Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
Support - (fb2k) / Re: k9 + foobar = problem
Last post by Jailhouse -
Is there any indication why K9 is blocking foobar? There may be a false positive.

I wonder if K9 is dinging fb2k because the installer is no longer digitally signed.
2
Speech Codecs / Re: Voice Codec for Mobile Network
Last post by polemon -
Well, the ITU numbering scheme is confusing, the numbers aren't at all consecutive or descriptive, etc.

AMR-WB is ITU G.722.2, its patents will expire around 2024 while AMR (NB) will probably expire around 2019-2020 (AMR (NB) has no ITU number, because it hasn't been adopted as an ITU standard).
ITU G.722 is an entirely different codec, which patents have expired earlier this year and it is now effectively a free codec.

ITU G.722.1 also exists and is an entirely different codec yet again, however I've forgotten when its patents will expire.

ITU G.729 and its variants are a very popular codec, which is still under some non-expired patents, but they're free of charge, apparently. Most of the patents expired in January 2017.

ITU G.729.1 is yet another codec, but it is designed to interoperate with G.729, and I haven't really looked into it.

The codecs in use on these systems are rather old. Which one we use is more about consensus, hence entities like the ITU "govern" these things, and try to provide "standards" which should be implemented and/or adhered to by companies, providers, etc.

If you were to switch to Opus, you can do that, but you'd have to provide for a certain pressure to implement that feature into the phone app of the ... phones (*sigh*). Only then you could start using Opus for voice communication. Implementing this new codec into all the places where it's relevant, PBXes, and all that, would cost money. So companies aren't going to start implementing that codec if they don't absolutely have to. Keeping an older codec is just cheaper at this point, especially given some of them are actually dropping out of patent protection.

Having said that, what about new networks. This is an entirely different animal, and actually possibly a viable entry point for things like Opus. 5G is "in development" - whatever that means. This implies however, that this generation block isn't finalized, and there's no reason why something like Opus couldn't be adopted for it.

Given that 5G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G) is essentially an TCP/IP packet WAN similar to WiFi WLAN, it essentially detaches fromt the requirement of making calls "on the network" instead the phone app will essentially just be a client program on your device, unpertaining to the carrier network. So from that alone it is at least conceivable, that you can just download whatever client phone app, similar to WhatsApp or Telegram, and use that for making calls (similar to how we used Skype for a while). However things like standards aren't gonna go away any time soon.

The problem is ineroperability between networks. This problem has been solved rather well with standards up to this point. This works on a global scale, and because we have gateways between land lines, VoIP and the various generations of cellphones, we can make calls back and forth without caring about the underlying technology. But what makes this rather smooth interoperation possible, is consensus on a set of codecs making it possible to predict which one to use, etc.

We see this with various messaging apps. Things like WhatsApp and Telegram are widely used, but they don't interoperate with each other, and that is a huge problem when it comes to making calls. For this to really work, we'd need to make Opus "a standard" in an ITU sense.

So to basically make a switch to Opus, we'd first need to get Opus to be adopted by an entity like ITU, and then have that being used for the next generation of cellular connectivity. I don't see how "backporting" Opus onto LTE networks would be any viable or profitable endeavor for the companies running these networks. Unless there's a profit marging to have, they won't budge in that direction.
3
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Library update after file rename?
Last post by kode54 -
It also depends on whether the SMB network share is hosted by another Windows machine, or if Samba, depends on how old it is. I'm not sure if any version of Samba reliably reports file changes to clients.
4
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_youtube
Last post by proto -
Whenever I try to search for a youtube playlist [View-Youtube Search] it gives me back a list of random videos that have nothing to do with the playlist link I put in. I'm using the current BETA version [2.0 beta8]

Example:
Imgur Link

Playlist link that I want to search -
NCS | NoCopyrightSounds All Uploads

Any Help would be appreciated!

5
Validated News / Re: Foobar2000 (Mobile Edition)
Last post by apollo18 -
I use m3u playlists on my Android because they're easy to generate from my desktop database (since they consist of only a relative path and file name). Foobar plays them but, regardless of whether I browse to a playlist file from the music folder, or specifically by adding the playlist folder to the list of playlist folders, the files are not sorted and do not play in the order in which they are listed, nor are they sorted by track number.

Example (omitting relative path names):

1 Andante - Allegro Non Troppo.mp3
2 Andante Con Moto.mp3
3 Scherzo--Allegro Vivace.mp3
4 Finale--Allegro Vivace.mp3


Foobar displays and plays the list in this order:

1 Andante - Allegro Non Troppo.mp3
3 Scherzo--Allegro Vivace.mp3
2 Andante Con Moto.mp3
4 Finale--Allegro Vivace.mp3
6

This is about having foobar play an album's tracks in the original order.  When I use the Library Tree to send a whole album (or multiple albums) to a playlist it arrives with the tracks in an odd order.   I know I can click on the tracknumber column to sort it, but it would be best if it was in that order by default, especially when using autoplay, and it messes up grouped multiple albums if you do it. 

I did a bit of searching, and the only suggestion I have found is to rename the filenames to have the track number at the start.  This works well,   except I can't help wondering if there is a config item somewhere in foobar that let's it sort according the the track number from the metadata.

Related to this,  I don't see a way, using foobar's built in CD ripper, to add tracknumbers to the start of the filenames it produces.  This means I have to go back and rename the files after ripping.

7
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Library update after file rename?
Last post by mefoo -
thanks for the clarification
8
Audio Hardware / Re: Interview Time
Last post by greynol -
Here's the deal:

The idiots who would want such a thing are the same people who reject anything digital in the signal chain.

If the idea is to see whether you can fool someone in a blind test, the same thing applies: idiot believers won't take the test and will contort logic beyond all recognition fabricating all sorts of reasons why any properly administered test of a competent algorithm doesn't show any true positives.
9
It seems Ghost is back at being in limbo: https://wiki.xiph.org/Ghost

IgorC: did you do this on their talk page: https://wiki.xiph.org/Talk:Ghost ┬ŽD

Monty's page says "Copyright 2011" and I doubt there has been any changes to it since.

xiph.org has a thing for silly sounding names, their project name on the forefront of that, etc. But also "Vorbis", "Daala", "Ogg".
10
I was discussing this not too long ago, and the consensus is, that Opus creates somewhat meaningful codecs at 10kb/s and above, so I'm not sure these endeavours even make sense.