1
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.
2
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X
Last post by Case -I've compared both versions with the same output device/driver, Playback->Processing set to "none" (that's my change, since "apply gain" is the default value, this change did not affect the differences I heard, - just wanted to eliminate any "extra" factor), and no DSP processing. Is there any other options which impact the sound?If we entertain for a moment the idea that there is a difference, 2.x includes different decoders and supports more formats out-of-the-box. If your use case was for example that you didn't use your sound device as a DAC but bitstreamed data to external receiver for decoding, DTS-in-PCM container could produce differences. New foobar2000 decodes the audio data by default which could be done differently than receiver does it, receiver could do some dynamics processing or other alterations. And if the connection has limited bandwidth, like toslink, the receiver will only get stereo output instead of the proper multichannel audio.
Lossy formats will be decoded differently with different decoders. I just compared a random vorbis file between 1.6.17 and 2.1.5 and there were differences -128 dB below digital fullscale. Such things are inaudible even to bats, but in theory a broken system might react differently to a different signal.
Another difference is the output device bitdepth support. In old foobar2000 exclusive outputs had a single bitdepth configuration box in the main output device selection screen. It defaulted to 16 bits. New foobar2000 allows configuring bitdepths (and DSP chains) for each device separately and defaults to highest bitdepth supported by the device. If these settings are not touched it's possible there is a difference. Though it should be that the v1.6 output with 16 bits would be worse, it could not be enough if one uses incorrect volume levels and the lowered signal is amplified in receiver/speakers. Or the defaulted highest bitdepth in 2.x might not work, perhaps your audio device drivers lie to support 32-bits but produce noise instead.
And then there's the new 2.x feature where each output device volume setting is remembered. If you set volume to max 0.0 dB in foobar2000 v1.6.x, it stayed there no matter what output you picked. In foobar2000 v2.x you can control volume of each device separately, so if you aren't careful, you may be comparing playback at different volume levels.
You people haven't mentioned anything about what kind of stuff you even play. Only very crazy claims that there is a difference in quality.
I have recorded the digital output of foobar2000 v1.6.17 WASAPI output against 2.x WASAPI when playing lossless material and they are bit-perfectly identical. There is no jitter, there is no difference in decay, there is no difference in soudstage. The signal is the exact same.
You people claiming to have a difference can very easily prove it. For example @misio's ESI Juli@ has nice high quality analog inputs. Just connect cables from outputs to inputs, play a demo track in both foobars while recording the output and share the recordings here. I at least would love to examine the claimed differences.
Doing the recording digitally would make comparison easier, but that would require getting a device that can record the digital output of the card. And you probably don't trust recording done inside the computer on driver level.
3
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: [fb2k v2] SQL Tree (foo_uie_sql_tree)
Last post by dix-hill -Code: [Select]
GroupingCould I assign Album, Compilation, and EP to their own playlists? I know I can assign 1 playlist for the query with Activate / Target Playlist.
---Album >>> Album Playlist
---Compilation >>> Compilation Playlist
---EP >>> EP Playlist
I also found these in the forum/help files and they worked as is, but I couldn't get them to work with an alias from a created table:
Code: [Select]
INSERT INTO PlaylistUpdatable(path,subsong)
SELECT path,subsong
FROM MediaLibrary
WHERE artist='Metallica';
Code: [Select]
INSERT INTO PlaylistUpdatable(path,playlist_name)
SELECT a.path,b.playlist_name
FROM MediaLibrary a,
(SELECT 'Metallica' "playlist_name"
UNION ALL
SELECT 'Heavy Metal') b
WHERE artist='Metallica';
4
MP3 - General / Re: Resurrecting/Preserving the Helix MP3 encoder
Last post by includemeout -While I understand the Xing tag (Real Networks had acquired Xing Tech back in the day), is EncSpot simply showing its age by not yielding the right result or what?
PS: the psychoacoustic model employed by Helix is nspsytune, right?
5
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X
Last post by Globares -I wouldn't call the differences big, but it looks like you're writing about similar impressions to mine. I'd say that the v2 sound is "lighter", has shorter sound decay and worse sound stage (size is similar, but precision is worse). The differences may be driver related. If that's the reason you hear big difference you can try ASIO4ALL driver with 64bit v2. It used to be a very good driver, generally I don't recommend it today, but 64-bit version works quite good with f2k v2.The sound quality of Foobar2000 2.X is lower than version 1.X.I confirm. I have noticed the sound is quite different in v2 then in v1.6. It is not a subtle difference it is a big difference.
v1.6 is much softer, v2 sounds like there was some kind of limiter in the signal chain.
Windows 10/64 bit, ESI Juli@ ASIO, no bells and whistles just pure Foobar.
6
CD Hardware/Software / Re: It's possible RIP Old CD with tracks in DTS, always retaining the DTS encoding
Last post by Porcus -Ripping to FLAC or WAVE does retain the "DTS" signalling because - like HDCD - it is only detected from the audio. So apart from FLAC saving some 176 kbit/s, it shouldn't matter what format you use - but have you done any ReplayGain or anything similar to them?
7
CD Hardware/Software / Re: It's possible RIP Old CD with tracks in DTS, always retaining the DTS encoding
Last post by DVDdoug -Quote
I tried to rip the DTS CD with foobar to flac, but it loses the DTS encoding,
I don't know but if it's getting decoded to playable audio, foobar must be decoding it. Or something is decoding it when it's played. Because undecoded DTS sounds like pure noise. (As you know if you've ever played it in a regular CD player.)
8
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X
Last post by Globares -Sorry to say but unless configured differently they produce 100% identical output.I've compared both versions with the same output device/driver, Playback->Processing set to "none" (that's my change, since "apply gain" is the default value, this change did not affect the differences I heard, - just wanted to eliminate any "extra" factor), and no DSP processing. Is there any other options which impact the sound? The "Advanced" settings look almost identical for both versions.
9
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_vis_spectrum_analyzer
Last post by pqyt -10
CD Hardware/Software / It's possible RIP Old CD with tracks in DTS, always retaining the DTS encoding
Last post by Pietrogramma -I have some old CD DTS that I would rip in my server and play them with Emby in DTS audio, it's possible?
I tried to rip the DTS CD with foobar to flac, but it loses the DTS encoding, can you tell me how should I proceed to convert the CD to flac (or other format), keeping the DTS encoding?
Thanks and ciao