91
Site Related Discussion / Re: Please remove my account
Last post by Sunhillow -this toxic and disinformation propagandaOpen my eyes please. I never saw anything propagandistic or toxic here.
this toxic and disinformation propagandaOpen my eyes please. I never saw anything propagandistic or toxic here.
I downloaded the ABX utility to check if the "limiter" feature of it would help (it allows to play just a short piece and quickly switch between the samples), but no.As said many times, post the results of your ABX test or shut it.
It doesn't mean that my original statement regarding the v1/v2 differences is false!
toxic and disinformation propagandaNice complotist vocabulary. When some people have a different opinion than yours it's not propaganda, it's just a different opinion.
I think it has to do with the extensive checks that have been added to FLAC 1.4.0 for handling corrupt audio.Fair enough if so.
There should be intel CPU's late this year with APX at earliest.And fragmentation continues. AVX10 is hailed to "clean up the mess of AVX-512" but all I see is even more fragmentation. flac on x86 will be an incredibly fat binary with SSE2, SSSE3, SSE4.1, AVX2, AVX512 and AVX10 code paths. Because while Intel is dropping AVX512 for AVX10, AMD just started on AVX512 and CPUs without any AVX are still being sold, so it is not like SSE can be dropped anytime soon.
1.3 is much faster at the small block sizes! At the very smallest, 17 samples, it decodes at at 22 seconds, 1.4 needs 40, 1.4 32-bit needs 60. That is a little bit of difference?!I think it has to do with the extensive checks that have been added to FLAC 1.4.0 for handling corrupt audio. Also, I think the binary is currently too fat, so it impacts branch prediction, which is most profound on small blocksizes.
... I think it would be more useful if:
* Samples used in tests are not handpicked for being challenging, but picked for being representative of average everyday use (talk show, pop music, ..etc).
* Classical codecs are tested at a much lower bitrate than in this test. Maybe a something in the range of 32-48kbps.
Components won't work onThe OP makes no reference to having a macOS. He does mention having iTunes, which of course is an Apple application available on the Windows platform.(Thank you Apple!).. Unless foobar is run on a windows emulator I e. Wine in Linux or iOS
The sound quality of Foobar2000 2.X is lower than version 1.X...
All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must - to the best of their ability - provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.