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.
Topic: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range (Read 80716 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range

Reply #50
People need to understand what they're talking about before they post some of the things they post.

DR RMS value doesn't match another software's value.  Answer: most software engineers don't know anything about music and use the RMS calculations presented in their college textbooks.  Meanwhile, the Audio Engineering Society has released standards regarding measurements specifically relating to recorded music.  Pro-audio-based titles follow the AES guidelines, which are about 3 dB different than the electrical engineering measure.  (The reason is the AES standard considers only the musical content where the EE standard will include factors that skew readings for music.) 

The Pleasurize Site isn't professional.  - Yes, it's defunct, but that group was originally funded out of one engineer's pocket.  It was never a company.  Donations funded the coding.  

MAAT Digital now codes and owns the DR-meter.  Although I do not believe there is any Foobar2000 support, which is regrettable, but understandable.

Off Line DR and Online don't match - let me know when you get a good answer for this, because they should be very close. I can see why that would drive people up a wall.  There were some issues between the offline and online versions of that software, so it's likely those gremlins made their way to the Foobar2000 versions, too.



Re: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range

Reply #52
It would be cool to integrate/update the foo EBU R218 meter:
- https://github.com/stengerh/foo_r128meter

Some - maybe inspiring - resources:
- https://github.com/magicgoose/simple_dr_meter

- https://github.com/dakeryas/deadbeef-dr-meter
- https://github.com/melchiorrecaruso/audiometer
- https://github.com/rtsurik/audacious-dr-meter-plugin
- https://github.com/csteinmetz1/pyloudnorm (metering part, of course)
- http://dr14tmeter.sourceforge.net/

Hope that some dev will consider...
F.O.R.A.R.T. npo


Re: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range

Reply #54
Off Line DR and Online don't match - let me know when you get a good answer for this, because they should be very close. I can see why that would drive people up a wall.  There were some issues between the offline and online versions of that software, so it's likely those gremlins made their way to the Foobar2000 versions, too.

No one on this thread was reporting an Offline vs Online mismatch.  Reported here was a mismatch between the foobar plugin and the Pleasurize Offline TT Meter (so, both 'offline').  And the reason turned out to be that the Offline TTMeter had a bug : it was being thrown off by embedded tags or art.  When those were removed, the reading generated by the foobar plugin and the TTMeter were the same.  See page 1 of this thread.

I don't know if the online TTMeter (long gone) had that bug, and I haven't checked if the MAAT DR meter still has that bug. 

Re: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range

Reply #55
One thing that has been noted elsewhere   is that the foobar plugin (including v1.1.1, final version) accepts multichannel files as input-- which it shouldn't, because such files often have channels that have intermittent or low level content or are simply empty, causing absurd readings.  

The offline MAAT DR meter only accepts 2 channel files.  I don't recall if the old TTMeter was the same, though I expect it was. 

 

Re: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range

Reply #56
In Preferences/advanced/tools/DRM/threads priority set up 4 cores, but scanning so long an it loads CPU only 30%, all track lie on ssd. Why CPU does not loaded 100%?

 

Re: [not my release] foo_dynamic_range

Reply #57
In Preferences/advanced/tools/DRM/threads priority set up 4 cores, but scanning so long an it loads CPU only 30%, all track lie on ssd. Why CPU does not loaded 100%?
This option has nothing to do with threads count or/and cores quantity. Thread priority is thread priority, not threads count. You can set maximal value - 7. This way it will be slightly faster.