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
1
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by ktf -
Thanks. It turns out that some changes I made when working out the 32-bit encoder/decoder did affect the 24-bit part more than I thought. I was under the impression the code paths meant for 32-bit audio were only seldomly used for 24-bit audio, but it turns out certain kinds of 24-bit audio (especially those with a completely empty upper half of the spectrum) do use these code paths a lot, and they are much slower.

So, these changes make the choice between these code paths more strict: that choice was rather made rather roughly (on the safe side of course), but now the encoder goes through a little bit more math to only choose the slow code path when absolutely necessary.

The speed-up is highly dependent on source material. Audio with a high samplerate in which the upper frequencies are fully 'utilised' do not see any change at all, most audio I've tested sees quite some improvement at preset 8, and those where really no audio exists above 20kHz see most improvement at preset 5, but are still slow at preset 8.
2
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: LossyFlac vs Opus 256
Last post by Nick.C -
Quote from: guruboolez on
-extraportable is the lowest LossyFLAC preset. Quality seems really high but I don't think it's supposed to be fully transparent.
lossyWAV Beta 1.4.3c includes, for testing at this time, four more quality options below extraportable (-q -5): "unadvised" (-q -10), "dubious" (-q -8.75), "questionable" (-q -7.5) and "aggressive" (-q -6.25). These will yield lower resultant lossyFLAC bitrates, with the consequent increased risk of noticeable added noise as the quality numeral reduces.
4
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Case -
Quote from: Defender on
Quote from: Case on
If you are scanning just one track the scanning speed will be limited by the source file decoder. Scanning is multithreaded but threads are used only for handling multiple tracks at once.
Not sure what you mean. Can truepeakscanner (and/or foobar RG scanner) use multithreaded scanning on multiple tracks/subsongs within a single container (iso/mkv)?
Absolutely. 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.
5
Polls / Re: Sound colors of codecs
Last post by sld -
I just prefer that the codecs and bitrates I use don't mess with the original input file according to my ears.
My ears are pretty ok, but I guess the important part here is "don't mess". The only time things get messed with are:
1) Out of my control - the budget hardware I have
2) Within my control - EQing
7
Scientific Discussion / Re: Are complex-input FFTs really useful for audio analysis?
Last post by TF3RDL -
Quote from: mycroft on
Its just smart optimization, to make faster processing.
Using 2 FFT transforms for real-only inputs is stupid, if you insist on using separate transforms use RDFT and not FFT.
That's why treating the stereo input as complex numbers (useful for SDR-related I/Q signals, but idk for audio, assuming you skipped the process of turning into a stereo FFT) in the aforementioned CodePen project is faster than without, and that could be helpful optimization for @Crossover's foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer when comes to a feature request to display multiple channels but I'd imagine it only works on stereo pairs (especially on surround sound formats where you have center and LFE channels in-addition to usual channel pairs)
8
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Find & Play
Last post by onirwai -
Excellent package, thank you!

One small nitpick, Font Awesome 4 is quite old, maybe upgrade to a more recent version. I knew I had FontAwesome already, but it was version 6 and I was seeing all box characters. Uninstalled and put in version 4 and everything looks good.
9
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: LossyFlac vs Opus 256
Last post by Porcus -
Note that the WavPack hybrid solution requires players that support the whole thing. foobar2000 on desktop and on mobile will do. On Android you might need to use either an SD card or a player app's directory - explained at https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,122768.msg1013785.html#msg1013785 . Don't know how it works on iOS.
On desktop, beware that not all players that support WavPack, will support hybrid. VLC didn't the last time I checked.

As to the question on ALAC: No, ALAC cannot utilize LossyWAV. LossyWAV works by selectively zeroing out the lower bits, and FLAC, WavPack and TAK (and OptimFROG, but you won't be playing that on portables) can know that "we can just compress as N bits and pad up with 16-N afterwards" (or 24-N or whatever) - but the ALAC format doesn't support that trick.