Last post by Nojevah -
I've tried 1.0.0 alpha 2. Not because I needed it, but just to verify nothing was broken, and I can confirm all is working well.
I don't know if you are still interested by requests, but I have 2:
The first is to Add a toolbar panel called "Menu button" (for example). For now, if you insert toolbar panel "Menu", it will display "File Edit View etc." horizontally and I think it's a waste of space since I barely use it. I'd prefer to have a menu button called for example "Menu" and when I click on it, it would display Foobar2000 menus, like this:
Menu (and when clicked:) -> File -> Edit -> View -> etc.
The second request is very minor, and maybe you can't do anything about it since it appeared a long time ago after a Foobar2000 update: would it be possible to get rid of this tooltip in preferences page: "This is a legacy preferences page. Any changes will most likely take immediate effect regardless of OK/Cancel/Apply commands." But it's very minor, since I go there once a year.
Last post by Gadgety -
I just upgraded to v1.4 and also installed the following components: ABX comparator, Columns UI, Deskband Controls, Facets, Foobar 2000 Advanced Controls, Subwoofer, foo_upnp, and VST 2.4 adapter. Today Foobar was blocked by Microsoft Security Essentials when I tried to run it.
Previously I had v 1.3... VST 2.4 and Subwoofer, not showing anything in MSE.
I realize I can uninstall components and try my way by testing after having removed each component to see which one that might have created this response from MSE. However, does anyone know of components or versions of Foobar2000 creating this response from MSE?
Last post by ofboir -
Hi Thank you all for your answers !
I'm getting a little lost with all this ... I don't know if the problem comes from replaygain or the Opus codec itself. The thing is, changing the software for playing Opus files is not possible for me : my lossy files are for my DAP (Sansa Fuze, running Rockbox v3.14)
There's actually a library (libopusenc) that can do sample-accurate perfect glitchless (you could split a song in 1 millisecond chunks and still not hear anything wrong), but right now I'm not aware of a tool using it.
Is that this one ? https://github.com/xiph/libopusenc If so, will compiling this source code give me a different opusenc solving my issue ? Or just a library that I should use in my own custom opusenc ? (no idea how to do it, though)
Last post by Gadgety -
I'm trying to link your crossovers with known names. The classical is a modified Linkwitz-Riley if I remember correctly. I found a few pages of Douglas Self's book on active crossovers online. He names a lot of crossovers by their creators (perhaps you'll be in the next edition). Of your crossovers would you know if any of them correspond with any of the following names (and if so, which):
Le Cleac'h Kreskovsky Duelund Butterworth Bessel Harsch
In the book he also discusses the types of crossover filters.
The first distinction Self makes is all pole vs non-pole, where an all poles have montonic roll-offs, meaning that once the response starts going down, it continues down. Non poles may come back up again, as in notch filters. Your filters are all pole.
The next distinction is symmetric vs asymmetric as in having identical vs non identical slopes of both sides of the crossover. All of your filters are symmetric, showing identical slopes on both sides.
The next distinction Self makes is between all pass vs constant power vs constant voltage filters. All pass is a filter that sums the filter outputs in front of the loudspeaker to create a flat frequency response, aka amplitude, or SPL, or voltage response, on axis. All pass refers to the phase response with the phase of a first order all pass filter changing 180 degrees over the audio band, whereas a second order all pass filter phase changing 360 degrees across the audio band. The constant power crossover output filter sums the filter "...in front of the loudspeaker to create a flat frequency response in terms of power rather than in terms of SPL", that is it sums the total radiated power of both on-axis and off-axis response. This doesn't give a flat on-axis frequency response. The constant voltage crossover filter subtracts the output filter from the input, and when summing dual outputs a reconstructed linear phase waveform response is produced. The constant voltage filter shows a 6dB/octave output, regardless of the filter slope. I believe this is what your filters produce.
Self also discusses first-order crossovers stating that it is the only type that can accomplish linear phase, minimum phase and flat frequency response, hence it is the only type that allows a waveform to be accurately reconstructed when summing a high frequency and low frequency signal paths. The shallowness of the first-order crossover slope of 6dB/octave requires that the loudspeaker drive elements can handle at least 2-3 octaves above and below the cross over frequency.
I wonder why a recording engineer wouldn't rather use a tool that magnifies errors so they can be detected (and diagnosed) immediately.
Because errors that are close to be non-intrusive (for most assumed listeners) take time to be removed. And in the field time is money so they leave it to the mastering engineer who will probably have suitable tools to remove noise, distortions, etc.
I as a mastering engineer will master on neutral gear and test on non-neutral gear after I'm done. Noise usually is one of the more lesser concerns for me (unless it's very loud). I usually look for a balanced frequency response (respective to music genre), dynamics a smaller speaker can handle and good mono compatibility.
Last post by PleasantSounds -
Neither DUI nor CUI lets you desingn the look & feel without compromises. You pick the one that gives you the more of what you are after while not getting too much in the way.
In terms of functionality, for me the DUI comes close enough. I don't feel restricted as far as the choice of components supporting the functionality I want is concerned. The tradeoff is look & feel of the entire application which is more restricted. In particular the design choice of reusing some of the standard Windows controls is impacting our ability to design slick looking user interfaces.
CUI does not have this problem to that extent, but the penalty is that a lot of stuff needs to be hand crafted. Fb2k generally has the weakness of requiring more configuration than a typical user can take. CUI takes this to the extreme, especially if one wants a slick looking and feature rich interface.
Those comfortable with a bit of coding and graphics design can take either UI quite far, but I feel that some of the operations are much harder than they need to be.