Skip to main content
Recent Posts
Opus / Re: Opus 1.3-rc2
Last post by jmvalin -
When  final release will be ready?    O:)  ( joking)

Actually, the only reason this release was called -rc2 instead of 1.3 is that we've enabled a few things by default (delayed decision, extra checks, ...) and wanted to make sure they're not broken. The final 1.3 will be out as soon as we're confident enough that there's nothing bad in -rc2.
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Columns UI
Last post by musicmusic -
@musicmusic : Thanks for all the work on CUI! I've tried using the latest v1.0.0 version and wanted to share a bit of feedback - in the preferences menu there a lot of space taken by the sub-headers on the page and a lot of unused space in general.

Most obvious example is the Layout page:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
- A lot of space is taken by the "Layout" text, which could be otherwise used for displaying the layout tree.
- A lot of empty space is on the right side of the layout tree (i.e. where all checkboxes are): the checkboxes could be safely moved further on the right.
Is that your actual layout? I would expect that pushing those controls further to the right would move them further away from the items in the tree view for the majority of people, which wouldn't help usability. The layout tree view is actually slightly larger than it was in previous versions, if you still need a bigger one I'd argue that the best way to achieve that would be a resizeable preferences window (although, I accept the chances of that happening for the preferences window managed by the foobar2000 core are slim...)

And a small suggestion: is it possible to add ability to mark panels with labels in the layout tree (e.g. "Panel Stack Splitter (Library Switcher)", or "JScript Panel (Menu)")? It's getting a bit hard to organize the panels when there are a lot of them, and all their displayed names are the same...
I could make it display a custom title instead if one is set. (Not all splitters support custom titles for contained items, though.)
Opus / Re: Opus gapless and glitchness encoding
Last post by ofboir -

Thank you lvqcl for your answer !

I tried what you suggested, but it doesn't seem to work :
If I split a temporary 48kHz file, I get a bad splitting (doesn't correspond to actual tracks). I got this by splitting to flac files, or directly to opus files with on-the-fly encoding. I used shnsplit for this.

I also tried to directly cut a single 44.1kHz flac file to opus files (again with on-the-fly encoding) : the splitting is correct, but I still get the glitch !

I should try to cut opus file after encoding with ffmpeg (like suggested by the post you mentioned), but how could I do this using a cue sheet ?
One other thing : how could I transfer tags from my initial flac files to the final opus files ? I loose them as soon as I create a single file ...

I am really starting to think I will give up with Opus. Am I really the only one having this issue ? Or maybe caring about it ?

3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Linear Phase Subwoofer
Last post by E.Sokol -
Thank you for this outstanding plug in!!
Hi, thanks for reply - you make me very happy!

Additional names for the filters such as their db/octave or "Linkwitz-Riley" etc
"Linkwitz-Riley" identical to "Classic" filter. I named it to "classic", because it draws by another formula at logarithmic scale and parametrized by another concept. I don`t like db/octave regulator, because it reflect physical realization with discrete steps.

A dual ms/distance scale for the delay
Yes, i think about this.

* A version of delay adjust for when multiple subs are used and they are not equidistant to the main speakers/listener.
* In addition, I understand this is mono signal for the sub channel, could it be made into stereo?
In first versions i made a support of second sub with independent delay and volume, but remove it later. Two reasons: it make using of plugin harder and no one use it. I plan to make independent plugin for this at future, if anybody need it. You can use Matrix Mixer (or some another) yet.

If I unsync L/R there will be some influence on the total cross over frequency/timing curve. I guess this influences phase?

Unsync mode is just simple equalization, no other side-effects.

The adjustable FIR lengths, which I assume is the same as "filter taps" (please correct me if I misunderstand) enables a balance between resource usage, the time it takes to process and quality. If I set it to max, the 700 ms, I assume this will render the highest resolution in the bass. Is this correct?

No, more taps no make higher resolution, it needs only for "brickwall" filtering and some peoples who like big taps. 700 ms = 32768 taps at 44.1 kHz samplerate. For example, the impulse response of "Soft" filter at 100Hz with width=2:

SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018