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.
Last post by Porcus -
First of all, if you go to your %appdata% folder you will find files like theme.fth and FileOps-Presets.txt You should anyway make backup copies of them.
Then I suggest that you make a portable install for testing, and copy them to there. If that preserves what you need, then you don't need to worry about copying yourself into issues like this: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=120437.0
Oh, and there is a configuration folder and a user-components folder too.
Last post by r0k -
Hey there. I've been using fb2k for a veeeery long time now, so long that my install went through all sorts of mistreatment so i decided to start clean. I want to be able to "backup" my entire fb2k installation as i've had some troubles in the past, including completely loosing my entire highly customised UI due to a stupid mistake. I also want to be able to "copy" that installation, along with all the customization, to one or more other computers. For this reason i had planned to use a portable install but i have 2 questions :
Is there an easy way to achieve what i want (backup and copy) with a non portable install? I know there are components to backup (parts?) of your settings but if i just copy that to another computer and "restore" it will it give me the same foobar? What about my components?
Apart from no file association and the minor inconvenience of having to manually create a start menu shortcut, is there any other downside to a portable install? Every component will work as expected right?
Some unscientific numbers for 29 random CD format albums: [...]
I was shocked to see that the difference between flake and this new LPC analysis method was so small, but I just realised that is probably because flake uses a smaller padding block by default. I tried to get CUEtools.Flake working here, but for some reason I can't. Wombat, can you check whether padding is indeed smaller with CUEtools.Flake? If there are no tracks longer than 20 minutes in your test, the difference should be 4096 bytes per track.
Do you want PCM requantization or compression? If the former, Sox is a good choice, but there are many other options too. If you want compression, FLAC or MP3 have better compression than DPCM.
I want requantization, not compression. Especially reduction to 8-14 bits.
I know about sox but it mostly does dithering (with noise shaping), I'm interested in other methods with as little noise as possible (or at least having adaptive requantization and noise shaping like lossyWAV, but I'm unable to output 8 bit PCM with it). DPCM sounds very impressive but it decodes to 16bit PCM and after decoding I see more bits in use than selected.