Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
WavPack / Re: How about multi-threaded wvunpack?
Last post by lvqcl -
FFmpeg's wavpack decoder is multithreaded and is much faster than wvunpack even with 1 thread.

I just tested wavpack 5.1.0 and ffmpeg 3.3.1 and ffmpeg was noticeably slower in single-thread mode.
2
WavPack / Re: How about multi-threaded wvunpack?
Last post by saratoga -
Hi, is there a reason not to use multiple threads in wvunpack to speed up the unpacking of lossless WavPack files to WAV? If not, could you make a multi-threaded unpacker?

I think most common programs already do this.  Foobar, dbpoweramp, etc. 
3
WavPack / Re: How about multi-threaded wvunpack?
Last post by atomnuker -
FFmpeg's wavpack decoder is multithreaded and is much faster than wvunpack even with 1 thread.
4
WavPack / Re: How about multi-threaded wvunpack?
Last post by lvqcl -
Too few people use Wavpack to encode 10MHz data, I suppose...  ;)
5
WavPack / How about multi-threaded wvunpack?
Last post by Funk -
Hi, is there a reason not to use multiple threads in wvunpack to speed up the unpacking of lossless WavPack files to WAV? If not, could you make a multi-threaded unpacker?
6
720p H264 + AAC video has itag 22. It used to have 192kbps in the past. But in the spring of 2016, they began to use 128kbps AAC for it
New videos (2017) use 192kbps AAC on itag 22.
7
Hi all,

I don't know if I'm searching on the wrong places...

I have some 48kHz FLACs in my collection, but for compatibility reasons I want to convert them to 44,1kHz - I am thinking about making this conversion final and not keep the original 48kHz since I don't think I would hear any difference.

Still, I would like to know which resampler is theoretically the one with the best performance in foobar:

There is dbPoweramp/SSRC, and there is PPHS which can be selected in the converter setup. PPHS has an ultra mode, I guess this is something like "better accuracy while sacrificing encoding speed". Is that true?

I just want to get the most accurate result possible, I don't care about encoding speed since I don't use the resampler for live listening but only for a one time conversion of my few 48k files.

Which one would you recommend here?

While searching through the web, I can't find anything helpful that encourages my decision. Any tips from the community?

Thanks in advance.
8
In Acoustic Guitar I can see 125 kbit/s audio, which is the reduced rate. The bitrates are actually 192 and 125 abr, as reported by, for example, ffdshow, which shows the instantanenous and average readings. Some new videos do still use the higher rate, and there doesn't seem to be any clear reason why one should get the higher, and another the lower. For example, 125 kbit/s, 192 kbit/s, 192 kbit/s. I noticed that one video changed from 192 down to 125 today. Maybe there is a mixture of quality on the YouTube network, and it depends on where the video happens to be served from.
9
General Audio / Re: Vynil or digital?
Last post by greynol -
I'm pretty sure the compression comment was in regards to dynamics rather than data, BTW; not that the two don't get conflated.

Don't ask me why I'm even putting this silliness back on the table.
10
General Audio / Re: Vynil or digital?
Last post by Arnold B. Krueger -
Here's an apparently much needed news flash: Digital audio does not necessarily include lossy compression or added loudness.

Weeeeelllll.  That statement suggests that we should use formats with no loss.

There ain't no such thing as a format with zero loss, even in theory as long as we limit ourselves to finite numbers. When you get to real world practice, then that there is no such thing as a format with zero loss is even more abundantly clear.

Quote
From the 204 dB of Saturn V to whatever is theoretically closest to negative infinity as dictated by quantum mechanics or whatever, that is a helluvalot of bits and surely way more than 32.

I thought we were talking about audio, which is related to sounds that are potentially audible and non-fatal.  Rule of thumb, if you have to conflate audio and quantum mechanics to support your claims, your opponent wins.


Quote
Which kind of invites to the hi-rez bandwagon.

The hi rez bandwagon starts at anything > 16 bits, last time I looked around in the real contemporary world. 

Quote
Going from the sound in the wild to a 32-bit digitized signal is in principle a lossy compression operation.

Excluded middle argument, anybody?

BTW am I conversing with one of those who is so ignorant of how things work they think that analog audio has infinite resolution? ;-)

Truth be known, Vinyl lacks dynamic range as compared to any digital format but the ones that are violently bitrate reduced. Way south of Redbook.