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
2
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: "Tested": codecs for the effect of stereo decorrelation (mid/side)
Last post by bryant -
Sorry I’m a little late to respond here, but I have been following along. Thanks for analyzing this, it’s definitely interesting to see how the different compressors respond to stereo! I also was a little confused at first on what the columns meant, but you clarified it nicely.

I am only really familiar with how WavPack handles stereo, and how the “extra” modes work, so I’ll clarify that a little which will hopefully add something to the discussion.

In the “fast” and “normal” modes the default behavior (as was guessed) is just converting left-right to mid-side, and then treating the two channels completely independently. It can be turned off for comparison (-j0), but it’s almost always better. All of the “extra” modes check to make sure mid-side is improving things.

There is obviously still going to be some correlation between the channels even after mid-side encoding, and so the “high” and “extra high” modes take advantage of this. The filters with negative term values (-1, -2, and -3) employ this “cross-correlation”.

As for the “extra” modes, when I created the filters that are available at levels -x1 to -x3, there was very little high-resolution material out there (I think I had three tracks I captured somehow from a DVD) and so I didn’t use that in my corpus. Everyone was just comparing compression using CD audio and so I optimized for that.

The higher modes (-x4 to -x6) create new filters from scratch, so it makes perfect sense to me that those would be best for high-resolution (they have no preconceived notions).
7
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Waveform Minibar installed but no waveform window?
Last post by sean_jackson -
Hi, I'm quite new to FB and having trouble getting Waveform Minibar to be seen on both the portable and regular setups i'm using. I think it loads ok as i'm able to scan my library and can see it referenced and loaded (i think) under preferences/components but I cannot raise the visual waveform bar whatever i try. I thought there would be a button to invoke it but I've not discovered it yet. I have this setup across 2 computers and it's installed on both but absolutely no trace of the waveform. Can anyone who might be using this give me a steer on where I could be looking to invoke it please?

Sean
8
Uploads / Hard-to-compress rock song clip: FLAC at 90 percent of PCM
Last post by Porcus -
In case anyone is interested.

I sorted my CDDA collection by FLAC bitrate. A lot of noise music, but this is a rock song thing, which when you listen to it, is surprising that can be FLAC'ed only down to 90 percent of PCM bitrate. For what foo_dynamic_range is worth, it measures to as much as 5.
Not a known band at all - it is from some promo sampler issued by Metal Hammer and the now-defunct Northern Ireland Music Industry Commission.


This is certainly not the least-compressible thing I have; I have CDDA full tracks - even a full album! - that compress worse than this, but that is largely noise music, which, I admit, occupies just a tiny corner of my music obsession: With exception of an old Hypnoskull track (downloadable for free as .wav at their Soundcloud), everything involves Merzbow:
For those interested in Merzbow in lossless samples, Woodpecker No. 1 (from Pulse Demon, 1996) appears on some free samplers from the Relapse record label. The original master (free on this 194-track compilation)  is less compressible than the remaster (free here).
9
General - (fb2k) / To foobar2000, a record of deep gratitude
Last post by Adil -
What follows is the result of a strong need to express the feelings that beg me to gain publicity.

Many years ago, more precisely in the early 90's, I used to live near a CD rental store. At that time, CD was entering the market with force and in the country where I live, many new products were imported and were very expensive, hence the usefulness of renting CDs, which for a few years was my hobby.

The result of this is that I ended up getting fond of almost all the CDs and, because they were used, their value was much cheaper to acquire. I was buying entire discs, one by one, until after approximately a decade, the aforementioned store became obsolete and closed - a result of the very high popularity of the CD, whose market value made it definitely an easily accessible product.

Already established in life with a reasonably profitable job, my passion for discography didn't stop and I built up this habit more and more, until I got to the point where, fearful that something might get lost, I started ripping CDs onto hard drives. from the computer. As it was a lot, I had to buy several external hard drives with a large capacity to store the entire collection. It's too much.

When I registered on this forum I already knew about foobar2000. For a short period of my life, I was part of a music production team, and in some audio mastering and remastering jobs, foobar2000 was the official playback that was present in specific stages of critical listening in the studio. No matter how much it's been said that playback software sounds the same these days (https://www.foobar2000.org/FAQ#other_questions), that claim needs to be debated - foobar2000 clashes.

foobar2000 was an acquaintance of mine, but not in depth, so I registered on this forum. My ripped disc collection was not properly organized. Hundreds (thousands) of CDs were ripped in a hurry. Many didn't have tags, many had incorrect tags, many were incorrectly named, anyway there was a messy monstrosity in my collection and so I fixed it.

Initially I just wanted to create a more efficient workflow on the theme I used in foobar2000, so I gradually bombarded my doubts here and it was from that moment on that I could have the happiness of discovering how the community here is so passionate about audio and at foobar2000 like me. In addition to being passionate, the community is one of the friendliest, most helpful, and most patient people I could ever deal with. These qualities made the solutions to my problems much easier to achieve.

Before joining here, I was already 2 uninterrupted years dedicating myself to organizing my digital audio collection, but after I learned how to tame foobar2000 with the fundamental help of many passionate members of this forum, my collection's organization gained an unbelievable speed. I managed to put together a theme that suited me exactly how I needed it and the way I liked it. I made foobar2000 a mirror of my working style, something that with no other software I've even been able to come close to. The shortcut icons, the syntaxes built into Facets and Playlist View, the wonderful Masstagger, among many other essential components (foo_cover_info, foo_cover_resizer, Tag Snitizer, etc, etc, etc...) together, represented the achievement of my goal and today I was able to finish organizing my last discography pending adjustments.

Looking back, I don't know how I found the courage to start this task, which for a LONG time took up all my free time (now retired). I don't know how I didn't get sick.

Certainly other tools could also give me the result I was looking for, but foobar2000 was the only one that allowed me to do EVERYTHING the way I wanted it, and not the software developer's way. The practical result is the speed with which I arrived at a reliable result. The foobar2000's extremely high configuration flexibility and the passionate community present here are the number 1 responsible for my now having a decently organized digital audio collection.

As a feature request, I would just suggest an improvement in ripping and media burning skills. I miss the option to burn CDs with text entries ("Write CD-Text") and check the legitimacy of ripped files. The foobar2000 has what it takes to be a legitimate "All In One" in the audio player environment, but in my opinion these small details are still somewhat lacking - but nothing that serious.

To the brains behind foobar2000, all my respect and gratitude, equally extended to the passionate members of this forum. Anyone who downloads the software and is faced with its humble original interface, has no shy idea of ​​the effective, intelligent, obedient, astronomical and monumental tool that foobar2000 keeps inside.

Thank you very much!
10
FLAC / Re: How-to: Copy the MD5 checksum to a tag and compare it
Last post by Brand -
I'm updating the MD5 checking command (for the column in Mp3tag and TagScanner), for two reasons:
First, to distinguish between files that don't have a MD5 checksum copy and the files where the copy is different.

And second, to identify files that don't have the built-in MD5 value/signature (it was unset in the STREAMINFO). Such files can be produced, for example, by encoding with --no-md5-sum or, for example, when ripping from Qobuz. And I found some very old files that didn't have it, which were almost certainly encoded so by accident, or by a bug in the software.
Mp3tag and TagScanner show the MD5 value for such files as 00000000000000000000000000000000.

Also, from now on I'm calling the custom MD5 checksum tag MD5COPY, which should be less confusing.

For Mp3tag:
$if($eql(00000000000000000000000000000000,%_md5audio%),NO MD5!,$if($eql($len(%MD5COPY%),0),no copy,$if($eql(%MD5COPY%,%_md5audio%),copy OK,ERROR!)))

For TagScanner:
$if($equal(00000000000000000000000000000000,%_flac_md5%),NO MD5!,$if($equal($len(%MD5COPY%),0),no copy,$if($equal(%MD5COPY%,%_flac_md5%),copy OK,ERROR!)))

So, now there are 4 possible outputs:
1. no copy — there is no copy of the built-in MD5 checksum (MD5COPY has 0 data).
2. copy OK — there's a copy and it's the same as the built-in MD5.
3. ERROR! — there's a copy, but it doesn't match the built-in MD5.
4. NO MD5! — the built-in MD5 checksum doesn't exist (its value is 00000000000000000000000000000000).