Skip to main content

Notice

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.
Topic: George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000 (Read 182314 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #50
Don't get me wrong, but you know there are millions of VST fx out there (you mentioned KVR), so does this listing make any sense?Additionally, you know a lot of fx stuff is targeted against production, not playback.

- Smartelectronix VSTs by Bram de Jong // Tested Anechoic Room Simulator and SupaPhaser.

ROTFL, the probably best example
The incredible "Anechoic Room Simulator" makes your audio perfect, haha. I remember  But it works only together with Pear Anjou speaker cables.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #51
Latest Voxengo fx won't work (also with foo_dsp_vst): Elphant 3.1, Overtone 1.6 ...

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #52
George, was there anything else you fixed in 1.2? Because I was getting quite bent out of shape about a distortion I was seeing with NyquistEq, but it went away entirely when I upgraded from 1.1 to 1.2. But your release notes don't really mention anything fixed like that.


Sorry for replying late - I check this thread only rarely. It is hard to say why NuquistEQ suddenly started to work, as I don't remember changing anything substantial to make any difference in the audio path. It's however good to know, that it is working now.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #53
Don't get me wrong, but you know there are millions of VST fx out there (you mentioned KVR), so does this listing make any sense?

Your doubts are fair and I was unsure about this question myself.

Nevertheless after asking whether there would be some interest for I decided to post the listing as a kind of introduction for those users who are oblivious to VSTs versatility (sorry for my poor english).

For example, do those users who are knocking around with sibilants in their audio podcasts (genre Talk) know how easily they could filter out them? In my listing they can find a link to one possible solution from which I am able to say that it does work in a certain environment.

Second reason for my post was self interest. Only if there is enough interest for a third party component there is a chance that it will be kept alive by it's developer. After Mr. Yohng's component "4Front Headphones" (foo_dsp_headphones) has been added to the list of known potential troublemakers I am afraid this could happen to his VST wrapper some day too.

But again, you are right and I want to thank you for your feedback.

By the way I am looking for a noise reduction filter (free- or shareware, but not a simple gate please) which is known to work with George's VST wrapper under Windows XP 32bit.

Robertina.
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #54
...By the way I am looking for a noise reduction filter (free- or shareware, but not a simple gate please) which is known to work with George's VST wrapper under Windows XP 32bit.

IMO, Noise reduction filter is missing from the foobar DSP equipment. But probably it is more than a challenge to be made. I was also surprised how little VST noise reduction filters exists, and ended up using Waves X-noise.

I don't know of any freeware noise reduction filters, but this shareware: Waves  and Wave Arts

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #55
How thoroughly has this component been tested for multi-instance safety? I was converting and playing two different files at the same time yesterday, using the W1 Limiter, and I got some weird distortion and glitching.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #56
How thoroughly has this component been tested for multi-instance safety?

My testing was restricted to single instance usage, if your question should refer to that.
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #57
I don't know of any freeware noise reduction filters,

In the meantime I have found ReaPlugs VST FX Suite from audio editor REAPER.

In the package there is a FX named "ReaFIR" which claims to be able to build noise profiles and subtract noise. Does "noise profile" mean adaptive noise reduction?

I haven't tested it so far and would appreciate any feedback if someone should give it a trial.
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #58
The fact that this plugin is only capable of outputting two channels is a major limitation, in my view.  Are there any plans to modify it to work with more channels?


George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #60
Hello to Developer of this plugin and all other people who discuss .
I found a .... Limitation of this plugin .
It`s about the sample rate , It accepts only up to 44.100 KHz . When foobar plays 48.000 KHz song song plays slow exactly with difference from 48.000 to 44.100 So please note about this  Thanks . Will this plugin accept 48.000 or higher sample rate ?

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #61
Hello to Developer of this plugin and all other people who discuss .
I found a .... Limitation of this plugin .
It`s about the sample rate , It accepts only up to 44.100 KHz . When foobar plays 48.000 KHz song song plays slow exactly with difference from 48.000 to 44.100 So please note about this  Thanks . Will this plugin accept 48.000 or higher sample rate ?



I`m sorry , but mistake is not in Plugin . My bad
Plugin is working very good !

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #62
This archive includes George Yohng's W1 Limiter, a free sample VST plugin.
To use it, copy it to a directory, which is included in "VST Setup..."
dialog. More information about W1 Limiter is available on this page:

Could you please make a (simple) custom GUI for this VST plugin? That makes it compatible with more hosts. It's a great plugin.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #63
Regarding being multi-instance - this wrapper is not multi-instance. So please do not use multi-instance or multi-threading functionality of foobar.

The problem is about graphic interface. Because once it is shown - if another instance is created - GUI has to be closed and reopened. Many plugins do not restore their GUI state (such as when they have multiple tabs or GUI-only parameters). So one technically will get GUI interruptions between the songs. But I will probably add an option when time permits to allow multiple instances at least for automatic processing, given of course that the GUI will disappear or flicker when an instance of a currently shown plugin is deleted.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #64
I dealt with this problem by taking VST routines out from dsp_impl_base descendant to a different class which is instantiated in a more persistent manner.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #65
I still like to know if anybody is preferring my adapter, and whether I should develop it further.

Thanks,
George.

Hello, George,

I do prefer your adapter, as well as a lot more users from my personal background. So we would be very happy if the development wouldn't be stopped.

Please keep your VST Wrapper alive if at all possible. 

Posted here in order to not hijacking Yegor's thread.
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #66
Hi,

I also LOVE your adapter (as much as TP by the way)

Alex

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #67
But I will probably add an option when time permits to allow multiple instances at least for automatic processing, given of course that the GUI will disappear or flicker when an instance of a currently shown plugin is deleted.


That would be fantastic.

Alex

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #68
Would it be possible to extend the wrapping functionality for wmp12 also? or better make standalone wrapper for wmp12, as it'd be the first there. Are there any major processing differencies between Yegor's and yours plugin? Thanks for your efford btw.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #69
as well as a lot more users from my personal background. So we would be very happy

Do they insist to be anonymous? in your personal background?
Is it like +2, +5, +10 or maybe more?
Tell us, it's important

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #70
Tell us, it's important

klonuo, who is us and why is it important to you? Are you involved in the development of George's VST wrapper?
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #71
Quote
Are there any major processing differencies between Yegor's and yours plugin?
The differences are architectural. No additional processing involved in either one.
Quote
Would it be possible to extend the wrapping functionality for wmp12 also?
Although I'm not the developer here, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to extend. At best it'll be some code re-use.

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #72
Thanks for answer, Yegor. I wanted only to find out processing differencies in VST hosting between, on one side, apps, that can handle VST plugins "natively" like some pro audio apps and, on the other side, "incompatible" apps that can use VST plugins through "native" plugin with VST hosting capability.
Basically i'm not sure if there is always some kind of "translation layer" with additional cpu cycles needed, therefore the question about differencies between the two bs2b host plugins (wrappers).
The problem is, i don't know what apps are truly native in terms of vst hosting, because some pro audio apps solve this through vst host plugin also (FL Studio). Some apps are "hybrid" in terms that they "natively" support vst plugins besides their own plugins architecture. I'm not sure, if in this case, VST support is done without "translating". I understand it so, that their VST host plugin is simply build-in and it translates VST code to its own plugin architecture scheme, not sure.
Please correct me, if i'm wrong. The really "native" (there isn't translation layer) VST hosts are apps without "VST host plugin", that haven't other plugin architecture support  except VST.
Could "hybrid" plugin architecture support mean, that translation layer for VST is always there?

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #73
Quote
Could "hybrid" plugin architecture support mean, that translation layer for VST is always there?
Yes, as long as the developer follows polymorphism principles, there is some sort of generalized interface to handle different types of targets the same way, and hence some sort of translation layer for each type. I doubt any more or less complex software could be made against those principles. Even in case of a simple VST-only host it's much easier to make a wrapper around the VST interface with all the additional stuff you need than to use the interface directly.

But such translation layers or wrappers are not expensive in terms of performance. It's nothing compared to DSP, GUI, I/O and a whole bunch of things the OS has to do. And I wouldn't guess about “nativity” by looking at GUI and EXE/DLL layout. You can link the same code parts differently.

What is really lost whenever generalization is involved, is feature set. You have to take a compromise between things your host can do and things the plug-in's interface is capable of (for example, you can't pan individual notes when using VST plug-ins in FL Studio; and it's not because those plug-ins are not “native” but because MIDI, which is used by VST, doesn't support note panning).

George Yohng's VST wrapper for Foobar2000

Reply #74
Thank you very much for explanation, Yegor. Its a little bit more clear now for me. Sometimes its strange with us, who doesn't work with code and doesn't know how the things are related in between. Therefore some questions could be without sense.
Thanks to both, Yegor and George, for your effort and please keep working on it if, you'll have time for it.

Btw. sorry if this was explained somewhere, but from pure interest, why is there such a big size difference between the two wrappers, or better to ask why is george's wrapper so much bigger?