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
2
Opus / Re: Can anyone reliably ABX OPUS at 160kbps?
Last post by lovecraft -
I can't even abx it at 60kbps :) Seriously, i had to go down to 50 to actually hear something to bother me. I know that my ears are old, but back in my heyday, when mp3 was the only show in town, i had to go up to 192kbps to make it transparent to me. Of course, compared to the wav files we have extracted from our clunky CDs, a 192kbps mp3 album meant a lot of storage space saved, it was like night and day. So yeah, the storage is cheap today but it is still fun to see "how small this thing could get without me noticing it" :)

So in my case, 96kbps is more than transparent. Absolutely. Opus is really something. Or i lost most of my hearing :)
3
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_youtube
Last post by DVS -
I checked this on a couple of different computers and on both, the same result. The monitor turns off when playing a youtube video. I think the computer configuration has nothing to do with it.
4
CUETools / Re: How To Rip SACDs to DSD files?
Last post by Porcus -
my bad, yeah it's the 2004 remaster
OK, then actually: if you don't have the hardware to rip it - one of those PS3s or Blu-Ray players - then it might be a better idea to get it in PCM.

DSD isn't really well suited for consumers, it spits lots of ultrasonic noise down your playback chain. Hardware SACD players filter that away in their analog stage. This ripping procedure does not. (Converting to say, 48 kHz PCM will filter it away. But then, going by way of DSD is an unnecessary step.)
5
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Columns UI
Last post by musicmusic -
@Eva1 I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you mean. I can see a crash report relating to auto-hide functionality from this morning, but I'm guessing that was not from you as it was submitted some hours after your post.

If you are experiencing a crash, submit the crash report and confirm the time it was submitted (or post the crash log and dump here). If you have some steps to reproduce the problem, make a screen recording (for example, using ShareX) and post it.
7
FLAC / Re: FLAC 1.5.0 Pre-Releases
Last post by ktf -
Yes, I understood that. The thing is, I wanted to do a 'proper' release candidate, where no hacking of CMakeLists.txt was involved, which does not seem possible. So I'll just release FLAC 1.5.0 anyway.
8
FLAC / Re: FLAC 1.5.0 Pre-Releases
Last post by john33 -
I'm no cmake expert, but I think the problem is in your 'CMakeLists.txt' file:
Code: [Select]
project(FLAC VERSION 1.5.0-rc1"
From what I can gather, cmake won't permit anything other integers and '.'s in the VERSION tag. I deleted the '-rc1' text and then edited the config.h generated and added that to the PACKAGE_VERSION. It then compiled with the correct version string.
9
FLAC / Re: FLAC 1.5.0 Pre-Releases
Last post by ktf -
I wanted to do a proper release candidate, but CMake wouldn't let me, so I'm planning to release 1.5.0 next week.