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
13
Polls / Re: 2024/2025 Bitrate/Format Poll (Lossy)
Last post by lovecraft -
Quite seriously, if you are listening your music via bluetooth earbuds (like me) which mostly don't  support high bitrate formats like LDAC or aptx (and even if they do, it is still questionable as they are also lossy compression methods which introduce "re-encoding"), you will be deceiving yourself that you are listening to lossless when you are listening to FLAC. Or even high bitrate lossy files are just a waste in that very case. Put a cable in that thing and "maybe" then you are getting the real deal (if you can hear it of course).

With my SBC supporting bluetooth earbuds (they also claim to do AAC but it sucks), i can not discern a 60kbps opus file from the original flac that it was encoded from. I don't really have a good cable setup to compare that with, but the bluetooth serves me fine enough, i don't really hear any artefacts in let's say the cymbals/open hi-hats in the music that i am listening to, which are usually the most affected part as i am sure you all know. That was the first thing that we looked for when we were dealing with mp3s back in the day.

So i guess technology really came a long way since the time of mp3. The compression ratio giving the same amount of quality is a lot higher today, and this goes for both the bluetooth codecs and the compression codecs that we use to compress our CDs and FLACs let's say. I am starting to believe that most of us don't even need "lossless" other than for archival purposes to prevent generation loss.
14
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_vis_milk2
Last post by marktherob2005 -
I tried blanking out the directory in advanced settings so now it points to .....Milkdrop2/presets
I have a presets directory that has a folder or many folders with *.milk files and jpgs that is downloaded from Creamofthecrop.
This comes up with the message that no presets are available.

Next I copied all files out of one of the folders into the preset folder and then it works correctly

I at a loss is there a setting that I need to turn on
16
WavPack / Re: Extracting the MD5 for all WavPack files and including the filepath
Last post by Porcus -
Actually, if you use tracks: I have quite a few duplicates (that contain truly identical audio). CDs that have these silent tracks until a bonus track or two at the end.
Biggest number of hits have an MD5 of 1234DD57F3AF7775D57493B54D59BCEB . That is precisely 4 seconds - 176 400 samples - of silence. Hundreds of "tracks", actually. Also more than one CD has a silent track of 178 164 samples.

Think twice over the need to dedupe them - they don't take up much space, and deleting them will make it much harder to do AccurateRip verification and CUETools repairs.
18
Opus / Re: Can anyone reliably ABX OPUS at 160kbps?
Last post by lovecraft -
I can't even abx it at 60kbps :) Seriously, i had to go down to 50 to actually hear something to bother me. I know that my ears are old, but back in my heyday, when mp3 was the only show in town, i had to go up to 192kbps to make it transparent to me. Of course, compared to the wav files we have extracted from our clunky CDs, a 192kbps mp3 album meant a lot of storage space saved, it was like night and day. So yeah, the storage is cheap today but it is still fun to see "how small this thing could get without me noticing it" :)

So in my case, 96kbps is more than transparent. Absolutely. Opus is really something. Or i lost most of my hearing :)
19
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_youtube
Last post by DVS -
I checked this on a couple of different computers and on both, the same result. The monitor turns off when playing a youtube video. I think the computer configuration has nothing to do with it.
20
CUETools / Re: How To Rip SACDs to DSD files?
Last post by Porcus -
Quote from: Wickedfox on
my bad, yeah it's the 2004 remaster
OK, then actually: if you don't have the hardware to rip it - one of those PS3s or Blu-Ray players - then it might be a better idea to get it in PCM.

DSD isn't really well suited for consumers, it spits lots of ultrasonic noise down your playback chain. Hardware SACD players filter that away in their analog stage. This ripping procedure does not. (Converting to say, 48 kHz PCM will filter it away. But then, going by way of DSD is an unnecessary step.)