Skip to main content

Notice

Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Recent Posts
1
Uploads - (fb2k) / Re: Biography
Last post by paregistrase -
It's always required it. Perhaps you had a different WINE configuration? I see from the SMP thread, you're avoiding a 32bit prefix/IE8. That would probably fix it.

edit: i've not tried this script for awhile but I'm pretty it's required for last.fm too - definitely for images. bios are available via the web service/JSON but IIRC, WilB scrapes for extra info from the webpages.

Download images never worked in wine, at least for me, not even in the old times of first wsh or jscript panel.

A 32 bit prefix doesn't make any differences besides that is mandatory if you want to install ie8 verb.

But ie8 doesn't help with download images neither to get allmusic reviews. (I makes it right know and he gives "Biography Server: allmusic album review / biography: In Your Nature / Zola Jesus: not found Status error: 12157")

Sometime ago was necessary to even makes the panel works but with spider monkey and new wine versions is no more mandatory. The panel almost works in a default install without winetricks verbs. With wsh57, gdi+ and a key in regedit (AppliedDPI) you can use all complete samples, the cool album list and biography.

The only problems (in the "you can fix now" list) that left is the crash in right click and the allmusic data

But if you go the way of ie8 verb you can't download images anyway, allmusic doesn't works, the links in all the profile are linked to ie8 (and ie8 in wine doesn't open almost any page and get stuck all time) and some script like musicbrainz info doesn't works.

Is a no go that way.

And I had to use it a long time

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=112914.msg975148#msg975148

In this allmusic worked, I know now where my download data comes from.

Yeah last modification of Fear Factory.txt 20 dic 2019, so around this time the panel stop downloading data.

The newest are fron August 2020





5
Listening Tests / Re: Personal Blind Listening Test of Opus and the exhale xHE-AAC encoder
Last post by Kamedo2 -
So it will be like this.
* Opinion is mixed on this range.

Target bitrateBest command lineMOS reported by testers
36kbpsexhale a in.wav out.mp4
48kbpsexhale b in.wav out.mp43.03, guruboolez
60kbps*exhale c in.wav out.mp43.34, Kamedo2 3.52, guruboolez
64kbps*refalac64 in.wav --rate 32000 -D -b 32 -o in-32kHz.wav && exhale 1 in-32kHz.wav out.mp43.43, Kamedo2 3.05, guruboolez
80kbpsexhale 2 in.wav out.mp43.79, Kamedo2
96kbpsexhale 3 in.wav out.mp44.15, Kamedo2 4.37, IgorC
112kbpsexhale 4 in.wav out.mp4
128kbpsexhale 5 in.wav out.mp44.39, Kamedo2
144kbpsexhale 6 in.wav out.mp4
160kbpsexhale 7 in.wav out.mp4
176kbpsexhale 8 in.wav out.mp4
192kbpsexhale 9 in.wav out.mp44.86, IgorC
6
General - (fb2k) / change in window hide / minimize functionality
Last post by purple512 -
Hello, I just upgraded from foobar2000 v1.3.13 to v1.6.5 and the window minimize / hide functionality has changed in a way that I don't like.

I had the old version setup so that clicking either the "Minimize" or "Close" window button would hide the window and remove the icon from the taskbar. Additionally I had a keybind bound to "View / Hide" which would do the same thing and hide the window when pressed.

This no longer works. In order to not have the player terminate when I click Close, I have selected "Close hides" under "Default User Interface" -> "Background and notifications" -> "Window minimize and close". But this means that clicking Minimize no longer hides the window, nor does my keybind function in the desired way.

How can I get the old behavior? I don't like the new behavior at all, and I'd rather not have to go back to the old version. This seems like pretty basic functionality, but I've gone over all the options and I see nothing that will fix it.

I've searched prior threads and found people asking for how to hide the taskbar icon in general, and that's not what I'm asking. I do want the taskbar icon when the window is visible. I've googled, and all the results are people asking about minimize to tray in the older versions before this was changed, which does not apply.
7
Uploads - (fb2k) / Re: Biography
Last post by snotlicker -
It's always required it. Perhaps you had a different WINE configuration? I see from the SMP thread, you're avoiding a 32bit prefix/IE8. That would probably fix it.

edit: i've not tried this script for awhile but I'm pretty it's required for last.fm too - definitely for images. bios are available via the web service/JSON but IIRC, WilB scrapes for extra info from the webpages.
8
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: exhale - Open Source xHE-AAC encoder
Last post by bittuvns -
I need some help. I am using exhale in foobar for converting WAV & FLAC into m4a but my converted files dont have any sound and it shows as corrupted file or unsupported format in foobar(i am using latest version of foobar & exhale). Can anyone please help me with guide of using exhale in foobar or any other method which is easy to follow? I followed official guidelines but they are unable to help me.
9
Opus / Re: Nontransparent example at 231kbps
Last post by Timekeepsonslippin -
Think in reverse. If you regard yourself as "layman" and "no expert", but can also easily see the things in that visualizer for these simple test files, then would it be unexpected for the developers? If you think that I was trying to make you look stupid, then I also think your repeated emphasis on this visualizer thing is also a sort of humiliation to the effort and knowledge of the developers. If you deny this, then don't say the same thing to me.
I was not making any sort of judgement or insinuating anyone else would not necessarily notice what I noticed if they were to examine the files and issue you brought to the forum's attention. I just wanted to share what I found after I did my listening tests and thought it was a bit interesting.
You said:
I never attempted to say was your own
...then "convey" something.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I think I've thus far conveyed many things, including in that portion of what I wrote that you quoted, and afterwards extracted a small part of that you chose to focus on, followed by, '...then "convey" something.'
In reverse, did I say the things below? Are you trying frame me talked about something like this?
as if there's something terribly wrong with what I shared and I should feel bad or dumb.
No I did not say you said those things outright, and I'm not attempting to frame you. I did have a sense that your responses may have had an underlying intent to make me feel that way, but perhaps that is not the case.
Then...
It's cool to me because you can easily distinguish visually which files in these samples do and do not have the distortion with apparently a threshold of only a single kbps difference between them.
Yet another example of what you thought I was thinking and trying to do. You should actually try to encode the file with 105 and 106kbps settings and ABX them. Perhaps you can also easily tell them apart as well, assume we are using the same encoder and that GUI slider. I did the ABX test with ears, not "visually". By no means the 105kbps vs 106kbps thing made me "cool". It is just a brute force approach that I ABXed the files in 1kbps step but what I heard was a sudden jump from 105 to 106kbps. Just the same way I was not trying to convince anyone about what settings are transparent. Again, think in reverse. It is also possible that 106kbps is not transparent to you or someone else, it is just my result.
That was not an example of what I thought you were thinking and trying to do. It was me saying a part of why I thought what I saw with the visualizer was neat, or "cool", that it was in fact only doing what I described based on whether the files contained the distortion you brought to our attention or not. This is just again sharing part of why I even bothered mentioning the visualizer thing in the first place. I believe I've said this several times, I started with doing listening tests, and towards the end noticed the visualizer did what I described based on whether the easily heard distortion was present in each file or not. Me noticing the visualizer thing came after I did the audio listening tests, not before. I also said earlier that I did an ABX test comparing 105kbps to 112kbps, and I was able to on the first try get a 25 out of 25 correct in not much time. I also said that I believe you that the 106kbps file does not contain the distortion, but I haven't tested it myself.
The presenter in the video I posted is a member of this forum, a developer of Opus. I am not a developer so it is useless to convince me. If you want to use my example to convince them then it is really up to you. Just another disclaimer for myself: I was not going to use this example to convince the developers to fix something, not that I am saying you are wrong, dumb and something like that.
I said this earlier a couple times I think, but it is not just what you shared that I was thinking could be potentially useful to the developers, but probably a mixture of what everyone shared. They might think it's totally irrelevant even if I went into detail explaining what I thought about it, and had a back and forth with them. That would be fine with me, especially if I got a reasonable explanation as to why they thought that was the case. Though I might get different responses from different developers (not sure how many people work on it), some perhaps showing interest where others would not.
I am not a staff member and I cannot disallow you to do something. You can read more old posts about the approach of using graphs or other form of visualization to explain something about hearing on this forum. New members are not disallowed to read old threads. Then perhaps you may think in a different way, or may not.
I'm not sure if the exact (or at least similar enough) things I was interested in and pointed out in this topic initially have been discussed while dealing with a similar sample elsewhere on this forum. If I was interested in pursuing further information related to those issues, I might have to start my own topic, but I'm not sure if I care enough about the specifics of what I brought up here to do that. I sort of assumed I would be satiated by whatever replies I might get in this topic and move on, but in the end I'm still sort of where I started at the first reply I wrote here, in terms me feeling any sense of progress or further understanding relating to what I shared. Plus it would be sort of recycling portions of this topic by pointing to the files you provided as the basis for what would be spoken about. I'm not sure if there's a rule or rules against that sort of thing on this forum.
The opus file with file name 105kbps and 231 actual kbps in this 2021 thread was initially named by me, to indicate 105kbps was the setting of the file, not the actual bitrate of the file, even foobar shows the actual bitrate rather than the settings to create the file, like the attached screenshot shows, it does not show 105kbps If you disagree that 231 is the actual bitrate, feel free to report it as a bug.  105kbps was mentioned so that others can encode the file with that setting in order to produce the same file if they want to encode the file themselves. If I did not include the encoding settings then others may need to figure out the actual setting to create the file.
I do not think it is a bug, but I do think knowing the number you used to convert the file is probably more relevant than knowing the end result bitrate that the file displays when you highlight it in Foobar2000 for example. I could be wrong, but I think saying 105kbps in the title of this thread may be considered more useful information. If I convert the FLAC version of an album to 160kbps or 192kbps Opus for example, I personally put which number I used in the title of the album, generally at the end like this, "[160 Opus]" or, "[192 Opus]". This way there is no confusion in the future about which version of an album is which, or at what bitrate it was converted, in case I ever need that information for any reason.
At the end, I am not a native speaker, if my meanings are unclear, ask for clarification, don't try to guess or assume my motivation, and accuse me of anything. Kind of a pain to reply in such a long way, looking up dictionaries and such.
I thought this might be the case, based on some of the earlier replies, I don't mean to make things unnecessarily difficult for you. I figured since it had been about 5 days since the last post in this topic, it wasn't as though I were interrupting an ongoing conversation if I shared what I did starting with my first reply. I first read this topic around when you initially posted it, before it received the first reply from another forum user. I found what you shared interesting, and today decided to do a little of my own experimentation, and thought among other things maybe what I shared would be appreciated by someone who ended up reading this thread in the future, even if in the end you personally didn't.
10
Opus / Re: Nontransparent example at 231kbps
Last post by bennetng -
So what was the point of the video, that they can go into great detail that goes far beyond the at least to me interesting fact that when you go from 106kbps to 105kbps with this specific sample, it even shows up on the visualizer in a very obvious way, and the differences continue to display in that same way well above and below those numbers? Is your goal to try to make me feel stupid so I'll shut up? Sorry to say, all I've felt so far is that you're being overly pedantic for no good reason, and seemingly trying to be offensive in a somewhat subtle way because you think that'll make me feel defeated or something, and stop responding.
Think in reverse. If you regard yourself as "layman" and "no expert", but can also easily see the things in that visualizer for these simple test files, then would it be unexpected for the developers? If you think that I was trying to make you look stupid, then I also think your repeated emphasis on this visualizer thing is also a sort of humiliation to the effort and knowledge of the developers. If you deny this, then don't say the same thing to me.
Quote
And things don't have to be super complicated to be "interesting", it was a fun little thing I thought I'd share as a side note in addition to confirming your findings as to the presence of the extreme audio distortion, only at various other levels of conversion instead of 105kbps alone. Was it so wrong of me to include an opinion that I never attempted to say was your own, and even put a disclaimer at the bottom to convey I know that I probably don't know enough about a lot of this to have any sense of certainty, but my initial feeling was and still is that it is probably correct? Am I not allowed to add to the discussion by branching out a little bit with things related I think intimately with the topic, even before I know that you don't want me to branch out? You've made it into a big deal for no reason this whole time, as if there's something terribly wrong with what I shared and I should feel bad or dumb. It's cool to me because you can easily distinguish visually which files in these samples do and do not have the distortion with apparently a threshold of only a single kbps difference between them. I don't understand what problem you have with this, other than you personally don't care, and feel the need to repeat this a bunch of times as if I didn't get it the first time. If you'd never gotten caught up on this point, it would have ended there.
You said:
I never attempted to say was your own
...then "convey" something.

In reverse, did I say the things below? Are you trying frame me talked about something like this?
as if there's something terribly wrong with what I shared and I should feel bad or dumb.

Then...
It's cool to me because you can easily distinguish visually which files in these samples do and do not have the distortion with apparently a threshold of only a single kbps difference between them.
Yet another example of what you thought I was thinking and trying to do. You should actually try to encode the file with 105 and 106kbps settings and ABX them. Perhaps you can also easily tell them apart as well, assume we are using the same encoder and that GUI slider. I did the ABX test with ears, not "visually". By no means the 105kbps vs 106kbps thing made me "cool". It is just a brute force approach that I ABXed the files in 1kbps step but what I heard was a sudden jump from 105 to 106kbps. Just the same way I was not trying to convince anyone about what settings are transparent. Again, think in reverse. It is also possible that 106kbps is not transparent to you or someone else, it is just my result.

Quote
Am I not allowed to branch out in the slightest from whatever particulars you're choosing to focus on, even if it all relates to the topic and its contents? And I'd not at all be surprised if the developers of Opus could use this information (assuming they're not already aware of it and attempting to fix such issues, or it may be a low priority issue that has a list of others they want to deal with before it, or perhaps they simply can't fix it, or they haven't yet found a way to do it without breaking other things), both what I've shared and the contents of the topic as a whole, to help improve it further. If you can't see that as even a possibility, I doubt even an expert who understands what I'm trying to say can convince you (of course this is a theoretical situation I'm describing; I'd have to share it with such experts and then share their responses if I were to receive any), given your responses so far.
The presenter in the video I posted is a member of this forum, a developer of Opus. I am not a developer so it is useless to convince me. If you want to use my example to convince them then it is really up to you. Just another disclaimer for myself: I was not going to use this example to convince the developers to fix something, not that I am saying you are wrong, dumb and something like that.

Quote
If you think you know so much more than me, which you very well may when it comes to these issues, how about you show a little respect, patience and humility? Do you treat everyone who isn't well-versed in such topics this way?

I wasn't aware I'm not allowed to share things I find interesting (even if the visualizer thing was only a small side note I found neat) related to a topic because the topic creator might not. At the same time I don't know if they will appreciate it until I do it, so I guess I have to be clairvoyant too, or risk a repeat of this situation with someone who thinks similarly to you, even if that may be a relative rarity as far as I know (the number of people in the world who think similarly to you). Very few people have responded to things of this nature I've written like you have, that I can recall.
I am not a staff member and I cannot disallow you to do something. You can read more old posts about the approach of using graphs or other form of visualization to explain something about hearing on this forum. New members are not disallowed to read old threads. Then perhaps you may think in a different way, or may not.

Quote
Edit: I thought I should add that it should be pretty obvious we're talking about a file from a .wav that has been most likely recently converted to Opus, right? You (or possibly someone else I guess) even wrote it on the file name that it is a 105kbps file, so I don't understand why you would say 231kbps in the title instead in spite of what you wrote in your last response. Even the 1st person to respond to you seemed a little confused by your title. I could be wrong in some way/s but my assumption at the moment is that you chose poorly when you said 231kbps in the title, given the circumstances we're actually dealing with here, and not your years old file hypothetical scenario, where yes you can't be expected to remember, but in that case you would be expected to make clear what that 231kbps number is referring to, no?
The opus file with file name 105kbps and 231 actual kbps in this 2021 thread was initially named by me, to indicate 105kbps was the setting of the file, not the actual bitrate of the file, even foobar shows the actual bitrate rather than the settings to create the file, like the attached screenshot shows, it does not show 105kbps If you disagree that 231 is the actual bitrate, feel free to report it as a bug.  105kbps was mentioned so that others can encode the file with that setting in order to produce the same file if they want to encode the file themselves. If I did not include the encoding settings then others may need to figure out the actual setting to create the file.

At the end, I am not a native speaker, if my meanings are unclear, ask for clarification, don't try to guess or assume my motivation, and accuse me of anything. Kind of a pain to reply in such a long way, looking up dictionaries and such.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021