Skip to main content
Recent Posts
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer
Last post by zeremy -
Beta feedback:

If you add it in a Panel Stack Splitter , the visualization is not visible, only the Options Menu entry is available.
Thanks for your feedback! It's not designed/tested for Panel Stack Splitter. But I'll take a look at it.
The new version ( now supports Panel Stack Splitter:,116014.msg957490.html#msg957490

Thank you.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer
Last post by Crossover -
Beta feedback:

If you add it in a Panel Stack Splitter , the visualization is not visible, only the Options Menu entry is available.
Thanks for your feedback! It's not designed/tested for Panel Stack Splitter. But I'll take a look at it.
The new version ( now supports Panel Stack Splitter:,116014.msg957490.html#msg957490
Opus / Re: What is the bitrate of your Opus files?
Last post by ThaCrip -
96kbps is transparent to me. What I noticed is that up to 96kbps you get solid improvements for every 32kbps interval you give to the bitrate. After 96kbps, even if there is a difference for somebody, I bet the quality gain is less effective than the one given below 96kbps in 32kbps intervals. Not that there might be no quality gain, but most possibly not quite as big as the one you get for 32kbps intervals below 96kbps.

Yeah, I think what you say there would be difficult to disagree with given listening tests around here (which should be a pretty good estimate of Opus quality) because going by 32kbps bit rate increases, 32/64/96/128/160 etc, it seems like once you hit 96kbps things tend to largely peak in sound quality to where going higher, the sound quality gains tend to be minimal, and once you hit 160kbps seem to be pretty much the limit and going any higher seems to be largely overkill/waste of storage space (based on some comments I have read around here). so I kind of assume the difference between 96kbps vs 160kbps is minimal(if not very minimal) overall and probably requires optimal listening conditions etc to notice it. like it becomes more of a the thought of them being able to ABX it (at 96kbps vs say 128kbps or 160kbps) more than the difference actually bothering them (because the difference is faint) when just sitting back and enjoying the music.

so based on what your saying it might be roughly something like this, sticking to the 32kbps each increase standard...

32kbps to 64kbps = biggest gap in sound quality.
64kbps to 96kbps = a decent gap in sound quality. (largely cleans up the already pretty good sound to where artifacts should be pretty minimal at this point(96kbps))
96kbps to 128kbps = small gap in sound quality.
128kbps to 160kbps =smaller gap in sound quality.
160kbps to 192kbps or higher = smallest gap in sound quality. probably next to nothing in sound quality(?). basically efficiency is pretty much shot any higher than 160kbps from the looks of things.

so basically 96kbps offers the most sound quality for the bit rate basically (especially sticking to the 32kbps increase standard) which pretty much makes it that 'sweet spot' for Opus. I just said 'pretty much' just to leave a little lee-way in there as if someone disagreed with me, it can't be more than one setting either way of 96kbps sticking to the 32kbps (up or down in bit rate) standard. so in other words, the 'sweet spot' for just about everyone, who has a concern for efficiency, would be basically one of the following settings... 64kbps/96kbps/128kbps. so basically 128kbps is for those who are a bit more concerned with sound quality than storage space/efficiency and 64kbps is for those a bit more concerned with storage space than sound quality where as 96kbps is basically that great balance between the two. so while 160kbps is still a respectable choice, I don't really think someone could argue in favor of 160kbps in terms of efficiency as while it's probably a solid option for those who want maximum sound quality without getting too crazy with the bit rate, so it's not a total loss of efficiency, it does tend to take a solid hit in efficiency for minimal sound quality gains which makes it a little too high if you ask me since I sort of see 128kbps as a bit of a safety buffer for the already strong 96kbps setting (so it's not too surprising to see 128kbps the current leader in the poll with 96kbps being the 2nd choice) but even that already comes with a 25% increase in storage space etc.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer
Last post by Crossover -
I like it. I don't view spectra that often, but I have had this and foo_musical_spectrum side by side, and I am not sure which I prefer for general visuals.

But foo_musical_spectrum has a couple of features which I at least sometimes would miss from your component. For your consideration:
- octave / "piano key" view. Sometimes more instructive than Hz numbers. Can be "tuned" by setting the pitch for A4 (defaults to 440 Hz).
- "transposition by semitones". Who has a Bb instrument? ;-)
(When I have run tests for infrasound or ultrasound - I have at least a couple of musical pieces with possibly amp-draining infrasound down to 6 Hz - I have tuned/transposed transposed to circumvent its C0-A11 range.)
Thanks for your feedback and suggestion!
I see your point but musical spectrum and my component have a different approach. I wrote this component to analyze and compare musical productions. I want to see the whole spectrum without any bars in full resolution.
But i will think about it. I could implement a piano / note view as an additional option side by side with the frequency scale. I will take this into my considerations for a future release.
Scientific Discussion / Major freq response fix (it lost too much HF before -- antialias too aggressive)
Last post by jsdyson -
This is probably the last release for a while unless there will need to be a major bugfix.  Also, it is probably okay now to use --ai=max all of the time.  The anti-alias fix also improved the freq response for --ai=max.   There was a comedy of  freq response errors resulting from some FIR filters being too short -- silly mistake.

No change to basic design, just re-jiggering some filters.

Basic design is now solid, but if I find a new anti-alias or quality improvement I will certainly persue it.

Refer to previous posting (probably have 24 more hours) for incredibly good examples about the quality of this decoder.  Esp this version.

This is MANDATORY if you want/need the best quality.

The unexciter is also now included -- it is very slow, but is part of what made the ABBA voices sound so human instead of that horrid Aphex Exciter sound.   There are no real docs, but it can be used once or multiple times.  The switch is --dr=0.156, and that ist the best default value.  If you need the very best quality and almost total removal of that cringing sound - use the unexciter sequentially with --dr=0.120, --dr=0.078 and then --dr=0.0135.  (Values determined experimentally.)  Just pipe multiple instances of the unexciter together.  The sound (esp voices) is incredibly improved.  Unexciter name prefix is 'unex', and just choose the best for your computer.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_softplaylists
Last post by BASGTA -
Oh damn, I got it working again for me.  My issue was I guess I disabled the media library from monitoring my drive at one point.  Making a playlist of my recently listened to, I got about 9000 tracks.  About 2000 of them are dupes.  There's also about a hundred that were "unmatched"
General - (fb2k) / Re: Suggestion for some report output boxes
Last post by Peter -
Thanks for pointing these out. As you might have noticed I'm cleaning up various listboxes across the whole app. I'll keep this in mind for the next major update. RG and Verifier dialogs are definitely candidates for full rewriting.
MP3 - General / How to install new LAME version?
Last post by drisc32 -
I apparently have an ancient one installed. I see there is one fairly new one one the rarewares site (3.100).
How do i install this? Just copy the exe & dll on the relevant directory?

Also, does the "Free encoder pack" contain up-to-date versions? Should i install it from there instead?
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018