Better compressed sound enhancer--pioneer or yamaha?

[joshcowboy1]

Hello,

Like many on this site, I'm deciding between two receivers: the Pioneer 1016 and the Yamaha 659. But my question is a little different...

I listen to music from two sources: my mp3/AAC collection (ripped at high bit rates) and XM radio. Both the Pioneer and the Yamaha have features for enhancing compressed music. (I paste a blurb and a link for each below.) This is a crucial feature for me and will probably determine which receiver I get.

Two questions:

1. Does anyone know which receiver has the better compressed music enhancement feature?

2. Will the enhancement feature work both when used with XM and when used with music streaming in from my computer (via an optical cable)?

Thanks!!!

-Josh

P.S. Here’s some background:

1. The Yamaha

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/av/topics/n600/cme.html

“The Compressed Music Enhancer is a new function that is intended mainly to create harmonics from the remaining music data utilized by DSP, focusing on the fact that the music elements that are lost when the original music is digitally compressed are mainly the harmonics. It combines High Frequency Expansion Processing with Low Frequency Emphasis Processing that emphasizes the bass by creating a super-low range component. These processes vividly revive the range, presence, force and dynamism of compressed music.”

2. The Pioneer

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/top/cat/article/0,,2076_310069657_310200478,00.html

“Pioneer A/V receivers use a refined technology called hi-bit sampling to enhance digital audio. This conversion technology extrapolates musical information lost in the digital recording process of WMA or .mp3 files. It then adds the information back in to create music with a fuller and warmer sound. In other words, it fills in the “digital gaps.” It’s similar to the BMX technology used in car stereos, but designed for the home.
Pioneer’s current home theater systems feature Sound Retriever Digital Sound Processing, which improves the quality of compressed audio files by digitally processing audio data to “fill in” information that is left out when files are compressed.”

 

[MDS]

I've never used either of those features as my receiver doesn't offer anything like them but based on the descriptions given I have an idea of what they actually do.

Lossy compression algorithms discard music data that their perceptual model says we would not hear anyway (mostly sounds that are masked by other sounds, like a soft sound immediately followed by a louder sound will not be heard). Additionally, at low bit rates, nearly all information above 16 kHz is discarded. Higher bitrates preserve more of the high frequencies.

The Yamaha description implies that they can get those frequencies back using 'High Frequency Expansion Processing'. What does that mean? I would say it means their algorithm resamples the incoming data and interpolates new samples. If frequencies above 16 kHz happen to be missing (that would be the first harmonic of 8 kHz) it would create new samples based on the prior samples. So it could look at the 1, 2, 4, and 8 kHz frequencies to derive a new 16 kHz sample. That's how they get back the harmonics that are claimed to be discarded. Low Frequency Emphasis is bass boost - increasing the amplitude of the low frequencies.

The Pioneer description says '“Pioneer A/V receivers use a refined technology called hi-bit sampling to enhance digital audio. This conversion technology extrapolates musical information lost in the digital recording process of WMA or .mp3 files.

In other words, they resample and 'fill in the blanks' just as I surmised above.

I have no idea which algorithm would be better or even if either of them has any value at all. You may or may not like the effect but one thing is certain - it isn't magic that will make compressed files sound like a perfect uncompressed recording. I would not make that feature the deciding factor between the two receiver choices.

 

[Hi Ho]

I have no idea which algorithm would be better or even if either of them has any value at all. You may or may not like the effect but one thing is certain - it isn't magic that will make compressed files sound like a perfect uncompressed recording.

I haven't heard Pioneer's implementation but I must say that I am very impressed with Yamahas. I have some compressed music on my PC that I play through my 2700 and the "Enhancer" is the real deal.

Unlike nearly all "enhancers" I have heard on other systems, Yamahas does not sound processed. It doesn't take anything away from the music or make is sound smeared or artificial. It sounds like much more than trebel and bass boost. It truely does "rebuild" the music.

I did an experiment out of my own curiosity. I took a song (Forget About It : Alison Krauss) and ripped it to my hard drive in WAV format, then I ripped it in WMA 192k. I listened to both. The WAV sounded better than the WMA but it wasn't a dramatic difference. Frequency extention was better in the WAV. The difference was especially noticable at the beginning of the track with the maracas (if that's what they are ).

With the enhancer activated the WMA file came to life. It really is an improvement. It sounded nearly identical to the WAV. The WAV didn't change much at all with the enhancer enabled.

This is a completely subjective and unscientific "test" but I can say with confidence that Yamahas Compresed Music Enhancer is the real deal. If you have compressed music in your collection it will make it shine.

 

[MDS]

So one vote of confidence for the Yamaha music enhancer. I'm sure there will be others that find the processing pleasing to the ear too.

I didn't mean to disparage the idea completely, just point out that it is in fact resampling and DSP processing. In no way can it 'put back what was lost' as there is no way for it to know exactly what the original waveform looked like.

The WAV file is different than the MP3/WMA and both are different than the result of the sound enhancer. Each can still sound good in it's own right.