Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_run 0.3.7
Last post by davideleo -
And is it possible to run a software too?

Quote
"C:\Program Files (x86)\MixMeister BPM Analyzer\BpmAnalyzer.exe"

This is the code of the program but when I right click on the file the program does not run.

You need to add the file path :
Code: [Select]
"C:\Program Files (x86)\MixMeister BPM Analyzer\BpmAnalyzer.exe" "%path%"
2
I assume you're not building a woofer (driver) and to the end-user, this is all fairly meaningless...  Manufacturers like to tout their design choices but to us it comes down to performance - Sensitivity/efficiency, frequency response, power handling, size, cost, probably the Thiele-Small parameters, etc.   "There's more than one way to build a bridge" but there is no "best way".

The one thing I'd avoid is foam surround.   I've seen too many rotten/disintegrated foam-surrounds.   There are probably acceptable foam materials/compounds but I'd have be sure before I'd take a chance.  I've seen paper cones deteriorate when used as deck speakers in a car (where the sun hits them) but I've got some paper-cone speakers at home that are probably 40 years old, and they are still OK.

Quote
I am still wondering, how to design a woofer that gives a good result in the sensitivity area of speaker operation. I'm sure the strength of the magnetic field in the gap is essential, but there must also be other areas of the speaker motor design that effect the sensitivity.
One thing I've noticed is that "pro" woofers have higher efficiency and higher resonant frequency (which implies less mass) when compared to "home theater" woofers.

And of course, the cabinet makes a big difference.   A horn gives the best efficiency but a low-frequency horn is very large and generally impractical.
3
FLAC / Re: EAC to FLAC single file add unwanted wrong tag
Last post by Bert -
Thank you. That made things clear.
4
Lossy codecs can smear vinyl ticks.
So no MQA either then?
5
Support - (fb2k) / Re: ReplayGain on Opus files
Last post by Case -
Wanting to make another try, I switched to "Use Track Gain" back. And now v.1.3.17 (latest) player behaves without strange.

Guessing: Could it be any preferences corruption?
Curious. If you had a backup of the config from that time it could be verified. Or Peter could read the code to see if it's possible.

What do you mean by "old ReplayGain tags"? Are they non-R128-conformed RG tags, which were used in Opus long time ago, but some software may still use them?
I mean the ReplayGain tags used pretty much everywhere, REPLAYGAIN_TRACK_GAIN and the other three similar tags. They have never been used in Opus by programs that respect Opus specs, foobar2000 for example has not written them there. Opus wants people to use R128_TRACK_GAIN tag.

Quote
That said I get the same ReplayGained loudness with Opus with all header writing options when I use foobar2000 to do the tagging and playback.
Sorry, it's difficult for me to sense this sentence. Should I leave "Use Track Gain" option checked? =)
I meant that I don't experience the problem you described. When I had RG in use and I played three Opus files tagged with the three different header setting they all had identical loudness.

Just guessing: Can the bug be related to Media Library somehow? But, I mainly stick to the preferences corruption cause.
Were your files located on the harddrive of your machine and not on some network storage? Media Library shouldn't affect things but some weird storage that doesn't report file changes perhaps might.
6
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_run 0.3.7
Last post by tipar -
And is it possible to run a software too?

Quote
"C:\Program Files (x86)\MixMeister BPM Analyzer\BpmAnalyzer.exe"

This is the code of the program but when I right click on the file the program does not run.
7
Support - (fb2k) / Re: ReplayGain on Opus files
Last post by Seymour -
Did you use something else than foobar2000 to ReplayGain scan the Opus files?
Nope, the Opus files were coded using foobar2000 including its RG scanner. As much as I can remember, it was all right before the last software update. Several plug-ins were installed/updated too.

Wanting to make another try, I switched to "Use Track Gain" back. And now v.1.3.17 (latest) player behaves without strange.

Guessing: Could it be any preferences corruption?

Quote
Opus specs forbid the use of old ReplayGain tags as it has its own R128 gain tags. Header gain adjustment is also part of the specifications. Decoders are supposed to always apply the header gain and optionally R128 Gain from tags as an additional adjustment. Since not all players support tag based ReplayGain foobar2000 allows writing the desired RG info to header. That feature is supposed to give ReplayGain with Opus everywhere where the format can be decoded.
Thank you for verbose explanation. What do you mean by "old ReplayGain tags"? Are they non-R128-conformed RG tags, which were used in Opus long time ago, but some software may still use them?
Quote
That said I get the same ReplayGained loudness with Opus with all header writing options when I use foobar2000 to do the tagging and playback.
Sorry, it's difficult for me to sense this sentence. Should I leave "Use Track Gain" option checked? =)

When the mentioned bug was acting, foobar2000 failed to get ReplayGain info from Opus files as if they had none:
- playback volume changed when I adjusted "Preamp for files w/o RG info" value but not of "Preamp for files with RG info";
- file properties didn't show any RG info.
But strange result of scanning "+5 dB" on every second time. When I applied the "+5" result, volume level became higher. Now, knowing amplification algorithm, I suppose that header gain-related part of playback code was acting.

Just guessing: Can the bug be related to Media Library somehow? But, I mainly stick to the preferences corruption cause.
8
MP3 - General / Re: Lame 3.100 has been released
Last post by NetRanger -
L.A.M.E. v3.100
Built on December 12, 2017, GCC 7.2.0
http://lame.sourceforge.net
9
FLAC / Re: Upsampling 44.1->88.2, 48->96
Last post by bennetng -
A neural network could be trained to try to replicate lost information, using original and downsampled audio, but this sort of replication is not totally reliable, and has only really been trained and demonstrated on visual data, not really on audio.
Yeah, attempting to marry two waifus can cause you a lot of trouble, especially waifus of an audiophile. :P
10

Early CDs were mastered so the *album* peak -- usually a single peak across the entire album -- approached or reached 0dBFS.  No compression added (I don't think digital compression had been invented yet).  As a result the full dynamic range of the analog tape source  -- there were few all-digital recording then -- was preserved.  According to Wikipedia (with citations)  "the average level of the average rock song during most of the decade [the 1980s] was around −16.8 dBFS."
There were actually quite a few early all digital recordings, many pre-dating the CD by several years (using the Soundstream system, for one).  In fact, the process of transfer of an analog master to CD involved the same gear you'd use to record digitally in the first place: the Sony PCM-1600/1610/1630 (those are different models) working with an slightly modified U-Matic video deck.  There were strict guidelines for CD mastering published by the big CD houses - Matsushita in particular - that dictated you put the highest peak of the entire CD at or below 0dBFS (it wasn't called that then), and that any audible transients be clearly logged and identified by the corresponding time code so they wouldn't be confused for errors in the CD master.  Somebody at the plant would actually QC these things by listening!

Mastering for CD, actually digital editing too, was handled via the Sony DAE-1100 editor, a crude device that controlled up to 3 U-Matic machines, time-code locked, and could accomplish digital cross-fade edits and apply simple digital gain control, fades, etc.  The final tape was sent to the CD plant where it was transferred to glass master with no data changes, but with PQ subcode added and formatted for CD.

Digital processing really began with reverb, the Lexicon 224, and Ursa Major Space Station, both in 1978, but dynamics processing wouldn't become practical until the late 1980s. 
Also: "In 1994, the digital brickwall limiter with look-ahead (to pull down peak levels before they happened) was first mass-produced."  And that accords with my recollection of when it all really started going to hell.

It was a terrible shame because it overlapped a positive trend underway since the late 80s: companies were finally doing due diligence and sourcing remasters from original master tapes (not vinyl EQ-d production masters) .    Adding hard digital compression to a flat transfer of a classic original master tape is akin to adding googly eyes to the Mona Lisa.
Yup.  All true.  However, loudness processing in the analog domain was already brutal in some areas decades before that.  Radio in particular, where multi-band limiting and deliberate clipping was already going on in the late 1960s, but also 45rpm single records, which were cut hot almost universally for several decades.  The pop hit "Please Go All The Way" by the Raspberries (1972) has blatantly audible peak limiting artifact (rapid attack and release) all over it, and was one of the loudest singles of that year.

Movie companies were brick-wall processing trailer soundtracks then too, even back to the Academy mono optical days.  The "loud trailer" problem became epic for a couple of decades, and it got really bad when digital film tracks became common in the 1990s.  With so many patron complaints, a program was instituted to pre-qualify trailers to the Leqm 85 standard.  Films would be run and metered on a system made by Dolby that would return an Leqm figure.  Trailers that didn't pass were "rejected", but it's not clear to me how much impact this actually had, since we still have loud trailers today.  Theater projectionists would respond to complaints by turning down the fader for trailers, then forgetting and leaving it low for the feature, which generated the inverse complaints.  It was/is a mess.

We think of brick-walled CDs as the beginning of the problem, but in reality it had already been going on for 30-40 years.  Yes, digital processing made it easier to make it really bad.