Surely everyone can hear tones below 20Hz? The buzz of machines like refrigerators? The hum of traffic? Airplanes, etc? Most urban areas are saturated with these irritating frequencies, and I hear them all day long. Am I really so unusual?
If I play 20Hz in Audacity, it's very loud, clear, and easily perceived. It fades in strength as I go down through the teens, down to 9Hz, which is feint, but I can definitely still hear it. I wasn't able to hear 8Hz, but I was listening in a noisy environment and haven't done much testing. Plus, my ears are pretty blocked up with wax and I have tinnitus, so I wouldn't say my hearing was good anyway.
At the upper end, I can't hear much above 10Hz. So to me, the claim that humans can hear 20Hz–20kHz seems perfectly correct if you halve it!
1.3RC1@13.2kbps is on par with 1.2.1@16kbps on speech.
That's 20% of bitrate reduction. Similar bitrate reduction is observed on higher bitrates (16-40+ kbps)
I was briefly playing around with a speech file I got online (my original copy is a 87kbps VBR MP3(tool in Foobar2000 says 'Lavc56.28')) with v1.3RC vs v1.2.1 I noticed I could lower from 14kbps to 13kbps with v1.3RC and things seemed pretty much the same but going to 12kbps and there was a noticeable hit. although bit rates did not exactly scale down the same from 14kbps to 13kbps to 12kbps...
selected bit rate = actual bit rate...
12kbps = 12kbps (noticeable hit to sound quality vs the two below)
13kbps = 14kbps (seemed to be similar to the setting below)
14kbps = 15kbps (seemed to be similar to the setting above)
basically v1.2.1 @ 14kbps (15kbps real bit rate) is better than v1.3RC @ 12kbps (12kbps real bit rate) on the speech file I tested as the main thing is the v1.3RC @ 12kbps is more muffled where as the v1.2.1 @ 14kbps is not (like the v1.2.1 file @ 14kbps sounds closer to the 87kbps MP3 source file than the v1.3RC @ 12kbps does). is this to be expected?
p.s. this was all done on my Klipsch Pro-Media speakers on the PC with Foobar2000 v.1.3.19.
What I should have written is that this project will not build without the use of some proprietary tools (which I won’t be making public). Having said that - I could re-write that dependancy out - that is what I meant when I wrote “but that may change in the future”.
I want to thank those who are using Norton for getting over that hurdle. It seems that my some parts of PoQStacker’ processing irritate it. This is interesting article I found on Norton’ website:-
If you have any questions I’m happy to answer them as best I can.
Another unique feature of PoQStacker - I have a split audio visual system (my amplifier, TV, BluRay are independent units) with each unit having dlna capability. Occasionally, I like to play my music via the TV (or BluRay) so I get to see the Album artwork. PoQStacker allows me to split the dlna control so the Play controls “Play”, “Pause” commands go to the TV, and Audio controls “Volume”, “Mute” commands go to the amplifier...
I.e. a low-latency (minimum latency?) codec.
I was under the impression, that both LDAC and aptX-HD not only produce high-quality output and being low-latency, it is also geared towards proper framing of the Bluetooth layer. Or is that aspect contained in being low-latency?
The question kinda arises why these high quality Bluetooth audio codecs exist in general, is it so we can connect a HD-audio source to a home stereo system or something?
In case of LDAC, it goes up to 24bit at 96kHz, at almost 1Mbit/s. This seems to me a bit overkill for bluetooth applications (unless there's a specific case which I'm unaware of). How do these two compare (aptX vs. LDAC), in terms of quality, bitrate, and latency? Is one more efficient than the other? I.e. assuming the same quality, is one or the other giving us better latency and lower bandwidth or something? Or perhaps is one more efficient in terms of decoding power than the other, so it saves battery life?
Harking back to Op's question, LDAC might be the better solution for him (notwithstanding the fact that a bt-boombox and outside environment isn't the best listening environment, etc).
Are there lossless codecs available for Bluetooth streaming?
(Use this Title-format-Referencing as a Automatically-Fill-Values and from the namingschemes (3-total) you've provided it will provide you with respective tracknumber via %filename% which you can then use to correct your %tracknumber% tag-error)Code: [Select]$puts(myvar,$trim($substr(%filename%,0,$strchr(%filename%, ))))$ifgreater($strchr($get(myvar),-),0,$puts(myvar,$substr($get(myvar),$add($strchr($get(myvar),-),1),$len($get(myvar))))$ifgreater($strchr($get(myvar),-),0,$puts(myvar,$substr($get(myvar),$add($strchr($get(myvar),_),1),$sub($strchr($get(myvar),-),1))),),)$get(myvar)
Genius! This definitely helped a lot and it's proven effective. This is a reminder on how powerful Foobar2000 can be. I'm now able to replace all %tracknumber% via my filenamingscheme properly.
Now,... I don't think i'm going off topic by hopefully being able to have a way to find all files within my library that isn't formatted in (see below), so that way I can overview all tracks that isn't imported with this filenamingscheme: