Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Recent Posts
12
General - (fb2k) / Re: output/outgoing sample rate
Last post by papavlos -
Go to "Preferences", scroll down to "Advanced" tab and configure the "Status bar" variable in "Legacy title formatting...":
%codec% %bitrate%kbps %samplerate%Hz %channels%'  '%playback_time%[ / %length%]
13
General - (fb2k) / Re: Using DSP - Resampler (SoX) mod2
Last post by Gabriel Schwartz -
Quote from: Porcus on
At that price tag they should be able to tell you :-o
But from what I can tell, you can set that DAC to oversample or not.

Generally, for resampling you should mind the possibility of clipping. A quick browsing their website says nothing about whether they have headroom for intersample overs.

Thanks

HoloAudio says that their DAC runs best in NOS.
That’s why I was wondering if anyone is doing OS in FB2K.
15
General - (fb2k) / Re: Using DSP - Resampler (SoX) mod2
Last post by Porcus -
At that price tag they should be able to tell you :-o
But from what I can tell, you can set that DAC to oversample or not.

Generally, for resampling you should mind the possibility of clipping. A quick browsing their website says nothing about whether they have headroom for intersample overs.
19
MP3 - Tech / Re: Current status of MP3 encoders
Last post by btc -
Quote from: itisljar on
Pardon, but aren't these those killer, hard-to-encode samples, and not real life music?
These were indeed hard-to-encode samples and at the same time they are real life music. Nos synthetic frequency sweeps.  Still, these were killer samples for MP3 (at least for V2) but not so for AAC.   ;)
Still I agree with you that "aac easily beats mp3" at 256 kbps is exageration.  It's well accepted here that LAME V2 (192 kbps) produces transparent results for wide public.  So it's ok if some  well trained listeners like Kamedo2, IgorC, Guruboolez can perform blind tests at higher bitrates. 

Yet there is strong evidence that AAC 96 kbps outperforms MP3 128 kbps  https://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
Kamedo2 tests also confirm that AAC 192 is better than LAME MP3 192 kbps, but again he is extremely trained listener.
https://kamedo2.hatenablog.jp/entry/20111029/1319840519


Quote from: itisljar on
It might be time for organizing public ABX testing, we do have some new codecs.
Where?
I can see only two xHE-AAC encoders (exhale and Poikosoft/FhG) and their popularity is still low.
  • MP3 - Lame/Helix. No quality changes since last public tests
  • AAC - Apple is still the best AAC encoder already for 20 years
  • Aotuv Vorbis, Musepack - no change
  • Opus - no change, except speech quality at very low bitrate, I don't think  here folks will be too excited to test it at that low bitrate.