Skip to main content

Recent Posts

3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Columns UI
Last post by kode54 -
And here is the VirusTotal page for it. The scan, which I had it re-run, is the same as it was last month when it was first scanned. All negative.

Please verify your file size and SHA256 sum.
Correct. So it looks like the Default UI's playlist viewer has this flaw. Have you tested any other playlist viewers? Not explicitly suggesting Columns UI, but any other DUI compatible component, or CUI and its components. May as well see if it's a common bug, or just applicable to this one UI.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_softplaylists
Last post by fuffi -
Thank you.
Your installed Components shows:
Code: [Select]
Soft Playlists 2011-02-05 foo_softplaylists
About shows:
Code: [Select]
(C) 2009-2010 Johan De Bock

On my normal f2k installation I got "bad allocation" trying "Artist Top Tracks" or "Similar Artist Top Tracks".

On a clean install it works fine. So I tested my component with a clean install and it worked well too.... *grrrr*

Oh Lord, how I hate this 90s sh!t... Its like workin with windows95 again...

Ok, I know what to do... trying to find the component or the playlist, which causes the problem with foo_softplaylists.

Thank you for pointing me in the direction, I never wanted to go anymore....
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_softplaylists
Last post by davideleo -
I have a previous version
Do you mind to share the .dll so I can test if it is working here too ?

Sure! Unfortunately I cannot find the fb2k-component file, so this is the dll I have in my user-componets folder which has to be installed manually.
By the way, I tested the 2012 version, and it works, too.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Columns UI
Last post by samidare1234 -
Can't reproduce here. Could you post a hash of the file and do you know what version it is? Also try uploading the file to

I uploade the file to that site shows it's safe(0/65).

But In my computer , Microsoft defender detects it.

After I download the component agin from
Chrome blocked the download file by the Microsoft defender scanning .

I found that it just happen on ver 0.5.1
0.5.0 has no problem though.

Here is the screenshot.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_softplaylists
Last post by fuffi -
I have a previous version
Do you mind to share the .dll so I can test if it is working here too ?

(P.S. I accidentially found foo_bestversion to be able to do one part of what I'm looking for. A newer version is on GitHub, and not the outworn version from the foobar2000s component pages.
The component foo_bestversion uses the same contextual menu as foo_softplaylist, so it was kinda unclear for me, which contextual menu entry was from what component and which one was new and which one did not work properly.... after deinstalling foo_softplaylist, now only foo_bestversion generates playlists. sadly, it only generates lists for similar tracks of the current song or the artists top tracks. similar aritsts top tracks would generare soooo much more diversified playlists.)
I just tested on my installation, and there it is. I'm with the OP, the behavior in the example given is not as expected.
The files are not supposed to be ABX'ed, but if someone wants, feel free to do so.
Obviously different - biggest difference is the vastly larger number of tics and pops in the ELP track.
Yes, obviously different. But what's interesting is the conflicting ways that people notice the difference:

  • Arny immediately focussed on the increased impulse noise from the laser turntable. As a well-known critic of vinyl, he appears to be concentrating on what's wrong with the format.
  • OTOH, the difference that I noticed was the improved detail from the laser turntable. As someone who actually quite likes vinyl, I appear to be concentrating on an aspect that isn't something to do with the format's faults.

There's an interesting psychological difference between how we responded to these samples.

Right. I focused on the difference that was most objectively and reliably audible and quantifiable.  I counted the tics and pops that I could hear, and did that several times to ensure that I had  fairly stable numbers for each file.  I did this in FooBar's ABX comparator as randomly chosen X's, and then analyzed the ABX log to sort my tic counting runs according to the actual source.

Please tell me how you quantify "improved detail", that is reduce it to numbers that are reliable in a blind test.

Could it be that the flaws of vinyl get under Arny's skin in such a way that he can never enjoy it, whereas I can somehow "dial it out"?

Please apply what we know about experimental design. Both samples were obviously digitized vinyl. Therefore the issues you just raised are common to both transcriptions. No such conclusion can be arrived at by any means that I know of from listening to two transcriptions of what was presumably the same LP.

I was wondering - same cartridge?

Also, I know for sure based on ABX testing that the sensitivity of my ears has been seriously damaged over the past 10 years by age (the years from 60 to 70) , and during the last 2 years by chemotherapy. I'm unsure that enough of hearing is left to have relevant opinions about more subtle things like improved detail.  I still have enough hearing left so that I enjoy music, but that is about it.

At my age I'm pretty happy tostill be able to  hear tics and pops. Some friends  my age can't. :-(

Finally, "Improved detail" and tics and pops are AFAIK orthogonal. They can be independent properties of an audio file, particularly if a particularly good job of removing tics and pops is used before the recordings are compared as related to detail.

I didn't go that far. I might, later on. I notice others have been kind of bowled over by the ELP's greater sensitivity to tics and pops, which is apparently scientifically explained, and widely perceived. At this point we even have ABX test evidence to go on. BTW I'd nominate the difference for something that really doesn't need an ABX test to reliably perceive. IMO it is so bad as to be distracting.

Please note that no way did I say that the only audible differences between the files were the tics and pops. I just said the tics and pops  were the most obvious to me. Anybody want to read my mind and argue with that statement? ;-)

I'll  leave the head shrinking that may come to mind to the readers, given the more complete explanation of the test. ;-)
General - (fb2k) / Re: Japanese to Romaji translate
Last post by jellyfishese -
My searching finds nothing, which doesn't surprise me. Japanese is a complicated language, each kanji can be pronounced in several completely different ways depending on context, so it's not a simple as saying 空=sora (it could also be a, kara, su, muna, kuu).

You're better off having another tag for romaji/translated titles and translating them yourself.
Thanks for explaining, but there is a problem that I can't add tags to tracks, because it changes hash checksums of my torrents. In order to add tags I need to make double copy of music libriary for torrents and for myself which is kinda stupid.
I can only  provide some of my old personal tests.

48 kbps.

Warning: This was Opus 1.2 early alpha. 1.2.1 final version contains some very important improvements.
I compared it with FhG HE-AAC (latest Winamp) encoder which was the best encoder at 32-48 kbps according to my internal tests (until Opus 1.2 has appeared)

Opus 1.2 early alpha - 3.68
FhG HE-AAC - 3.41

Code: [Select]
01 Castanets 2,5 3,6
02 fatboy 2,6 4,5
03 eig 2,6 4
04 bachrprichord 4,1 3,6
05 enola 3,8 3
06 trumpet 4,1 4,1
07 applaud 3,7 3,4
08 velvet 2,7 2,8
09 linchipin 3,5 3
10 spill 4 3,5
11 female speech 4,3 4,8
12 french ad 3 3,9

Average Score 3,408 3,683

32 kbps.
Again, only Opus 1.2 alpha results. Not final 1.2.1.
I have compared to FhG HE-AACv2 again but now at ~32 kbps VBR. 
Opus 1.2 alpha - 3.22
FhG HE-AACv2 - 2.92


P.S. You can make your own tests and  share them here.