The spectrum analyser is the only visualisation that's built into Columns UI – if you had others with Columns UI before they must've been third-party components. Do you still have your old foobar2000 installation available to double-check how it was set up there?
Thank you for the reply. I do not have my old installation still. It was a few years back on my old PC. I suppose I must have been using the Default UI, but I know I had used Columns UI at some point there, I loved the way the albums and stuff had that separator between them, made the UI look a lot better. But I am most likely mistaken since this is the case. I appreciate you trying to help out on that. I might just have to sacrifice my visualizations for the vastly superior UI from Columns UI.
Last post by fabiospark -
About playback preview this is what I understand: - now it is part of main FB and not a separated component anymore - I can't customize the drop down list of lengths - I can't define a percent length
But today some guys want to say me, that I am stupid, and I must to use TIT1 in absolutely other way...
Nem hiszem, hogy hülye vagy. Thanks for your detailed explanation. I can follow your thoughts. Sorry, I did not want to offend you. To my knowledge, both, the Windows Media Player and Microsoft Groove, never supported the grouping tag. I don't think, that these players could be authoritative for this issue. Not only at Microsoft, but most software developers never realized, that some music needs a more differentiated description, than just "Artist - Song". For classical music you have to distinguish between performers and composers, between ensembles, conductors, singers and soloists. And Title description includes work and movement and for large-scale works like an opera even subsections like acts. Furthermore the opus number, and other stuff. At least four tags are essential for classical music: artist, composer, grouping & title. You have different but comparable problems with jazz music etc... The ID3tag consortium adressed all these issues by providing at least three tags for Title naming TIT1, TIT2, TIT3 and three tags for Artist names TPE1, TPE2, TPE3, which was a usable solution for nearly all cases. Unfortunately software developers never gave full support for these fields and focused on "artist" and "song". Instead they even misused some of these fields for other purposes. For example, the ID3tag consortium did not provide a field for the "album artist", so people startet to put this information into the TPE2 field, which originally was meant to hold the name of the band, orchestra or ensemble involved. foobar denied to participate in this "misuse" for a long time and mapped this field to %band% instead of %album artist%. But that's another story... For genre information the ID3tag documentation provided the TCON field, that was named "content type". No mention about genre. This about foggy descriptions of ID3tags... It's a string variable and may hold any user-defined genre, subgenre or music type of this planet.
But again... I don't want to argue, how to use the grouping field "correctly". People are free to fill it with the information they need. No need to change anything.
I just argue that %grouping% would be a better field name than %content group%, as it is more standard and practicable as explained in my previous posts. Hope that this will be fixed.
Last post by DVDdoug - CDs are "ruler flat" across the audio range and it's cheap & easy to make a flat player. There are a lot more variations in LPs(production and playback) and of course cartridges vary. With CDs you are hearing what the producer intended (within the variations of your speaker & room).
You may have a particularly bright cartridge or there could be something wrong with your RIAA equalization. Depending on your cartridge, the record, and other variations, you can also get mistracking that distorts "S" sounds. If most records sound bright compared to the CD, I'd guess it's your system.
Back in the analog-vinyl days, many/most popular/rock records were dull sounding (rolled-off highs). Classical and jazz were reputed to be better but that wasn't what I was listening to. I don't have any experience with "modern" records.
Can I downsample a 32/192 vinyl rip to 16/44.1 with no major problems using SoX (no dithering), or would it be wiser (though useless) to downsample such a high resolution to 24/96, 24/48 or 16/48 because of the even numbers of the samplerate (less complex math)? Now I'm not talking about any audible differences but wisdom to what theoretically "better" thing to do in this case.
No, "Theoretically" or "Mathematically" any frequency resampling is imperfect and irreversible. And If you were to downsample by throwing-away every-other sample you'd (potentially) get aliasing so it's not done that way... You have to filter and filtering is complex and imperfect. So there's no advantage to even-numbers.
If you just change the bit-depth that's simpler. If you up-sample from 16 to 24-bits it's perfectly reversible back to 16-bits.
Of course, practically or scientifically it makes no difference. 16/44.1 is far-far better than vinyl and the noise dominates everything. Mathematically, noise is randomness and the randomness is worse than any conversion errors/rounding.
Dither or not, it doesn't matter. At 16-bits or better you can't hear dither (or the effects of dither). If you downsample to 8-bits, dithering will probably help. Dither is (low-level) noise and, so vinyl rips are already self-dithered.
BTW - If you simply digitize twice you won't get the same "mathematical" results. (You'll get different sample values.) If you understand how sampling works you should understand why. (It will sound identical.)
I'm trying to use album_art_manager to fetch album artwork, basically it works but I have some questions regarding its proper usage. I don't need anything special regarding artwork, just the front cover based on user preferred sources.
Algorithm is the following:
Obtain metadb_handle_ptr via playlist_manager
Call album_art_manager_v2::open() to get album_art_extractor_instance
Call album_art_extractor_instance::query() to get album_art_data
Currently everything is done in the main UI thread, but I think this shouldn't be. Probably steps 2 and 3 could be moved to separate thread or only step 3?
Does album_art_manager_v2::open() always returns something (not NULL)? or should I check for such case as well?
album_art_extractor_instance_v2 also supports query_paths() method, should I try it in addition to query() to reach all possible artwork sources? Or is this done automatically?
Last post by tipar -
I wonder if there is some kind of component, apparently, Facets cannot do that although I will keep searching, that let me group the albums as if they were inside a folder named by the artist. Then click on the artist and have access to all the albums. It does not matter if it does not show the cover art, I just want to try because I have been told that Facets is buggy, because cover art takes a while to load and because I want to reduce the amount of loading cover art, the artist tends to be less in number than albums in my collection. .
I know, because I just tried, that I can do it with the Default tree viewer but I just want to know if we can do it with Facets or another component too because I want to see the library as folders with the picture of the artist, not just a tree view if possible. Regards
The environment can also be included in models. But, at a certain point, it is silly to go into more detail. There are so many kinds of environments, that a generally applicable design will work well.
All good measuring softwares that i've tested are unable to corellate the measurements and the theory, the calculated room modes are always wrong. The devil is in the details, and the lack of these details is killing the math models accuracy.
This is all about the nonsensical 'audiophile' reasoning (and pseudo-wine tasting language) vs. the real state of engineering and research. There are still alot of snake oil salesemen selling inferior product with 'personality' vs. very accurate equipment. I vote on the side of real, accurate engineering vs. the overly expensive snake oil. Too many people without real engineering backgrounds get taken in by snake oil marketing. In some cases, some of the snake oil marketing IS backed by sound engineering, but that is really kind of sad. People are being dys-educated into being idiots in the guise of pseudo-tech. Real world engineering thinking and work is where the real advances are made (or, in the case of a lot of legacy technologies -- e.g. most audio stuff), already have been made. Please refer to the rather curious love of vacuum tubes (definitely legacy, but cute technology.) It is damned hard to get really good distortion and bandwidth on tube gear, but they try (barely succeeding) -- and some make money at it, esp with the snake oil behind it. (I started designing with 'tubes' years ago -- I know what I am talking about.) My guess is that because audio (in almost all ways) has advanced almost as far as it can -- some of the marketeers who take advantage of the non-engineering-knowing people and instead look backwards. Sure -- 'adequate' quality can be had with 'tubes', but why do it? Markettering (coined word -- marketing based upon feeling instead of fact), knowing that selling goods based upon technical advantage is now nearly specious (given competent, up-to-date design.) John
The only way to go is to calculate and measure by yourself IMHO, the market is saturated of junk product and the good ones are also junk when used inappropriately.
When it comes down to it, I agree with you. It is probably impossible for even an experienced engineer to be able to 100% a-priori detect real vs. exaggerated. (I won't claim that all of the excessive claims are made about bad equipment -- just exaggerated. Not all wonderful claims are exaggerations either.)
So, IMO - you are 100% correct -- paraphrasing your main point: listen for oneself. Decide for oneself.