Thanks for the update nu774. Simple question, is libsoxr conversion just faster? Does it give the very same result of libsoxrate?
For other cases, qaac will choose "high quality", that leads to single precision resampling.I think "high quality" mode is usually enough, and it's the default of libsoxr.
If I get it right, on a system with iTunes 10 (because I don't like iTunes 11), if I extract CoreAudioToolbox.dll from the latest iTunes installer (as of now, 11.0.5) and put it in the same folder as qaac.exe, QAAC will use the DLL from the latest release, and not from the iTunes release installed on my PC.Is this correct?
Yes, but you need not only CoreAudioToolbox.dll but also other dependencies.Alternatively you can place them under "QTfiles" sub folder under where qaac is installed.
I think it should be:1) Same folder2) QTFiles3) Windows system (look for something installed after the portable option)
-V 80 --no-optimize --verbose --quality 2 -n --no-delay --log "%d.txt" -o %d -
If using coreaudio 184.108.40.206 (old, from qtlite 4.1 or something), crashes are very frequent. If using 220.127.116.11 (I have extracted the dlls around 2 months ago), it seems to be fine. My problem though is that there are posts from 2011 (for instance this one) stating that the channel mapping is wrong.
Can someone give me help on how to get the QAAC encoder to work with Foobar.I keep getting errors whenever I try to input a commandhttps://github.com/nu774/qaac/wiki/Command-Line-OptionsI'm really lost and have no idea how to use it for Foobar.
Quote from: ScionicReaver on 20 September, 2013, 05:20:32 PMCan someone give me help on how to get the QAAC encoder to work with Foobar.I keep getting errors whenever I try to input a commandhttps://github.com/nu774/qaac/wiki/Command-Line-OptionsI'm really lost and have no idea how to use it for Foobar.http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=845439
0.2646 0 0.1870 0.1870 0.2991 0.13230 0.2646 0.1870 0.1870 -0.1323 -0.2291
In sox I'm using this for remix: Code: [Select]1v0.2646,3v0.1870,4v0.1870,5v0.2991,6v0.1323 2v0.2646,3v0.1870,4v0.1870,5v-0.1323,6v-0.2291Is this the correct translation to be used with matrix-file?Code: [Select]0.2646 0 0.1870 0.1870 0.2991 0.13230 0.2646 0.1870 0.1870 -0.1323 -0.2291
Looks ok in that it's equivalent to the sox remix option you are using.
1 0 0.7071 0 -0.8718j -0.4899j0 1 0.7071 0 0.4899j 0.8718j
Code: [Select]1 0 0.7071 0 -0.8718j -0.4899j0 1 0.7071 0 0.4899j 0.8718j
Quote from: otonvm on 22 September, 2013, 02:20:00 PMCode: [Select]1 0 0.7071 0 -0.8718j -0.4899j0 1 0.7071 0 0.4899j 0.8718jThat will work, but it's actually taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic.As is written in Sox document, 90 deg phase shift (hilbert transform) has a bandpass characteristic, and it's far more complex than simple 180 degree phase shift you are using.Although I cited from the wiki, I don't know if it's actually worth doing.
Computationally? More complex?
OK I did some research and it seems that the later matrix has been accepted as the closest to what the spec probably looks like and I think it's what has been implemented in most tools today.
I have tried a manual encode from single channels with a "reference" encoder and I think this matrix sounds almost identical to that.
"the latter matrix" = 90 degree phase shift version on the wiki?