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
Validated News / Re: TAK 2.3.1
Last post by TBeck -
Code: [Select]
2.3.0 Enc  131.72s / 98.09x  (52.56%)
2.3.1 Enc  74.01s / 174.39x  (52.56%)
The encoding speed improvement nearly is to good to be true! Are you now using more cores (maybe 6 vs. 4)?

Click "Buy Digital Album  name your price" and enter "0" as price ;-)
Well, i thougt so, but somehow had scruples... At first. ;)

These are some really interesting files. I agree, that the difference is not very significant, but i really want to understand, why this happens. It might be caused by the loss of arithmetic accuracy because ot the switch from FPU to SSE2-floating point caclculations (80 vs. 64 bits), but i am not sure. Maybe it's a random effect, maybe it's something systematic, which bears an opportunity for a tiny optimization.  I will dig into it, but this may take some time. I really want to release 2.3.2 soon. Hopefully in a couple of weeks.
3
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Columns UI
Last post by Koshingg -
Hi, musicmusic, I'm a foobar user from 2005. First of all, thanks for your work with this component. I use CUI (obviously) and it's great. The only problem is that Facets , Spectrogram can't be added to the layout, they're only popup panels (and obviously this is far from ideal).
When will this inconvenient disappear? When we'll be able to integrate DUI panels (Facets, Spectrogram)  in CUI panels?
Also, I'm sure that this is a request that other people want, too . This change it will be well received.
Thanks for reading :)
4
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: JScript Panel script discussion/help
Last post by arcos -
Hello all, i use JS Smooth Browser to see my new album in my librairie, i would like to have the most recent at the beginning so i add this in the Panel properties "sort order album :  $date(%last_modified%) | %album% | %discnumber% | %tracknumber% | %title% ".
l works fine but my newest albums are at the end of the list ...is it possible to sort the list by descending ?
i try : SORT BY DESCENDING  $date(%last_modified%) but nothing changed.....
thanks for your help.
5
General Audio / Re: CD quality v. 24bit (HD) observation
Last post by m.shaffer -
I believe you’re all pretty much correct regarding ABX’ing 95% of the music out there, and especially true for 95% of the home audio reproduction electronics and speakers available at reasonable costs... but that  has nothing to do with my original question, or why I asked it.... #jussayin
6
Validated News / Re: TAK 2.3.1
Last post by Porcus -
Oh, and the 88.2/24 Anal Trump actually compressed worse with 2.3.1.
Available for free here: https://analtrump.bandcamp.com/album/that-makes-me-smart
Strange! How big is the difference? I would have checked it myself but i seem to be too dumb to downlad it for free...

Click "Buy Digital Album  name your price" and enter "0" as price ;-)

The worst is -p4m:
51 064 065 bytes with 2.3.0
51 083 360 bytes with 2.3.1

It still isn't that bad, 1 kbit/s on average?! Largest bitrate difference: 2181 vs 2189 for track 10.  But there is also a track with an improvement of 3.


And now I see that there are some strange (but small!) results:
-p4e, this improves:
50 983 669 bytes with 2.3.0
50 979 810 bytes with 2.3.1.

-p3e
51 150 393 bytes with 2.3.0
51 150 669 bytes with 2.3.1

-p3:
50 965 890 bytes with 2.3.0
50 967 229 bytes with 2.3.1

and at the low end:
-p0m
64 403 789 bytes with 2.3.0
64 326 035 bytes with 2.3.1

-p0
64 723 721 bytes with 2.3.0
64 723 693 bytes with 2.3.1
8
Validated News / Re: TAK 2.3.1
Last post by sPeziFisH -
Hi Thomas, nice to see progress
  • Test-Set 48 tracks (Classic+ModernTalking+PhilCollins)
  • AMD PhenomII X4 960T BlackEdition, 3.0 GHz, 6 threads (anno 2011), Win7 64bit, RamDisk
Code: [Select]
Enc with -p4m
2.3.0 Enc  131.72s / 98.09x  (52.56%)
2.3.1 Enc  74.01s / 174.39x  (52.56%)

2.3.0 Dec  35.11s / 368.02x
2.3.1 Dec  29.96s / 431.28x
Osna-rocket launched 8)
9
General Audio / Re: CD quality v. 24bit (HD) observation
Last post by ThaCrip -
@m.shaffer ; while I don't know all of the technical details (maybe Wombat does though and there is the whole TOS 8 thing to etc), but for the sake of argument even "if" what you said is somewhat true... I figure when listening to music in general the listener is probably primarily focused on the singers voice, and maybe the core of the basic song to on some level(like the instruments etc that are more obviously in your face), more than every little detail of instruments which seem to mostly take a backseat those things would be the gist of it when just sitting back and enjoying the music (unless there are people do don't do that(?), but I kind of assume what I said there is typically the norm for most people(?)).

but that stuff aside... if you can't tell by ABX test between standard lossless 16/44.1 and your "HD" track, then there is really no difference. it's more of a difference because you think it's better more than there actually being a difference, unless of course you can ABX it. because I would not even attempt to claim I can hear a difference between standard 16/44.1 and "HD" audio. because even with decent bit rate lossy audio most people will struggle to hear a difference. or another way I could put it... when the expert listening testers around here struggle to hear a difference between standard 16/44.1 and 192kbps (or so) lossy audio files, it's all that more unlikely one could hear a difference between lossless 16/44.1 and "HD" audio since the difference there would be even smaller, especially given human hearing limits (even if we assume someone with ears as good as humans can get). so even if there was by some very small chance someone could ABX standard lossless 16/44.1 vs "HD" audio, the difference would have to be very small since, at least from my observations, I think people who do listening tests around here with decent bit rate lossy files and can notice very subtle differences are pretty close to splitting hairs already (no offense to any of them as there contributions are appreciated by those around here I am sure). so when just sitting back and enjoying ones music, which even those types who do those tests around here admit, they would never(or at least rarely) notice the difference that they very slightly can when doing ABX testing (and ABX testing requires quite a bit of focus it appears after a certain bit rate for many to where it's unlikely they would notice it when just listening to random songs straight up to enjoy them), which makes it even less likely your going to notice any different between 16/44.1 and "HD" audio, especially when just sitting back and enjoying the music.

with that said... you can still see random posts online here and there over the years who buy into that kind of thinking that lossy audio is crap, or at least some who might claim 128kbps is crap(but these types might be still stuck in the old days when MP3 was say 128kbps CBR and not more like the modern standards it's had for quite sometime now and AAC/Opus etc fairs even better than MP3 which I assume you probably already know that), and that lossless is much better. but if they actually do a blind listening test, it's almost guaranteed they won't do as well as they think they will ;) (i.e. the differences between lossless and your typical decent bit rate lossy file are much less than they think they are).

p.s. another possible factor... most of the equipment (i.e. headphones/speakers etc) the common-ish person is likely to use (of which I would consider myself among the common person here) is probably not going to cost more than $200-300 tops in my estimations (I would imagine even if I am wrong here it surely can't be much beyond that price point). so even assuming there are cases where $500-1000+ sound equipment is better, I am more of the mindset that after a certain price point, the gains are no where near enough to justify spending hundreds of dollars more etc. or... even for those who don't mind dropping say $1k on sound equipment, even for these types there has to be a cut off point to where after a certain point it's largely wasted $, especially if your not some professional who does it for a living and needs every little advantage they can get. one last thing, to speak for myself... I got what's probably in the ball park of 'average' headphones (Sony MDR-NC7) which are nothing special and I won't be surprised if there are headphones noticeably better than what I have, but, without having really tested any fancy headphones, my hunch is there won't be a significant enough of a difference to justify spending say $100-300 as, off the top of my head, I would imagine a fair amount of people around here have headphones in the $150-300 range(?) and while it would be nice to hear those myself just to see if I can notice a clear improvement or not over what I currently use, I am definitely not going to drop $150-300 to find out and I have my doubts about there being enough of a difference on those to justify the premium price. hell, even my computer speakers (i.e. Klipsch Pro-Media), which are above average, can still be bought for $140 or so online right now and for that price range, I can't imagine finding something noticeably better to the point I would want to spend a lot more $ to get it as those speakers have a good all around sound to them and, while not what I would call cheap, they are still within a reasonable price for the common-ish person so that they might consider getting something like those unlike if you start spending say $300+ it's starting to become a decent investment, pretty much.
10
Validated News / Re: TAK 2.3.1
Last post by TBeck -
First: Thanks to everyone for your interest and testing! It's very encouraging, and i am glad to tell you, that i am making good progress in the implementation of unicode support for the next release of the command line version Takc. Basically it's working, but i have to perform a lot of testing because i had to modify a lot of code. The core of the codec is unaffected.

A release ahead of schedule ;)

Dudes, it was an April 1st reference (in 2006).
Ahhh... You must be a veteran!

I deliberately chose something high-bitrate:
That's definitely interesting. Most of my test files are CD-Audio and i haven't really checked the processing speed of hires audio lately. I will catch up.

In addition to putting a hi-rez I am using a fanless computer with a fairly slow CPU, that explains the speeds.
The new assembly optimizations are using unaligned SSE2 read instructions which is faster on relatively new cpu architectures (Skylake and later) but often considerably slower (than the old code)  on older cpus. This penalty will eat up a lot of the other speed optimazions and the advantage of the new version will be quite small.

Oh, and the 88.2/24 Anal Trump actually compressed worse with 2.3.1.
Available for free here: https://analtrump.bandcamp.com/album/that-makes-me-smart
Strange! How big is the difference? I would have checked it myself but i seem to be too dumb to downlad it for free...

--------------------
Sorry for bad English...
I can do badder!
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021