Skip to main content
Recent Posts
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_onewaysync
Last post by tipar -
As awesome as it is I do not like the fact that I cannot copy all the files to the same folder; I mean they are separated by artist even if I titleformat only with _path. Good work indeed, anyway.
Support - (fb2k) / Re: foobar2000 v1.4b19 - visualizations on toolbar don't have native borders anymore
Last post by Coreda -

It looks like this in the beta 21. Still a bit worse than in the v1.3.x, because background is indistinguishable from the left and bottom borders.

Fwiw this is how it's always looked like on W8.1 for me on v1.3.x (with the white background). Someone said the 'Background' value in the 'Colors and Fonts' preference affects it though I've never changed the default.
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by jsdyson -
IMHO the 1D point of view don't conceptualize the reality because all audio measurements are performed by people who have the sound field in mind.

If a person has a picture of what they expect the sound field to be -- and then uses a singular real data point, aren't they really sustituting 'fake' (not necessarily invalid) effective data points for real ones?  No matter what you are imagining, there has to be some kind of framework -- and in space, there are normally 3 dimensions.  One can abstractly create more dimensions for some kind of analysis purpose, but in reality there are three dimensions in space.   Adding more dimensions isn't just describing space, but rather some kind of hyperspace (no scifi here.)

We have a tension, an intensity and time at the input of the loudspeaker coil, we can also try to link the voltage and the intensity through an imaginary thing called phase... also linked with the coil motion... and the air motion... abstraction is infinitely complex.
I only matter about what i'm imagining when i perform a measurement, the loudspeaker surface is radiating within two modes, a pistonic and radiative motion that generate a complex soundfield composed of a cloud of air of physical elementary particles moving relatively coherentely with the emissive surfaces when you are close to them and doing unpredictible things when you get farther (everyting is also highly impacted by the signals)
You should also add all the reflexions and the air volume when you are in a room, as you are probably awared of expertise is everthing and a clever measurement can validate a very complex theory.
If we don't matter about how many dimensions to use, could you say if there is a way to beat a human brain in this field of competence ?

... i'm not as intelligent as Garry Kasparov, but deeper blue is still biting the dust.

All of the physical stuff being described can be modeled by a competent mechanical/electrical engineering team.  Modeled so accurately that a 'virtual' copy of the speaker can likely predict the behavior incredibly accurately (including the enviornment.)  All of the things like 'standing waves' on a speaker diaphragm are 'old hat', and can be predicted fairly well.

Where we do have troubles is modeling exactly what the human hearing system (incl internal/external ears, head, brain, etc) perceives.  We can predict the frequency resp/phase relasionships of what enters the ear, and even model some of the ear, but that is as far as it goes.  Beyond this level is where the 'audiophile' mode becomes much more valid.

For example, I cannot predict what you will hear, and how you will react to a given stimulus.  Will it seem 'pretty' to you or seem 'ugly'?  I don't know, and won't even attempt to scientificially predict.  (I can certainly guess, however :-)).

As an engineer, all I can claim is to be able to parametrically describe or create a design (either of my own creation or someone else.)  When in a field where I am competent (and it is NOT speakers), I can create a design that is almost as perfect as the situation (costs, parts availability, software tools, CPU capability) allows.  (I am both a full EE, DSP person and operating systems software designer -- all with at least 3 decades experience and successful.)  BUT, I'd suck at speaker or microphone design -- I know the general physics, but not the techniques, technology or have any experience.

So real engineers can do a lot, but cannot predict what people can really perceive.  I know my limitations, and happily admit them -- otherwise, cannot be credible.  I am an engineer, not a able to do a mind meld to really understand what people feel/think.

CUETools / Re: Is Cuetools 2.1.7 working? not all decoders/encoders showing.
Last post by ssjkakaroto -
I can duplicate the formats page you're seeing by blocking access to the plugins folder.
Could the new directory you extracted the files to require elevated permissions?
Could you try extracting to a different location and double-check that you extracted everything?

As I hinted above, Gregory should be back in about a week or so.
I checked the permissions and everything was ok. The folder is on a non-system drive even. I tried extracting it to a different folder on another drive and the result is the same. Even running CUETools as administrator doesn't change anything.
CUETools / Re: Manually fixing a rip offset
Last post by blurry_light -
I'm not quite sure a simple offset would introduce such artefacts in an otherwise completely perfectly ripped audio CD [...]

... and the rest of what you point out, means that if the track boundary is so way off as to be audible, the offset issue could be when the master was produced, rather than when the CD was ripped (and +48 samples @1/44100 seconds won't be that much, eh?)

Yeah, I mean, when AccurateRip tells me there's a partial match because my copy has a constant offset throughout all tracks, I often don't even bother with it. It's as if I had a different pressing, that's all.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018