It's quite sluggish compared to the old peakmeter component. It seems to update much less often.
Cool! Thank you.
Quote from: Hancoque on 10 February, 2008, 10:57:50 AMIt's quite sluggish compared to the old peakmeter component. It seems to update much less often.I've experienced the same thing.The original peakmeter component is a lot more responsive...
Thanks!It is nice.But i am missing the transparent background very much.I am using it as a panel in panels ui and would really like to have a transparent background of your component to see my global background picture.
Todo: * adjustable sensitivity and attack time
The original peakmeter component is a lot more responsive...
Someone erase my post....i don't know why....I only put:YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH BAAAABBBYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!...for your new component...This sounds like a respect fault for somebody??? This is no respect fault for my 80 years grandmother old...., then, this is no respect fault for nobody....i think---------------------------------
Now, why don't autosize spectrum in horizontal..., but yes in vertical mode??I want auto size in horizontal too...
QuoteTodo: * adjustable sensitivity and attack timeI guess that you're speaking about refresh rate...., if not, please add it, cause' my eyes are going crazy when look the spectrum...jajaja.
Your Spectrum are Logarithmic or not? Well, i like the Channel_Spectrum plugin.., i love how it can show you every harmonic of a note, this is really impressive...i never see some like this.....I think...that your spectrum was made in Logarithmic mode, cause' it don't show the truly levels in the highs frequency range and seems to match all frequency levels. Please add an option to disable or to enable this mode (Logarithmic).
For the last...Could you add a clip indicator in 0db or adjustable db???
And, can you add a textbox with a peak reached like the SoundForge meters have?? Its really usefull i think..., perhaps with an option to interchange it with the tooltip that actually exist.
And once clicking on it to refresh peak please...
i think that your component becomes in a more professional tool for Foobar.
Yes, refresh rate will also be adjustable. (see also this post)
EDIT: I forget to tell you about the dependency between the FFT-size and the response. Sorry!
The reason for writing this component is to display the frequency spectrum in logarithmic form. I think such an option is not necessary, cause it's easier to display the fft ouput linear
You can double click on the component to reset the peak.
So, the responsiveness will be changed or not??? Can only show an adequate responsive with a few bands and/or FFT size??Why the Channel_Spectrum plugin have a lot of responsive??? Does it has FFT too?
QuoteThe reason for writing this component is to display the frequency spectrum in logarithmic form. I think such an option is not necessary, cause it's easier to display the fft ouput linearWell, if its so easier why not?? Please, add the two options for the people who don't like logarithmic view...
I think i answered this before ...
Seems that you like the logarithmic view of the spectrum...., this is tastes question..Greetngs.
excellent!i never knew how much i would like having a spectrum analyzer sitting in my foobar window.great work. looking forward to future releases.
This component looks very nice. But there's one thing for me that's annoying:It uses much more CPU time than the peakmeter-only component, which is ok while I use foobar2000 as my primary application. But when it's run in the background (minimized to tray) it still uses the same amount of resources.Could you please disable the component while foobar2000 is minimized? So it wouldn't unnecessarily take resources from other programs.
Is it possible to get it to stretch across the entire screen in Columns UI as opposed to just the side panel in the vertical splitter? I am not good at figuring out formatting.John
Hi, may you explain the "Window function" option (none/hanning/blackman)?Thank you very much for your great work
Hi foo_pm,Do you mean "hamming" instead of "hanning" ? I don't see any hanning here...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Window_...mparsion%29.png
Of course it's up to everyone to choose the "right" calculation method for him, according to his total number of bands. Maybe some "official guidelines" could help : e.g. "for more than XX bands, choose Hamming or Kaiser alpha=2 / for less than YY bands, choose Nutall or "Flat top". Because choosing hamming for only 7-10 bands or choosing Nutall for 31 bands looks like nonsense to me, don't you think ?
Hey, it could even be... automatic ? The component would choose itself the best calculation method according to the number of bands...