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.
Recent Posts
1
foobar2000 mobile / Re: [Skinning] Can compare current and next track title in the [label] element?
Last post by Daiki -

Code: [Select]
[label]
62.5,1375,827.5,100
left
[infosource-nowplaying]$puts(now,%title%)[infosource-nextplaying]$puts(next,%title%)$if($strcmp(now,next),,next)

You seem to have missed $get

[infosource-nowplaying]$puts(now,%title%)[infosource-nextplaying]$puts(next,%title%)$if($strcmp($get(now),$get(next)),,next)

edit : but I see your point that you can't mix [fields] types in titleformatting and you can't mix [infosource] switching in the titleformat.
It just doesn't work..

Thank you for pointing out a mistake in my code.
Anyway, the only way to implement what I want to do would be to wait for an update on the parsing processing of skin files.
3
Listening Tests / Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs
Last post by shadowking -
But is it a properly released sample or a lab made proof of concept?  I am not too worried about 100% artificial,
But do care for CD's that I will rip. I think its rare spectogram and it has low volume and bitrate too. Might be mono or close.
All these atypical switches for 1 sample has me thinking. I don't have a conclusion but am leaning towards a few..
4
Listening Tests / Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs
Last post by shadowking -
@Markuza97 Oh, that sample has knocked me off my feet.

@shadowking We talked a lot about Wavpack, I even wondered why you had -s0.5 in your signature, then I settled on -b4x. And now I have to think again about hybrid flags and recompress all those techno compositions. Geez, helix-mp3.exe -V150 -HF2 -U2 and ogg-lancer.exe -q8 sound waaay better and weigh less than Wavpack hybrid in this case. Also thanks for fixing Lame 3.100 -V0 by adding --vbr-old, it's truly a revelation.


I tried -b4x then -x4 to -x6 with my pc speakers.  With -x6 or possibly -x5 it would likely go unnoticed.
You could use -x4-6 for electronic music and -x for rest.
5
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: exhale - Open Source USAC encoder
Last post by Kraeved -
Of all lossless and lossy audio codecs presented on this forum today, exhale is the most difficult for me to use. Its help screen mentions the author twice, says a lot about the license, there are even a few colors, but the essence of how to use it is barely designed for ordinary users. For example, I have FLAC 48 kHz 24 bit of Vertigo heroes (Part I) by a famous perfectionist Boris Blank and want to compress it into a transparently sounding USAC file. Let's see…

Code: [Select]
 preset =  # (0-9)  low-complexity ISO/MPEG-D Extended HE-AAC at 16·#+48 kbit/s
            (a-g)  low-complexity Extended HE-AAC using eSBR at 12·#+36 kbit/s

Err… What? Aggrrhh! And then ogg -q8 or qacc without flags at all comes to rescue.
6
Audio Hardware / Re: Electrostatic speaker myths
Last post by Paul-Folbrecht -
More in general: Sure, electrodynamic speakers are not perfect. Tuning a mass-spring-damper system is a compromise, that is correct. But in return, electrostatic speakers are large and thus deviate from the ideal point-source. The lack of a crossover actually works against electrostatics in this respect: the higher the frequency, the more the size of the driver matters. So, a two-way speaker system can use a small element to come as close as possible to a point source for those high frequencies that need it the most, while using a larger driver for low frequencies that have long enough wavelengths for the size not to matter too much.

As with most technologies, there is compromise. Just because one technology outperforms the other in one aspect doesn't mean it is better, as it might be flawed in another.

You are certainly correct that there is no perfect speaker.

(It is interesting that one can literally spend $100K on a speaker system and immediately notice many faults. Audio shows are good for this type of education.)

You are also correct that the dispersion characteristics of large panels are a negative. The Quad 63 & friends get around this with that ingenious delay system. Trade-offs there too? Certainly.

In any case, because I came across this thread and found it interesting, I wanted to see what people here had to say about the mass-spring-damper issue. The stated purpose of the thread was to debunk the notion that electrostatics are generally superior to dynamic speakers, yet what is assuredly the biggest weakness of the latter was not discussed.

Finally: Almost all nearfield studio monitors, which are built for the sound production with the highest accuracy, are electrodynamic, not electrostatic. That is not a coincidence. You could also say: the recording you're listening too has probably been approved by the musician while listening to an electrodynamic speaker. There is no reason to assume electrostatic loudspeakers will be closer to the artists intent if that artist worked on the recording using electrodynamic speakers.

One need only take a look at any recording studio to realize that using ESLs as monitors is completely impractical for physical reasons. :)

The active ATCs I mentioned previously are extremely popular in studios, and, as noted, they are literally the only dynamic speaker I have ever been able to find measurements for that can compete with even the 50+ year-old Quad 63 design in midrange distortion.

They - the ATC three-way actives in particular - are also extremely expensive.

And, to my ear, still inferior to even the original Quad 63. I've owned several pairs of ATCs, though not the active 3-way models, but I have listened to those extensively at shows. I'd also climbed the Wilson ladder up to Sasha, but they, for their charms, can't touch the old (properly rebuilt) ESLs for purity, transparency, and naturalness - IMHO. (And going higher up that Wilson ladder is big $$$ indeed.)

FWIW, if anyone is interested, this is what I have hit upon, what has proven unbeatable for me after 15 years of being deep in the audiophile hobby, owning over 50 pairs of speakers, from single-driver backhorns, to conventional multiway dynamics, to cones (including with field-coil motors) on open baffles, to - probably the most esoteric - front horns with field-coil compression drivers (Cogent):

Quads, positioned semi-nearfield (8') in a large room, actively crossed at 24 dB/octave to dual 15" sealed subs.

Again, for sure there is no such thing as any home audio/speaker system that is without flaws, but I cannot find anything better, at least for under six figures. And this can be put together for far less.

But, again, IMHO and YMMV. It's all quite subjective.
7
Listening Tests / Re: Great killer sample, easy to ABX on most codecs
Last post by Kraeved -
@Markuza97 Oh, that sample has knocked me off my feet.

@shadowking We talked a lot about Wavpack, I even wondered why you had -s0.5 in your signature, then I settled on -b4x. And now I have to think again about hybrid flags and recompress all those techno compositions. Geez, helix-mp3.exe -V150 -HF2 -U2 and ogg-lancer.exe -q8 sound waaay better and weigh less than Wavpack hybrid in this case. Also thanks for fixing Lame 3.100 -V0 by adding --vbr-old, it's truly a revelation.

8
Audio Hardware / Re: Electrostatic speaker myths
Last post by Paul-Folbrecht -
What counts as loss of information? How much of it is too much?
If there is an imperfection that can be near perfectly negated by some equalization, is that also loss of information?

By definition, lost information cannot recovered.

The amount of loss of information that is tolerable is subjective.

But the topic here is the supposed debunking of objective electrostatic advantages.

We are talking here, mainly, about fine detail - decay trails fading to nothing, atmospheric nuance, etc. - these things live entirely outside the domain of EQ, which exists mainly to correct frequency response anomalies.

I would trust measurements more than intuitive reasoning. Are there any such measurements to back up this argument?

Yes. They are very easy to find - almost any ESL has far lower distortion in the midrange than almost any dynamic cone speaker, typically by an order of magnitude or better, even when the dynamic speaker is far more expensive.

In addition to its (virtually literally) perfect time-domain performance, the ancient Quad 63 & derivatives are some of the very lowest-distortion transducers made, at any price.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/quad-reference-esl-2805-loudspeaker-measurements

Measurements show that the best (under ~$50K) dynamic speakers such as Wilson Sasha and YG are around .5% distortion (500-1000 Hz) while Quads are .05-.1% - around 10% as much distortion.

The best dynamic speaker I could readily find measurements for compared to the Quad:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-maxx-loudspeaker-measurements-part-2

The Quad is still 10 dB better than the incredibly expensive Wilson "MAXX" in the critical midband (1 Khz), and much better at lower frequencies. (S-phile summed it well: "The Quad was always a low-distortion speaker—I remember being with Martin Colloms when he measured an ESL-63 and found that it produced 0.1% THD or less over most of the audioband!")

The only dynamic speaker I have found that measures as well as even that old Quad 63 in the midrange was an active (active drive has advantages in driver control, of course) ATC three-way - it got very close. IIRC that speaker was well over $50K.

---

These measurements reinforce what my ears tell me. I have been going back to the Quad 63/988/2805 after trying many other speakers over the last decade or so because none of them give that sense of extreme purity, especially in the midrange. (I think the lack of any crossover and the resulting almost perfect phase performance are important ingredients as well.)
9
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by Wombat -
I once tried to do something faster for my j5005 but gcc optimized compiles did roughly nothing. Since your T7250 is even slower and older i am sorry.