 pm

mfa wrote:I stumbled into this a couple of days ago: http://www.jobfox.com/Web/Seeker/Landin ... plyhired75

Could be related to what the fellow was talking about.

He said that he was representing Dorrough Electronics and that ad is for Dolby Labs.

mfa · Post by **mfa** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:35 am

jupiter8 wrote:
mfa wrote:I stumbled into this a couple of days ago: http://www.jobfox.com/Web/Seeker/Landin ... plyhired75

Could be related to what the fellow was talking about.
He said that he was representing Dorrough Electronics and that ad is for Dolby Labs.

My mistake. I quickly checked the Dorrough site and they didn't seem to produce anything that would make an desperate headhunter start talking such nonsense.

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:39 am

I think it is kinda sad we scared the dude away (though i admit the opportunity was to good to pass) becuase i am really curious what the process really was.

mfa · Post by **mfa** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:01 am

Me too... but honestly, i don't believe he knew what he was talking about.

antto · Post by **antto** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:18 pm

looking back at his original description:
1) it doesn't amplify the audio (so it ain't some fancy compressor)
2) it makes the audio 40% better
3) doesn't distort the audio (too much)
4) the given audio sounds "better" when played on a mobile phone or something
...maybe this means played on a small mobile phone speaker?

it must be some sort of an EQ i guess
automated EQ, or FFT EQ
spatial enhancer?

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:22 pm

I wa shocked.

(It's a clue, not a typo.)

DrApostropheX · Post by **DrApostropheX** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:09 pm

Meffy wrote:I wa shocked.

Well, if you wa shocked, this sound gooder already.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:10 pm

[Zippy] Yow! Are we enhanced yet? [/Zippy]

doctornash · Post by **doctornash** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:44 pm

the given audio sounds "better" when played on a mobile phone or something...maybe this means played on a small mobile phone speaker? it must be some sort of an EQ i guess, automated EQ, or FFT EQ, spatial enhancer?

Yes it is unfortunate the OP did not elaborate further after being grilled by a veritable who's-who of the audio DSP coding community. Various techniques can be used to 'make audio sound better' on a small device.

There was something floating around about improving the 'clarity' of audio from a mobile device based on measurement of:
a) a person's hearing profile
b) environmental factors modelled as induced hearing loss
c) personal choice
and then DSP'ing compensation for lost functionality of the cochlea indicated by the hearing profile, and 'enhancing the sound' based on background noise and personal choice factors. This 'enhancement' could take the form of:
1. EQ'ing
2. Compressing to make better use of the dynamic range
3. For speakers unable to effectively couple low-frequency energy to the air (and so having a poor bass response), generating overtones from the bass frequencies the speaker can't deliver, and inserting them into the audio stream, tricking the auditory system
4. Adding even-ordered harmonics in a controlled fashion to 'warm' the music
5. Soft clipping

antto · Post by **antto** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:02 am

i would not call such a thing "better"
i'd call it just a personalized audio effect processor or something

suppose my ears are so damaged i cannot hear anything over 6kHz
what would this thing do? pitch shift the hihats down?
bass - it would distort the low freqs?
man, this is nasty, i wouldn't use it (but that's my personal opinion)

LBarratt · Post by **LBarratt** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:38 pm

As an audio engineer wanting to be a programmer I thought this thread was a little sad to read. When innovation comes it will often be from left of field and take all the "experts" by surprise. The "40%" claim was an unusual way of quantifying quality which shows the person could be from left of field or a bad sales person.

In defence of the claim-Some people argue music always sounds better played off an old record. Maybe that is a quality he has emulated through maths. The additional harmonics of certain gear always makes a pure sine wave sound better because it moves the ear drum less violently and is far less tiring on the ear. I think most music would sound better if we could add these harmonics properly, which no plug-in is doing yet. It is interesting on kvraudio and gearslutz that the more successful guys(that does not mean more talented) are often the less bitter contributors. UBK and URS appear to be great guys. I think we should look to these guys as examples of how to be a little gentler on forums.
Thanks
Lachlan

AdmiralQuality · Post by **AdmiralQuality** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:08 am

LBarratt wrote:The additional harmonics of certain gear always makes a pure sine wave sound better because it moves the ear drum less violently and is far less tiring on the ear.

LBarratt · Post by **LBarratt** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:10 am

AdmiralQuality wrote:
LBarratt wrote:The additional harmonics of certain gear always makes a pure sine wave sound better because it moves the ear drum less violently and is far less tiring on the ear.

Sorry meant to say higher freq sin wave.

Audio programming - programmer needed