Last post by nintendoeats -
I have been working on a bunch of audio mods for XCOM 2, and recently I moved into music packs. UE3 requires WAV files, which is extremely unfortunate because it means increased RAM, storage and network consumption for users.
To this point I have been analyzing each file manually in Audacity and downsampling it to 22050 if there is not a significant amount of information above 11KHz. However, as I have become more ambitious I have begun working with more and more files. My current project has a little under 60, my next one is likely to have hundreds.
Given that I am really not looking forward to manually analyzing hundreds of files, I'm wondering if there is a tool that will do this automatically. Even something that could compare two spectrum analyses and discard one of them would do it (since I could downsample everything and then ask it to decide if the new file sounds the same as the old one). Any thoughts?
Agreed, if more than one listening seat is involved.
It has nothing to do with seats and everything to do with mono (one sub) having zero chance of reproducing inter-aural spatial effects/lateralisation etc, as has been covered many times here, including many AES links by your truly. Einstein rules of insanity applies.
All. Nearfield = zero modal problems at seat. Nothing to "correct" (and/or "incorrect" elsewhere). Only issue might be phase due to propagation delay vs the mains, but the lower you cross, the less that matters as the low pass filter of the sub will automatically introduce a delay...and it will all appear in the frequency domain at given crossover, so easily measured (though not necessarily heard, depending on Q of any notch).
We can consider two questions: whether one sub in a system is better than none, or whether multiple subs are better than one. An auxiliary issue would be, are the main speakers 'full range' or not?
The 2006 Wilson/Meridian review that you cite considers the literature of multiple subwoofers versus one (and to a degree, full range mains versus limited mains). It doesn't really consider none vs one, which was something I addressed above. The OP thinks 1 sub in a stereo setup is 'sounds wrong' but I would say it's likely better than no sub, given that it offers more flexibility in locating the LF source (that said, the OP's personal situation appears to preclude most locations, and it could be that his limited placement options 'sound wrong', but many factors could be in play ) . I don't question that multiple are likely to be better than one, assuming flexibility in placement.
The paper reviewed what we knew in 2006 about how to provide uniform bass across a listening area (i.e., taming modal issues) and how to provide low-frequency spatial information ('stereo bass' -- i.e, a system where subs are receiving different signals). I don't see in it a recommendation for nearfield subwoofer placement. It does favor multiple subs for addressing both issue -- at least two to allow 'presentation of spatial information' . If anything , the review appears to find the most promise in a system with 5 full-range loudspeakers + DSP.
It is however unclear to me from that review whether 'stereo bass' matters in typical-sized consumer rooms. It's not something that gets cited a lot as a 'must have', even now 12 years later. (For decades during the analog era, bass was 'summed to mono' in commercial releases anyway. ) If it *is* a goal, then we need at least two LF sources and they need to have some left-right side-to-side separation. I certainly don't dispute that. But I'm honestly not sure I have ever really experienced 'stereo bass' in a home setup. I'm curious to do so.
I haven't read all the cited references, except for the Welti/Harman-originated ones I'm familiar with from years ago.
Last post by nintendoeats -
I too love my AKG 702s. However, I think you could make a real case for the Etymotic ER-4s being the best all-around headphones of all time in the history of ever (or maybe not).
Last post by Case -
No handles are open to the directories here. Do you have the issue immediately after starting foobar2000 or perhaps after using some component? If the issue isn't present instantly you could use Process Monitor to see when it happens to possibly find a component causing it.
Is the M: drive some special network share? I have only tested with local NTFS volumes.
Last post by Case -
It's a core feature. When you enable the setting near the end of a track with a long output buffer the core is already working on the next track. I think this has been brought up before and Peter wasn't interested in altering the behavior here.
Last post by Deathcrow -
I've always been curious about the impact of this setting. How much is "slightly lower" quality? By how much would I need to increase my bitrate (percentage wise) if I decrease complexity by half.
I don't understand why there should be a compilation error, particularly as the amazon-audiobooks-com.boo script doesn't have PageEncoding anywhere in it.
Thanks. I now had a look an the script and there was PageEcoding in it. During install of 1.,03 I had not checked this script and there must been an older script with PageEcoding that remained in the folder. After checking the scripts to install all is fine.
Last post by AlexVallat -
I don't understand why there should be a compilation error, particularly as the amazon-audiobooks-com.boo script doesn't have PageEncoding anywhere in it. The only script with a PageEncoding in it is amazon-mp3-com.boo. That one doesn't cause compilation errors for me either, but had stopped returning results, so I've uploaded a fixed version of it.
Last post by Artie -
My favorite is a tie between my Sennheiser HD 280 Pro's and my BeyerDynamic DT 770 Pro's. Both are excellent but the Senn's have a little more bass "punch". I think the Beyer's are more accurate, while the Senn's are more fun. If that makes any sense.