Last post by j7n -
Sound Forge and Reaper both follow the same style, one is intuitively usable if you know the other. Except that in the latter the save button is a small plus symbol. The current preset name is pre-selected in the Save offer. Maybe Foobar can't have new exclusive dialogs appear on top for technical reasons, then the current layout is understandable.
I suspect that there is no real answer to this problem i.e. headphone fit.
By "chance" I have found that Sennheiser 180 phones are the most comfortable I have used. I did not come to these for comfort, that is something one can only find by hours of wearing, but by reading about its Kleer technology. I do think this is better than bluetooth and certainly has a greater range.
Problem is each of us have different size heads. My wife was pleased to learn that, when I had my head measured for a hat it was bigger than most; she always called me a "big head"!
So is there some metric one can use e.g. pressure applied to each ear on a "standard" head?
I am looking for some open back, wireless, (bluetooth would be fine in the required situation i.e. headphones would only be a short distance from smartphone with connected DAC) phones that are compact (the 180 and base are too bulky, and require AC power, for small backpacks). But must be comfortable.
In my hotel room I am wearing some Philips wired portable phones at present; sound is "ok" for direct connection to phones i.e. using phones DAC, but pressure on ears is not good.
Recharging would be a factor but this is so with the Sennheiser; I have a AAA charger with spare batteries at home for circumstances were I wear the phones for a long time. I could carry some rechargeable batteries with me; they don't weigh much.
I just installed it, works great for me. Thank you very much eldarien!
Undeleted wav files may be due to closing EAC before the external compressor is finished.No, that wasn't the case. This machine has 8 cores, and they're speedy, so something was left behind in the middle of process (for instance, track 02 left a WAV).
So EAC stopped the secondary beep because now it waits fully the external compressor without being queued. I suppose.
A number of companies used to make (probably some still do) "archival" CD-Rs that were gold and supposed to last for 100 years.
Anyone ever use these? Were they worth the extra money?
Last post by stevehero -
Solved, In the above encoder settings change:
To (for verbose method)
Here's full switches:
--output <filename> temp file name (this option is necessary)
Last post by DVDdoug -
I've bought an old Teac IDE drive that writes CD's only that has the 4x and 8x CLV modes for less than £10, so if that improves things I'll post on that too.I think the smart thing would be to buy a new CD player (or a DVD or Blu-Ray Player). You can buy an inexpensive one and continue to use the old one with commercial CDs if you wish. And, of course, the new cheaper one will sound better with those hard-to-play burned CDs, since (hopefully) they won't skip. And, it will probably sound identical to your old one with "good discs".
If you need analog outputs, make sure any new player you buy has them. My (inexpensive) Blu-Ray player can play CDs and DVDs, but it doesn't have analog audio outputs.
Last post by Arnold B. Krueger -
I don't know if you realize that CD players are the worst way to play CDs because they don't do retries if they encounter read errors like a proper ripping program does, but instead just try to cover the mess up?With all due respect, error correction aside, is it possible some CD players may sound "better" because they output higher signal levels and can drive systems to louder volumes, therefore the perceived quality may seem greater?
I think I can see where you are headed.
IME many audiophiles are so shallow in their understanding of audio system setup and operation that they make those kinds of mistakes.
Relevant facts may include the fact that a typical component CD player's voltage output at digital FS is on the order of 2 or 2.5 volts RMS, while most consumer PC audio interfaces output about 1 volt under similar conditions. This is a 6 or 8 dB difference.
Most component integrated amps and preamps can be driven to full output with signals as low as 0.2 volts or 200 millivolts.
If one is clever or brave enough to simply advance the volume control a little further clockwise, the amp can be driven to full rated output and beyond by even the lesser 1 volt output of the PC.
Thus, claims of a sonically precarious piece of gear sounding better than one that actually operates in a more ideal manner may be heard.
ABX testing includes level matching, and are not so easily deceived. Of course, to match levels one might have to spend a few dollars on a DVM, and perhaps more significantly learn how to operate it and interpret its evidence.
In the face of massive audiophile peer pressure to not be a "Meter Reader", logic and reason are set aside.
What do you think? Is it still okay to use lame3100m?IMO lame3995n was a major step forward compared to former versions (and lame3995o is different only for -Q values of 1 or similar).
However as you use the highest VBR bitrate setting this probably doesn't mean any audible difference.
But if it is only the lowpass you care about maybe I can bring some relief to you by mentioning that Lame3.99.5 (original as well as my variants) demands only for a very limited precision in the 16+ kHz range compared to the more audible ranges. I guess that's why the lowpass value is that high when using -V0. So it can't happen that a lot of bits are 'wasted' eventually.
But there's also no reason not to simply use the --lowpass 18.2 switch in case you prefer this.
If you care a lot about the bit reservoir it may be wiser to use a somewhat lower -Q value like -Q1 or similar. I use -Q1, but after having tried opus I would even go lower. With opus as well as lame3995o it is only harpsichord music which requires an (otherwise inadequate) very high bitrate setting. Everything else is perfectly encoded when using lame3995o -Q1.7, and there is even a certain safety margin with this. I do not struggle any more for a general encoder setting which gives perfect results for any kind of music. I can easily do so as harpsichord music isn't exactly my favorite genre. Moreover even the worst harpsichord sample I know is well acceptable when using -Q1.7, and I guess -Q1.7 is perfect for many a harpsichord music. And I can always use -Q0 for the few tracks with dominating harpsichord music I have. I don't have a reason to reencode my collection, but if I had to I'd use -Q1.7 (200 kbps on average for pop music).