Skip to main content


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
General Audio / Re: AI language models can exceed PNG and FLAC in lossless compression, says study
Last post by ktf -
I must say the results of this study are very.... odd.

Apparently FLAC compresses the ImageNet data better than PNG, gzip and LZMA when offered in chunks of 2048 byte? That seems very unlikely? I'd say the results of LZMA, gzip, PNG and FLAC are suspiciously similar when considering that they work with completely different methods. Sure, PNG is more or less a general purpose filter with a specific context-aware filter, but how would you even feed non-image data to a PNG compressor? That context-aware filter depends on height and width of the image, which is not applicable for non-image data.

Also, I don't really understand the 'chunking' with the audio data. It seems to me they have chopped up the data in chunks of 2048 bytes and concatenated them. If the data is 16 bit per sample, that means only 1024 samples for each chunk, which really isn't representative for any kind of audio. Similar for pictures:

We extract contiguous patches of size 32 × 64 from all images, flatten them, convert them to grayscale (so that each byte represents exactly one pixel) to obtain samples of 2048 bytes. We then concatenate 488 821 of these patches, following the original dataset order, to create a dataset of 1 GB.
This doesn't seem in any way representative of any real-world use case? Image and audio data don't fit 1 byte per sample most of the time, so the data seems 'crafted' to me.

Finally, I don't understand where the 107% figure comes from for FLAC when compressing noise. It does much better than that. When I compress noise as an 8bps single channel stream with a blocksize of 2048 (as suggested in the paper) I get only 0.5% overhead, not 7%.
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Replaygain for Onkyo TX-NR818 Receiver
Last post by AMIlls001 -
Thank you for the quick follow up.  Unfortunately I need to connect to an analog input source.  I use Zone 2 out to an amp & speaker selector to play an additional 7 sets of speakers.   The Onkyo TX-NR818 Zone 2 will only work if the source input is an analog connection.   Right now I have an Arylic S10 connected to the receiver analog source (which allows me to wirelessly connect from my PC to the Receiver) and everything was working great accept MediaMonkey was playing many Flac files  at a very low volume and not adjusting for the Replaygaiin tags.  I was hoping that Foobar2000 would be different.  Does the source input have to be HDMI (or digital) for Foobar2000 to recognize the replaygain tags? Thank you

CD Hardware/Software / playing ripped mp3 files in car shows band as "unknown"
Last post by JimLS -
Ripped a few cds with eac.  put the whole album folders on my phone and played in the car via bluetooth.  The track number and title came up but the band showed as unknown.  Any way to get the band title to show up?  I'm using Samsung music app on the phone and am open to suggestions for better ones - simple preferred.
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Replaygain for Onkyo TX-NR818 Receiver
Last post by Chibisteven -
According to Onkyo, my Onkyo TX-NR818 Receiver does not support Replaygain tags. Will Foobar2000 or Foobar2000 with an taddon allow me to take advantage of the Replaygain Tags even if my Receiver does not support it?

Connect your PC up to your receiver.  foobar2000 will handle all the ReplayGain tag reading.  It's not relevant whether or not a receiver supports something if it's connected to your PC as long your receiver supports uncompressed LPCM over HDMI your PC will simply decode it and send it down the pipe.