Recent Posts

Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Last post by jarsonic - Today at 15:30

...it's also worth noting that the benefit of ASIO is decreased audio latency, not increased sound quality. If there is a degradation in sound quality with ASIO output, it is either a driver issue or something else in the audio pipeline that is causing an issue.

Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Last post by jarsonic - Today at 15:28

I have not run into this issue, and have not heard of anyone else running into a similar issue during the entire development of foobar2000 2.x. One thing to note is that ASIO tends to bypass Windows Audio Mixer settings, so make sure that the max volume levels for fb2k in the mixer are at the same level (100%) for both installations. Also ensure that you have the latest audio drivers for your system.

Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Last post by Globares - Today at 15:23

Quote from: fooball on Today at 14:17

Not really my place to say, but there's a big no-no against sound quality claims without substantive proof. How about uploading 30s samples demonstrating your point, so that other ears can do an ABX?

Unfortunately, I’ve got no high quality microphones nor the ears audio model to make such recording, but everyone can quickly make a test installing the second version of Foobar “portably” – 2 Foobar versions can be run parallelly – which should allow you to quickly switch between them. Just make sure to use a decent DAC and heaphones to hear the soundstage changes.
A portable installation of Foobar2000 can be easily removed when not needed.

3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: JScript Panel

Last post by loz - Today at 14:23

Any chance of getting the rating sample to work with foo_playcount_2003?

Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Last post by fooball - Today at 14:17

Not really my place to say, but there's a big no-no against sound quality claims without substantive proof. How about uploading 30s samples demonstrating your point, so that other ears can do an ABX?

Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Last post by Bogozo - Today at 14:12

Support - (fb2k) / Foobar2000 v2.* playback sound quality lower than v1.X

Last post by Globares - Today at 13:09

The sound quality of Foobar2000 2.X is lower than version 1.X.

Right now I'm comparing versions 1.6.16 and 2.1.4, but in the past I downloaded one of the early versions of Foobar2000 2.X for evaluation and the noticed the same problem.
I've checked both 32 and 64 bit versions of f2k 2.X. Both play worse than v1.6.

Problem is easily hearable while using the ASIO drivers (and plugin), for "standard" drivers v1.6 probably still keeps an edge, but I'm not really sure about it, since general sound quality with non-ASIO drivers is lower, what makes comparison more difficult, anyway I'd rather blame the f2k 2.X core than the asio plugin.

All tests were done using Windows 10, 64 bit. I used 2 DACs with their proprietary ASIO drivers, The results were consistent.
The most noticeable difference is the soundstage degradation, so jitter would be my primary suspect.

I'd be grateful for a fix, since only v2.X is available in 64 bits, what is required for PGGB-RT plugin, and PGGB-RT upsampling is really good.

Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: HALAC (High Availability Lossless Audio Compression)

Last post by Case - Today at 11:36

Since there is still no updated decoder DLL I sandboxed the process and added support for 32-bit foobar2000 while at it. Since the DLLs are only 64-bit the 32-bit component won't be able to decode anything unless the OS is also 64-bit.
And I listed the component on my component page: https://foobar.hyv.fi/?view=foo_input_halac

General - (fb2k) / Re: UPnP MediaRenderer output | discussion

Last post by Acell - Today at 11:11

Thank you for your explanation.

I don't know very well Minimserver. I well know Audirvana and for example, about the tag "genre" is not managed by the same way.
I tag my albums with "genre", including sub-genre as"Jazz" or "Jazz-Big Band" or "Jazz-Be-bop" ... Same for other music as Classical one.

1) With Foobar, I can sort all the albums by genre CONTAINING the word "Jazz" and NOT ONLY the single word "Jazz" => in Foobar (on PC, and after settings) , a sort by genre with the word "Jazz" will address all the albums with genre : "Jazz", "Jazz-Big Band", ... With Audirvana, I will get only albums with "Jazz" genre (not sub-genre). And it is the same with all Controller Apps on smartphone I know. Reason why I prefer using Foobar on PC.

2) With Foobar (on PC), once you get your albums sorted by genre, you can also set ac clear "sub-sorting" by artist, with clear display separation artist by artist.
.. And I can describe more advantages. But for sure I am developping my Foobar version for many years and it is not obvious.

In summary, Foobar2000 on PC is much more comfortable for managing a very large music collection (10,000 albums).

3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Library Tree Discussion

Last post by ouafouaf - Today at 10:47

Hi,
I recently switched from the old facets to library tree. I'm getting used to it, trying to recreate my old setup with this new tool.
I use several library tree panels as facets, linked together as explained in the help. It's working as intended.
One thing I miss, is being able to reorder my views by number of sub-items.
For example, I use a lot of different Genre tags, and sometimes I want to browse my facet panel alphabetically, sometimes I want to order by the number of albums in that genre. There is no such option in the "sort selected view" submenu. Is there some tweak to make it possible?

Thank you for your help, and thanks to the amazing work you're all doing!

Notice