Skip to main content


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
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Defender -

After googling a lot it seems that for LUFS-I positive values and negative values are both used to talk about the same thing.

It seems as if %truepeak_scanner_track_lufs_i% only has negative values.
Is it correct to assume Truepeak Scanner never publishes positive values?

For display purposes I only report positive values.

I want my routine for displaying LUFS-I and PLR as flexible as possible, so when available I use Truepeak tags and otherwise fallback to RG tags.
When %truepeak_scanner_track_lufs_i% exists, I use that value otherwise I calculate it:
Code: [Select]
$puts(keyval_v,[$replace(%truepeak_scanner_track_lufs_i%,-,, LUFS,)])

Works fine and as far as I can see always gives the same result as the absolute value of %truepeak_scanner_track_lufs_i%.
It also means I can calculate/display LUFS-I if either Truepeak Scanner with/without write RG tags or foobar RG scanner has run.

I use the same function for PLR but in that case I change the first line to:

Works fine too.

The issue I'm having is don't see the truepeak equivalent for %replaygain_track_peak_db%. The tag itself is not displayed in Properties.
I know it is available when foobar RG scan has run and also when I use Truepeak scanner with writing RG values enabled. If I use Truepeak without write RG values enabled the tag is not published.

I'd like to be able to calculate PLR even as %replaygain_track_peak_db% is not available. So I would need something like %truepeak_scanner_track_peak_db% or a way to calculate this value based on the already available truepeak tags.

Is there a way to calculate this peak_db value from available truepeak tags?
Polls / Re: Sound colors of codecs
Last post by TF3RDL -
Low bitrate artifacts aren't coloration.
Refer to C.R.Helmrich post.
Oh, changed my mind (even at low bitrates, lossy compression artifacts aren't "colorize" the sound though it doesn't mean we can't use that to apply "deep fried" meme effect to audio) but what I don't get is what @Klymins actually meant by "sound color" right?
General - (fb2k) / Re: Binary Comparator version 2.0
Last post by dumbbird -
hey there, thanks for the awesome audio comparator taking gap offsets into account. I find it quite useful when i need to compare two audio tracks with different gap offsets - this tool helps to eliminate the difference caused from gap offsets and compare the actual audio.

now, on top of this, im not sure if this tool can be developed into something smarter, to be capable of doing things like:

1. when comparing two audios with different levels of track gain, to eliminate the difference caused by the gain levels and only to compare the real contents of the audio works? Or in other words, given two sets of audio tracks with different gain levels, first step to unify the gain levels, then do the comparison?

2. when comparing two audios with different play speed, to eliminate the difference caused by speed variances and compare the real contents?

I am not sure how valid and how niche these are. It's likely that we are not supposed to rely on binary comparison tools to make such comparisons. and instead, we should make use of more professional audio tools like Adobe Audition etc. to do so.
However, just wondering if there is any tools or methods that are as efficient to use as this binary comparator tool - without having to manually align the offsets/alter the gain levels/unify the play speed in professional audio tools; and be able to return a readable summary of comparison results like what binary comparator tool does.

Thanks for any thoughts/insights in advance!
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: libttaR (TTA rewrite part 2)
Last post by mycroft -
Using (old version) ffmpeg of cli tool for performance comparison is flawed and extremely biased.
Also current ffmpeg cli tool have bad performance with smaller packets due to clumsy MT work of ex-developer.
Also just to run generic build of ffmpeg for the first time takes extra time... That is just few points I wanted to emphasize how such comparison is unfair and biased.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by wojak -
@Case sorry to bother you again but could you please consider implementing PLR in your scanner. Recently you have incorporated LUFS so now PLR is the last thing we have to calculate with enormously long formula and it does not go to tags.
Thank you for this (and many other) great component.