Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

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
21
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Dynamic Range plugin
Last post by omasciarotte -
Quote from: foobrik on
Someone needs a simples dynamic range meter, with the ability to record a log file. + truepeak does not show rms and peak

Our DROffline and DROffline MkII are the two successors to the original TT-DR Offline from way back when. DROffline, now in version 2.2.2, is a modern version of the original. DROffline MkII includes all the original functionality plus BS.1770, PSR and the ability to handle FLAC and ALAC. You can find more info on the MAAT.digital website.

The original TT-DR Meter could not measure DRi, it could only estimate. DRMeter MkII can measure.
22
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Case -
Quote from: Defender on
Because scanning with 0.6.8 seemed a lot slower than scanning with 0.6.7 and I was wondering if that was because of the extra LUFS-M/S scanning
[...]
Does this make any sense to you?
LUFS-M / LUFS-S scanning seems to be the reason. I use the libebur128 library for LRA scanning and also for LUFS-M/S. Seems that the extra work required to split the incoming data at precise 100 ms chunks to be fed to the library also hurts LRA scanning speed.
23
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Case -
Quote from: Defender on
After googling a lot it seems that for LUFS-I positive values and negative values are both used to talk about the same thing.
That would be wrong, they are very much different things.

Quote from: Defender on
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 very loud tracks the LUFS-I will be positive. When ReplayGain gain shows -18.00 dB LUFS-I will be exactly 0 LUFS. For louder tracks the LUFS-I will be positive.

Quote from: Defender on
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?
I'm certain there are some titleformat monstrosities posted on these forums that estimate dB value from floating point numbers from the old days. In theory the component could expose a global titleformat string that calculates and exposes this, but I'm not liking the idea at all. It's better to tag things in RG tags and leave hacks out.
26
General - (fb2k) / Re: Old 1.x versions usage
Last post by Peter -
New updates have been published.

Highlight of the day is that all of 1.5 stable had unintended SSE2 CPU requirement and we didn't notice until now.
It was inflicted by VS runtime update, introduced shortly after testing late 1.5 beta on a Pentium 2.
This has now been sanitized, foobar2000 1.5.12 has been verified working on Athlon XP machine from 2003.
27
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_truepeak True Peak Scanner
Last post by Defender -
@Case

Because scanning with 0.6.8 seemed a lot slower than scanning with 0.6.7 and I was wondering if that was because of the extra LUFS-M/S scanning, I've done some more testing.

I tested version 0.6.7, 0.6.8 with the same scanning options enabled and 0.6.8 with also LUFS-M/S enabled.
Testset is regular FLAC8 44/16 2ch, SACD DST64 2ch&6ch and DVDA MLP 96/24 2ch&ch.

See the attached image.
Scanning with 0.6.8 is as I already suspected quite a bit slower than 0.6.7 and the extra scanning for LUFS-M/S makes no difference in scanning speed at all.
Scanning of normal files is 2x faster and scanning of DVDA is 3x faster in 0.6.7.

Does this make any sense to you?
28
News Submissions / [OPEN SOURCE] FrAD: Fourier Analogue-in-Digital (Analogue Audio Archive Codec)
Last post by forart.eu -
Sounds more like a "wannabe" than a concrete project, but some (Archivist Licensed) source code seems available:
Quote
Fourier Analogue-in-Digital is an uncompressed codec like WAV or AIFF rather than FLAC or ALAC. Unlike WAV or AIFF, which store PCM, FrAD stores energy density per frequency.

FrAD is a codec that nobody owns, nobody patents, and is standardised in so much detail that anyone can easily implement it in any language, even if the original implementation is lost. It also supports tags, cover art, and sequential search, and the original implementation can be supported by any OS on any machine that supports Python.

The main difference between any other formats and FrAD is its resilience to corruption and robustness. For many audio files that are branched fron PCM, even a flip of a bit or two can result in popping noise, failure to play the corrupted frame, or even the loss of all subsequent audio information. FrAD, however, provides robust error recovery such that sporadic flipping of a few bytes is not even a concern.

Goals of FrAD (more)
  • Preserving analogue waveforms intact in digital file.
  • Ensuring the analogue waveform remains intact even if the file is corrupted
  • Making all data frames work independently

Website: https://mikhael-openworkspace.notion.site/Fourier-Analogue-in-Digital-d170c1760cbf4bb4aaea9b1f09b7fead
Format specs: https://mikhael-openworkspace.notion.site/Format-specs-727affae8db043f2b50372d91d534368
EN FAQ: https://mikhael-openworkspace.notion.site/FAQ-EN-51a2c395aafa46bf87febe615bad3a22
Git: https://github.com/h4n-ul/Fourier_Analogue-in-Digital

Dev help request: https://github.com/h4n-ul/Fourier_Analogue-in-Digital/issues/1
30
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Dynamic Range plugin
Last post by foobrik -
Quote from: darkflame23 on
Quote from: foobrik on
Quote from: darkflame23 on
Does the True Peak Scanner now make this DR component redundant?
No 8)

What are the features of this DR component which are not included in the new True Peak Scanner then?
Someone needs a simples dynamic range meter, with the ability to record a log file. + truepeak does not show rms and peak