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
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo loop play with LoopStart/LoopLength/LoopEnd tags
Last post by litproca -
Quote from: samination on
When using $if, which variable would you prefer we'd use?
I'll try to use %loop_playing_section% at the moment for a more overarching section. Ofcourse, this addition only currently works for Loops using sample count.

Code: [Select]
$if(%loop_playing_section%,%loop_playing_section%: %loop_looping_count% / %loopcfg_loop_count% | %loop_played_time% / %loopcfg_play_time% | Loop point: $if2(%LOOPEND%,$add(%LOOPSTART%,%LOOPLENGTH%)) | Current sample: ~$mul(%playback_time_seconds%,%samplerate%),)

intro: 0 / 2 | 0:01 / 10:00 | Loop point: 6837229 | Current sample: ~44100
%loop_playing_section% is preferred. These title formatting fields are valid only when looping play is enabled and valid tags are found.
2
General Audio / Re: Bluetooth, transcoding and audio quality
Last post by Chordeater -
I've been reading similar discussions in audiophile forums all my life, please let's not have them also in a post about audio codecs and bluetooth :-)

Has anyone compared codecs via bluetooth? Wavpack and especially Musepack (about 300kbps) are the ones I'm liking the most, but these are just impressions, I find it complex to find suitable samples and prepare an ABX test in those conditions, and I don't have a trained ear for that either.

3
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo loop play with LoopStart/LoopLength/LoopEnd tags
Last post by samination -
When using $if, which variable would you prefer we'd use?
I'll try to use %loop_playing_section% at the moment for a more overarching section. Ofcourse, this addition only currently works for Loops using sample count.

Code: [Select]
$if(%loop_playing_section%,%loop_playing_section%: %loop_looping_count% / %loopcfg_loop_count% | %loop_played_time% / %loopcfg_play_time% | Loop point: $if2(%LOOPEND%,$add(%LOOPSTART%,%LOOPLENGTH%)) | Current sample: ~$mul(%playback_time_seconds%,%samplerate%),)

intro: 0 / 2 | 0:01 / 10:00 | Loop point: 6837229 | Current sample: ~44100
4
AAC - Tech / Re: Highest Possible AAC Quality
Last post by includemeout -
Quote from: Squeller on
Quote from: iwod on
Basically if you dont mind the storage etc, 512Kbps should make you very happy. :).
Do things right, move on, listen to music instead of wasting your limited time on placebo effects. Audio has long been solved. It makes no sense being picky. Phantasizing about a possible artifact which cannot be abx'ed, while outside of your listening room a mouse passes by - More audibly.
Hear, hear!
5
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo loop play with LoopStart/LoopLength/LoopEnd tags
Last post by litproca -
I just made a seekbar script that can show the loop section for Spider Monkey Panel. Hope someone likes it.
X
Edit: Above is the Waveform Minibar (mod), below is the seekbar script.

Today was my first time using SMP. when I found seekbar.js. I realized I might be able to implement a feature I've always wanted to implement. I hadn't written JavaScript before, so I spent hours writing code with search. Finally I made it, cheers!
6
AAC - Tech / Re: Highest Possible AAC Quality
Last post by guruboolez -
Quote from: Squeller on
If a 16/44.1 Piano album (generally, the ones with fewer transients) averages at 350 kbps FLAC I would be unhappy inflating it to some bigger lossy file.
From my experience (limited to Apple AAC true VBR), the encoder always lowers the average bitrate on such quiet material.
I tried with one album using -v 512 and -v 0 (just to be sure, both settings produce identical AAC output).

Lossless = 322 kbps (flac) / 179 Mb
Apple AAC -v 512 [constraint VBR] : 279 kbps / 155 Mb
Apple AAC -a 512 [ABR] : 272 kbps / 151 Mb
Apple AAC -c 512 [CBR] : 320 kbps / 177 Mb

Nero ABR 512 : 273 kbps / 152 Mb
Nero ABR 2-pass 512 : 408 kbps / 226 Mb
Nero CBR 512 : 512 kbps / 284 Mb


Source material: https://www.petrikumela.com/small-creatures-2
7
General Audio / Re: Opus vs FDK-AAC in 2025
Last post by Kamedo2 -
Indeed, Opus is more promising candidate. Opus is significantly better than AAC-LC on 96kbps. The main exception will be on very low bitrate, probably below 40kbps. If the user absolutely have to encode music (not speech) on very low rate, say 32kbps, probably due to  very narrow Internet connection or restrictive data caps, probably using HE-AAC or HE-AACv2 on FDK-AAC will be a better choice.
8
General Audio / Re: Opus vs FDK-AAC in 2025
Last post by guruboolez -
Based on multiple listening tests here, OPUS is likely superior to Apple AAC, and Apple AAC is probably better than FDK. There haven't been any significant improvements recently, and to my knowledge, no new listening tests have been conducted to compare these two encoders/format.
You can expect OPUS to be more robust and efficient than FDK-AAC, especially at low bitrate (< 96 kbps).
9
General Audio / Re: Bluetooth, transcoding and audio quality
Last post by includemeout -
Quote from: lovecraft on
Well if you are sure that it is that simple, good luck with the cheapest amplifier you find in the market. I am pretty sure you will sound awesome. I don't even know how you come up with this. There are dozens of different guitar amplifiers and all of them sound different. There are different types of heads, with different transistors, different circuits and the "tube" amps which are renowned for their "warm" sound. You say just a single amp would be enough. No need for all this variety ha?
By previously bringing up monitor headphones and guitar amps into the discussion, you're actually undermining your own argument and avoiding the fundamental point: for everyday audio listening, amplifiers are primarily designed to, as faithfully  as possible, reproduce their input signal, just with increased power.

Besides, your taking the mick with "good luck with the cheapest amplifier [...] I am pretty sure you will sound awesome" - comes across not only as blasé, but also very audiophool-ilke, by recycling an old rhetoric o' theirs that we've heard a million times before.

Then "warm tube sounds"? 🤢
PUH-LEASE!!

Edit: sorry to the OP and others for actually veering this so off-topic. I promise I'll behave. ;)
10
General Audio / Re: Bluetooth, transcoding and audio quality
Last post by Porcus -
If you want to alter the sound - cf. how a guitar amplifier is part of a musical instrument to create sounds - then sure.
If you want to reproduce sound, then an amplifier is there to - wait for it - amplify. Being "a straight wire with gain", a quote attributed to QUAD's Peter Walker.

Sure there are operations that could very well sit in the same box as amplifier and even as speaker: active speakers with crossover (which are "extreme tone controls!") before amplification stage, or multi-speaker control for delay (again before amplification stage).