Skip to main content
Recent Posts
MP3 / Re: How to encode CD # in track tags (EAC/LAME)
Last post by Stacker -
If you rip a CD with PoQStacker, you can enter "[Disc 1]" or "(Disc 1)" or "[CD 1]" or "(CD 1)" at the end of the Album name - PoQStacker will interpret that as the CD# and insert it into the Tag (the numerical portion only).

MP3 - General / Re: PoQStacker update
Last post by Stacker -
Sorry @magicgoose for taking a while to get back to you.

What I should have written is that this project will not build without the use of some proprietary tools (which I won’t be making public). Having said that - I could re-write that dependancy out - that is what I meant when I wrote “but that may change in the future”.

I want to thank those who are using Norton for getting over that hurdle. It seems that my some parts of PoQStacker’ processing irritate it. This is interesting article I found on Norton’ website:-

If you have any questions I’m happy to answer them as best I can.

Another unique feature of PoQStacker - I have a split audio visual system (my amplifier, TV, BluRay are independent units) with each unit having dlna capability. Occasionally, I like to play my music via the TV (or BluRay) so I get to see the Album artwork. PoQStacker allows me to split the dlna control so the Play controls “Play”, “Pause” commands go to the TV, and Audio controls “Volume”, “Mute” commands go to the amplifier...

General Audio / Re: What lossy format to use for Bluetooth transfer?
Last post by polemon -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't LDAC have basically the same design goal of aptX-HD?
I.e. a low-latency (minimum latency?) codec.

I was under the impression, that both LDAC and aptX-HD not only produce high-quality output and being low-latency, it is also geared towards proper framing of the Bluetooth layer. Or is that aspect contained in being low-latency?

The question kinda arises why these high quality Bluetooth audio codecs exist in general, is it so we can connect a HD-audio source to a home stereo system or something?

In case of LDAC, it goes up to 24bit at 96kHz, at almost 1Mbit/s. This seems to me a bit overkill for bluetooth applications (unless there's a specific case which I'm unaware of). How do these two compare (aptX vs. LDAC), in terms of quality, bitrate, and latency? Is one more efficient than the other? I.e. assuming the same quality, is one or the other giving us better latency and lower bandwidth or something? Or perhaps is one more efficient in terms of decoding power than the other, so it saves battery life?

Harking back to Op's question, LDAC might be the better solution for him (notwithstanding the fact that a bt-boombox and outside environment isn't the best listening environment, etc).

Are there lossless codecs available for Bluetooth streaming?
General - (fb2k) / Re: QUERY SYNTAX | Search how many files within an Album
Last post by fohrums -
(Use this Title-format-Referencing as a Automatically-Fill-Values and from the namingschemes (3-total) you've provided it will provide you with respective tracknumber via %filename% which you can then use to correct your %tracknumber% tag-error)

Code: [Select]
$puts(myvar,$trim($substr(%filename%,0,$strchr(%filename%, ))))$ifgreater($strchr($get(myvar),-),0,$puts(myvar,$substr($get(myvar),$add($strchr($get(myvar),-),1),$len($get(myvar))))$ifgreater($strchr($get(myvar),-),0,$puts(myvar,$substr($get(myvar),$add($strchr($get(myvar),_),1),$sub($strchr($get(myvar),-),1))),),)$get(myvar)

Genius! ;D This definitely helped a lot and it's proven effective. This is a reminder on how powerful Foobar2000 can be. I'm now able to replace all %tracknumber% via my filenamingscheme properly. 8)
Now,... I don't think i'm going off topic by hopefully being able to have a way to find all files within my library that isn't formatted in (see below), so that way I can overview all tracks that isn't imported with this filenamingscheme:
Code: [Select]
%discnumber%-%totaldiscs%_%tracknumber%-%totaltracks% %title%

Audio Hardware / Re: Speakers recommendations?
Last post by Thomas C. -
Thank you for the extended explaination.

Basic speaker design hasn't changed much,[/b] even going back decades.[/b]

Actually, I expected that there would at least some progress in 20 years. But also, as I haven't don't much research, I have just been lucky to get and keep those Sony speakers when I was younger, I don't expect these speakers to be among the best and hope somebody more aware of the topic than I am would have some clue.
Yet, they were part of a system * which cost 500 equiv-EUR, Now I could put that money or more for a pair of speakers alone.


A nice-to-have, feature would be if they could accept speaker input as well as from compute line out+aux.

I was thinking of something like this. But it doesn't like this, but  guess the connector on the left cannot accept sound "in" (when power is off maybe?), other wise it would be mentionned as well as "out".

I always recommend that people go to the audio-video store (or to a music store for monitors) and listen.
I did so a few times, but there are not many such shop where in the city I live in or I don't know them, and when I felt like I was in such a different conditions, with in addition some pressure of having a guy trying so sell me something in front of me.

Audio Hardware / Re: Speakers recommendations?
Last post by DVDdoug -
It's very difficult to make speaker recommendations.     Speaker specifications are largely useless and different people have different tastes, preferences, and opinions.  (I've never heard the Sony speakers and I'm sure most of us here haven't so we don't know where you're starting from.)

I always recommend that people go to the audio-video store (or to a music store for monitors) and listen.   Even if you don't buy from that particular store it can be educational just to go someplace where you can listen to a variety of speakers.   Some higher-end stores will allow you to take a pair of speakers home to audition in your listening space.   That would also give you an opportunity to A/B with your existing speakers.

I got the a with a Sony system in the nineties and always been satisfied with their sound. I guess the reason is that I rarely bought another more expensive hi-fi system,
[b ]Basic speaker design hasn't changed much,[/b] even going back decades.   Generally, you've got two or more drivers consisting of a magnet, voice coil, and cone (or dome for the tweeter).     There are some newer materials, but that hasn't necessarily resulted in better sound...   And there are some alternative tweeter designs and of course the manufacturers tout their 'advantages", but there are very-good, very high-end, speakers with regular voice coil tweeters.

The "style" has changed.   Speakers tend to be smaller and most modern speakers are 2-way (possibly with an optional subwoofer) although you do still find 3-ways, especially at higher prices.

Smaller speakers with a subwoofer may be an option for you.

would like to find speakers that are lighter (I mean in weight), smaller, and have at least equally natural and clear sound.
The laws of physics make if "difficult" to get good bass from smaller speakers (a kitten can't roar like a lion.)   There are LOTs of factors that go into a speaker design so you can't always say a bigger woofer or a bigger cabinet will give you more or better (smoother-deeper) bass but there is a general relationship.    If you go smaller you might end up sacrificing bass.

A nice-to-have, feature would be if they could accept speaker input as well as from compute line out+aux.
That will be hard to find.    You can adapt an active speaker to work with a speaker-output but it's usually a do-it-yourself thing. 

Stereo & home theater speakers (from an audio/video store) are passive, except for the subwoofer.    Home theater receivers have powered speaker-outputs for the 5 or 7 surround speakers, and a line-level output for the subwoofer.   Passive subwoofers are rare.

Studio monitors (sold at stores that sell musical instruments and recording & PA equipment are mostly active.   Active monitors are bi-amped or tri-amped (separate amplifiers for the woofer/tweeter/midrange) with the active crossover at the amplifier inputs.    Since there is no passive crossover, you can't bypass the amplifiers and connect directly to the drivers...   If you wanted to connect to a speaker output, the signal has to be attenuated and then sent through the amplifiers built-into the speaker.    It would be easy for a manufacturer to include an attenuator, but I've never seen it (except on active subwoofers).

The built-in active electronics also makes it easy for the manufacturer to equalize for flatter frequency response. so that's a potential advantage to active speakers/monitors.

I also have a preference for grey, wood, possibly white colours rather than black or red etc..
Related to appearance, most active monitors don't have grills.    

3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / skip to letter command
Last post by Awaskau -
Hi, iv been using foobar for around a month.
Theres smthing that really bothers me and i found no solution yet.
Seems ppl are searching for this since decades ago, literally, theres a thread from 2007 complaining about it.

In the playlist panel you  cant "jump to" when you press a key.
For instance, id like to jump to Marisa Monte when i hit M. And when i hit "M" and then "o" in less than 0,5seconds i'd like to jump to Motorhead. Just like explorer.

If possible each new key pressd should start a 0.5scd or 1/3scd countdown before reseting this quick search cmd. Anyone knows how to implement this?

Im done scrolling down. Rly, if i cant implement it i ll get itunes back.
When you have over 500k songs and 5k playlists scrolling is useless.
Thank you
AAC - Tech / Re: Absolute best AAC quality with qaac
Last post by DVDdoug -
But I want to get as close to that as possible. Size is not an issue.
I do not care about "audible difference" or something.
Even if you can't hear a difference there technically is more potential in higher bitrates or different algorithms.
That doesn't make sense.  AAC is lossy and every single sample will be changed no matter what the setting. 

If the compression is transparent (sounds identical to the original) you can't get any "closer" the original.

Maybe  you could make the spectrum look like the original or make some mathematical analysis that's closer to the original "on paper", but you could end-up making it sound worse.   With lossy compression the ONLY important measure of quality is how it sounds.    The thing that makes AAC & MP3 so good is the psychoacoustic modeling (they are based on human perception of sound).    The compression algorithms that don't take human perception into account don't work as well.


SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018