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
1
Scientific Discussion / Re: Are complex-input FFTs really useful for audio analysis?
Last post by TF3RDL -
Quote from: mycroft on
Its just smart optimization, to make faster processing.
Using 2 FFT transforms for real-only inputs is stupid, if you insist on using separate transforms use RDFT and not FFT.
That's why treating the stereo input as complex numbers (useful for SDR-related I/Q signals, but idk for audio, assuming you skipped the process of turning into a stereo FFT) in the aforementioned CodePen project is faster than without, and that could be helpful optimization for @Crossover's foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer when comes to a feature request to display multiple channels but I'd imagine it only works on stereo pairs (especially on surround sound formats where you have center and LFE channels in-addition to usual channel pairs)
2
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Find & Play
Last post by onirwai -
Excellent package, thank you!

One small nitpick, Font Awesome 4 is quite old, maybe upgrade to a more recent version. I knew I had FontAwesome already, but it was version 6 and I was seeing all box characters. Uninstalled and put in version 4 and everything looks good.
3
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: LossyFlac vs Opus 256
Last post by Porcus -
Note that the WavPack hybrid solution requires players that support the whole thing. foobar2000 on desktop and on mobile will do. On Android you might need to use either an SD card or a player app's directory - explained at https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,122768.msg1013785.html#msg1013785 . Don't know how it works on iOS.
On desktop, beware that not all players that support WavPack, will support hybrid. VLC didn't the last time I checked.

As to the question on ALAC: No, ALAC cannot utilize LossyWAV. LossyWAV works by selectively zeroing out the lower bits, and FLAC, WavPack and TAK (and OptimFROG, but you won't be playing that on portables) can know that "we can just compress as N bits and pad up with 16-N afterwards" (or 24-N or whatever) - but the ALAC format doesn't support that trick.
6
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: LossyFlac vs Opus 256
Last post by guruboolez -
>i feel like i'm able to hear small differences in background drums / cymbals on some tracks all the way up to Opus 256kbps.
These feelings are common. It's not impossible to hear a difference but it's most likely a psychological effect. If you're a long time lurker you probably heard about ABX test. A blind test is the only way to be sure if what you hear is really what you feel and to remove all "placebo" effect.
Opus at 192 kbps should be transparent with almost everything and for almost all listeners:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,120007.0.html

>My question is as both these options render a similar file size which would give the best transparent sounding files?
I'd first say that LossyFLAC's bitrate is significantly higher (~310 kbps) than Opus 256.
-extraportable is the lowest LossyFLAC preset. Quality seems really high but I don't think it's supposed to be fully transparent.
My bet is that Opus 256 kbps is smaller than lossyFLAC and probably a bit closer to full transparency.

>So far with ABX tests it seems both are identical to my ears so which one would be closer to the original flac?
I don't even sure the question makes sense. Take a FLAC file, increase the gain by .5dB: difference is audible but the modified FLAC is objectively and mathematically very close to the original. A transform codec will change much more things but it'll sound identical to the reference.
What would you keep (quality wise): a lossless copy lowered by .5 dB or a 192 kbps MP3 encoding that sound identical to the reference? Look first for transparency, then efficiency and compatibility.

>Any other suggestion welcomed also, I've heard but never used xHE-AAC or WavPack are these good alternatives?
xHE-AAC is a competitor to OPUS (=modern transform codec). It's very good but at 256 kbps there's no real benefit. WavPack is technically closer to LossyFLAC.

A possible way to go would be to encode your library in WavPack Hybrid. Then you'll get two files for each track: a lossy one and a correction one. The combination of both file has almost the same size than a pure lossless encoding. With a good explorer software you'll be able to copy and paste your folders to your portable device and it'll only copy the lossy part of your encodings. It's a very clever solution if you want high bitrate files on your portable devices and keep lossless on your main hard drives. And you don't have to handle to separate libraries. You really should try it ;)
8
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by Porcus -
-8p down from 6'13" to 3"49 and then a different compile shaves off nearly another minute - not complaining, no.
-8p is now not even 13 times as slow as -5  ;)
9
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Defender -
Quote from: Case on
New version released with quiet mode added
Regarding this component I have nothing to wish or nag about anymore. Thx.

Quote from: Case on
As you figured, the lowpass should be handled by the decoder. Another component has no way to know if it is being fed nonsensical data.
Ok, noted.

Quote from: Case on
If you are scanning just one track the scanning speed will be limited by the source file decoder. Scanning is multithreaded but threads are used only for handling multiple tracks at once.
Not sure what you mean. Can truepeakscanner (and/or foobar RG scanner) use multithreaded scanning on multiple tracks/subsongs within a single container (iso/mkv)?
10
Recycle Bin / Re: Re: Another audiophile "expert"
Last post by bennetng -
FLAC does not support float and output clipping can be avoided by attenuate the level before resample when using SoX.

The real issue of SoX is input clipping if the input file contains value beyond 1.0, like WavPack float, MP3 and so on, which is already being discussed in the SoX mailing list. So maybe @korth can move the off-topic posts to another thread.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,101850.msg1041507.html#msg1041507