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
12
Validated News / Re: Winamp is opening its source code
Last post by 2tec -
Quote
Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version"
I predict Winamp will boldly go nowhere. Way too little, way too late, imho. Kinda sad because I remember when Winamp was a godsend.
13
Validated News / Re: Winamp is opening its source code
Last post by Porcus -
Headline says "Dec 16", so I googled for mentions. Nothing. I assume it is just a mishap for "May 16"? If the news has been up for five months without anyone noticing, it would be quite telling about what Winamp isn't anymore.

Also telling, it must be deliberate how unclear they are on whether the source will be open indeed, or whether they merely use the "open" buzzword for an "invitation to see the source and work for free for us".
16
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Bitperfect audio in v2.x?
Last post by RJVB -
Quote from: Case on
It allows you to make a choice. The non-exclusive output is always 32-bit floating point as that's the native format of the mixer. For those bit-perfect outputs you should select the highest supported by your hardware.

Interestingly my AV amp only goes up to 24 bit, and so I have to guess that the "auto" setting in the non-exclusive mode picks the highest format that is accepted. I can confirm that selecting a 32bit depth will cause playback to be aborted with an error, so yeah, sure I'm allowed to make a choice but I'm also obliged to make one (if 32bit is the default; I think it was).

Out of curiosity, how much overhead would there be in decoding to a higher bit depth than the one the content provides? (And how much to bypassing the mixer completely if no filters or other processing is/are to be applied? ;) )
17
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Defender -
Quote from: Case on
As long as there are separate tracks the work can be spread across multiple threads. You can look at task manager and you should see possibly even 100% CPU usage for foobar2000, as long as you aren't bottlenecked by storage.
Can confirm. Ran some more tests (always on NVME Gen4 storage).

Interesting to see that SACD is by far the heaviest to scan (not only for truepeak scanner but also foobar RG). Must be the underlying process of the underlying SACD component I guess.

Roughly speaking SACD scan runs at 49x, DTSMA at 430x, DVDA at 500x and normal FLAC8 at 1500x.
Time that the scanner needs for additional LRA, DR and clipping pos is neglectible (up to 10% extra time).
19
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by Porcus -
Quote from: ktf on
(especially those with a completely empty upper half of the spectrum)
Oh, and that maybe makes it even more interesting - those signals appear to be the ones where -e matters, i.e. the model choice algorithm is less reliable. If such ones can be "identified" (not surely, but with enough statistical association), then we might be in for some fun ... uh, assuming that developer and testers have infinite amount of spare time of course.