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
4
Audio Hardware / Re: audio device on Beelink u59 / AZW U59 (U3E1)
Last post by stanley.tweedle -
Hi there. My sincere apologies for never revisiting. I'll have to verify my contact settings for topic replies.

This problem still plagues me. Yes, @Octocontrabass , mine is the "Pro" model. I just pulled up the Amazon invoice from 2022, which still links to the product that i purchased. That's it, but I did upgrade to 32GB RAM.

I annotated a screencap to attempt demonstrating. This device isn't working again, so I tried a bluetooth speaker I have but it's not functioning either.

I've downloaded and installed the drivers from the Beelink website in the past (pretty sure it's that same file). Why it's listed for Windows 10, when the product ships with Windows 11, who knows! Got 'em again just now and will install.

But I did not realize there's a different set. I can't believe what a pain in the @$# this thing has been with the audio. Cracks like digital distortion. Like a bad cable or something. Turn the output way down, and the amp way up maybe it's a little better. That sucks anyway.

@Porcus that's some interesting and insightful news! I knew I'd come across the best information here. I'm always doing something else and forget to follow-up on the things that are "for me". Or, I got it working. Seems like I go through it every quarter year or so.

Sorry. I'm really excited to see all of the replies to little old me's post here. I feel like a jerk for letting it sit here.

I'll come back to report my findings if i'm allowed!
:)
 
Best regards.


Installing a software, FxSound -- much to my surprise, i assure you -- has fixed this problem in the past. That's some weird software. I don't understand what it does. It makes it seem like there's a new device, vs just being some kind of DSP. That's not where my genius lies. I've plugged guitars into rack-mount DSP's n stuff like that, been in recording studios and used really high-end gear. I know enough about it all to have a basic idea of what it probably is, but then I fail. And with this driver situation being needle and haystack (perhaps you recall if you checked on it at all). Its enough to drive me more nuts than I am.

The true solution lies in a new purchase. It's fine if I don't have to be irritated by that garbage audio device.

I'm all ears if anyone knows of something similar for under (or around) $500
(e.g. out of my current price range, but this seems nice for 2024? I might be afraid to even look inside. One of those peanut brittle cans gag. Open it up, and interfaces and wires and components just fly out all over the room... fun for the whole family! i hate bein' old.)

7
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: HALAC (High Availability Lossless Audio Compression)
Last post by Case -
Very initial HALAC input component for foobar2000: https://foobar.hyv.fi/foo_input_halac.fb2k-component.

Couple of warnings:
The input library is very basic and only supports loading files by file path, and the path is given in ANSI codepage so characters needing unicode won't work.

As the library forces decoding the entire file to memory large files will need a lot of RAM. But the library won't be able to handle very big files as it addresses size with 32-bit integer.

The library doesn't seem to have any error checking. Feeding it a path that doesn't exist makes the host program (foobar2000) crash. Trying to load corrupted/invalid HALAC file makes the host program crash.

Edit: and based on the DLL name I believe AVX is required. And since there is only 64-bit DLL available this version of the component only works on 64-bit foobar2000.
8
Opus / Re: Opus v1.5.2
Last post by Marsu42 -
Quote from: jdimsa on
Is there any reason to stick to multiples of 16/32 for target bitrate in opus encoder or does it not matter? I noticed qaac/Apple AAC forces 112-128-160-192 etc.

Opus does have some built-in bitrate thresholds that affect how it encodes - some, but not all of of these are at 16kbps multiples, probably for historical reasons.
https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings#Bandwidth_Transition_Thresholds
https://github.com/xiph/opus/blob/main/src/opus_encoder.c
10
General Audio / Re: Tested: codecs vs battery life on Android telephones
Last post by Marsu42 -
Quote from: Nick.C on
https://www.rockbox.org/wiki/CodecPerformanceComparison

The rockbox comparison reminds of that Opus isn't one codec, but two - SILK and CELT, supporting three modes - which probably shouldn't randomly tested together. https://wiki.xiph.org/OpusFAQ#Why_not_keep_the_SILK_and_CELT_codecs_separate?

Low bitrate Opus decoding seems to be significantly faster (i.e. should use less power for the same job), probably due to SILK or hybrid mode being used?

On the other hand, modern Opus with LACE/noLACE post-processing on high decoding complexity settting is probably a lot worse performance-wise - but makes up for that by significant enhancement in <16kbps quality.