Skip to main content
Recent Posts
General - (fb2k) / Bundling LAME with Foobar2000
Last post by gfxnow -
Just wondering why LAME is not included with foobar2000 considering that the patents on mp3 expired last year. I have no issues downloading the LAME bundle from RareWares, just asking out of curiosity :)
Vinyl / Question about the treble limits used in CDs and the vinyl rips
Last post by krafty -
Hi folks.

I have a couple of questions concerning the average level of treble in recordings because, I am noticing differences between, let's say, original UK LP's back in 1991, versus the CD version of the same era. I can feel that some vinyl rips are a bit brighter and clearer and the CD seems the treble has a limit.

a) Do CDs do have a treble limit when mastered and follow a "right" reference? And if that is so: (1) What's the standard intensity of treble on a CD, expected? (2) How can this be measured by using Audacity, for both vinyl and CD? What to expect from the CD in terms of dB intensity of treble, and vinyl? How to know if someone got a master a little bit odd? (I'm not talking about the preemphasis technics here on 1980 CDs... those are superbright)

b) Are these vinyl rips impossible to tell what's really going on because of all the analogue to digital audio conversion factors involved, like equipment and cartridge used, needles, etc. Are some needles brighter? Or is the software for post-processing the data that creates any EQ and boosts the treble? Or are these vinyl cuts really a gem of their time?

I will use an example here:
Kraftwerk - The Mix - Original UK CD vs. Original UK LP. The LP seems better. Or is it just brighter than it should and sound good to my ears but the CD is the right reference?

Certain pressings such as Tears For Fears - Songs From The Big Chair are also another hellish camp. I came across an almost perfect vinyl rip - UK original pressing -  and boy does that sound so good, the mastering is definitely different. But the Mercury UK CD is "thinner" in sound, a little bit. While the LP has a bit more bass.

Last but not least:
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.

Thanks for dropping a comment.
Support - (fb2k) / Re: %CONTENT GROUP% mapping error
Last post by incifinci -
I try to give you a logical explanation...
Thank you for your really interesting and valuable explanation. It seems to be right story. Unfortunately, 1. not fully right; 2. it only affects the surface, not the deep waves. As a result, what appears to be true, in the end became false. Half-truths are dangerous things, they deceive people.

Explanation little later, I am busy now.

So, let us go.

thomian wrote: "Unfortunately the term "content group" is a bit misleading and the description in the documentation is not very well comprehensible, too..." Exactly. On such an important question, I am sure, the fog is not a coincidence. It absolutly would not be difficult to write it simply, clearly: TIT1 is symphony, TIT2 is part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4. As thomian wrote. Instead, they continue to increase the fog. On the website they are talking about a category, not about a work (opus), as a part holder. The two are: heaven and earth, quite different. Category: similar things based on a criterion. Apple in Europe and banana in Africa, 2000 kilometers: one category - fruit. BUT THEY ARE NOT PARTS OF ONE, OF THE SAME WORK, SAME PART HOLDER. It would be: two apples on the same tree, stacked next to each other. The tree is the the WORK, the PART HOLDER.
Indeed! I shall go further. For about 20 years, I began to organize and listen to my music with billgates' windows media player. I am sure, this was the case for, at least, 50% of people. Rather, probably 80-90%. So, this is exactly authoritative. Now I do not want to have this program even for a minute on my PC, but I have been running a .xls file for a long time, for important music data, including, of course, tags. I have been writing in the past: "WMP, TIT1: Music category description". "CATEGORY" IS NOT "PART HOLDER"! Previous WMP (8?), comments in native for me hungarian: "WMP fejléc: Alműfaj. WMP címkeszerkesztő: Alműfaj." In english, about: "WMP header: Subtype. WMP label editor: Subtype".
I am going further. We must not forget: when someone starts to organize and listen his music on a computer, he will not look at's homepage. May be, he did not even hear about it in all his life. He will look at descriptions, names, and help of his player application -- WMP in our case.

Summarizing: perfectly clear, billgates told us, that the TIT1 = Music CATEGORY. AND I USED IT THIS WAY IN LAST ~20 YEARS. Please, do not tell me: billgates and did not heard about each other. Do not tell me: billgates has nothing to do with these tags. Do not tell me, that I made a mistake, and 20 years ago I should not have read the description of the WMP, but I should have telephoned all kinds of offices for different standards, and read tons of technical papers about the tags and other technical things of musical ART.

Well, that is all about TIT1 (CONTENT GROUP).

Following. Today, says something else about this, it recommends something else. What is Did they make FLAC? No -- Josh Coalson did it. But today somehow the guys have it. Did they write the best music player? No - Peter Pawlowski wrote it. Did they make the Vorbis Comments tag standard? I do not know - it does not matter. 8 year old girl can do it. "Flora, dear, come to the board! How do you describe the second white bread on the shelf? Uncle teacher, like: <TITLE> = bread, <TRACKNUMBER> = 2, <COLOR> = white." Add this simple TXT- or CSV-like info to the beginning of the music file - even I do it. This is not the discovery of DNA. This is just a standard - for which has placed its hand now. If I do not dance, as they whistle, then it is "abuse", and it "will be discouraged". (Yet without guns, I hope...) Tomorrow they might even want to say, how to put my back side on the toilet seat.

Next. I want to listen to music. What am I beginning to wonder about? What is its barcode? Who released the disc? Who mixed it? The publisher's website? Who was the first performer? NO. I am going to think about: viennese classic, or romantic? Symphony, or piano concerto? Or swing, reggae, Elvis? BUT THE ABOVE ONES HAVE THEIR TAGS - THESE ONES HAVE NOT. Symphony, concerto, chamber music or solo: NO TAG for these, FIRST LEVEL IMPORTANT categories. Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Schumann: genre is "classical". Or "oldies". Indeed, "others". As a shit in the corner. But if two guys drop the drum in the neighboring garage, there are 170 genres: Acid breaks, Bakersfield sound, Cakewalk, and so on, and so on, and so on. (Id3, and the follower Vorbis Comment guys opinion...)


Well, that is all about's recommendations.

Next. Of course, there is a need for a tag, that combines the 4 parts of a symphony. Billgates, see above, has said it consistently: TIT1 is not for this purposes. Good. Now, what is it: CD? What is it: album? Constraints - technical parameters. 40-60 minutes rooms on a vinyl LP. On a shellac: less. On a CD: 80 minutes. On the internet: 20 billion or more. At the age of Beethoven, the technical parameter was: how long can a listener sit in the same place without bothering him. That is, why a symphony is 40-50 minutes. That is, why 1.5-2 hours are operas - but with breaks.

So I decided, perfectly reasonably, that I adapt my decisions in music art not to technical characteristics of shellac, viny, CD, but rather to art itself. That is why I am not interested in, or more precisely, not just, what the publisher packed on a disc. For me: a symphony is an album. A piano concert: an album. Vivaldi, 4 seasons: 4 albums (because opus 8 contains 12 works). And I have been using such tag system for 20 years without any big problems.

But today some guys want to say me, that I am stupid, and I must to use TIT1 in absolutely other way...
And I must to rewrite all of my ~300 foobar autoplaylist, because nearly all of them use the first level important tag CONTENT GROUP. But these guys do not plan to pay for my ~1 day work...

By the way, dear Peter -- again, a hundred time written suggestion :D : human readable and editable autoplaylistes in separate files will be sooo nice...
CUETools / Re: Manually fixing a rip offset
Last post by BigBertrand -
Ok, I have fixed it by manually applying offset 48. (to confirm, I tried both -48 and +48)

Interestingly enough, AccurateRip wasn't matching with the "bad" rip, even offsetted:
Code: [Select]
[AccurateRip ID: 0010dc8f-00a07b17-ac093e0c] found.
Track   [  CRC   |   V2   ] Status
 01     [6ad7d846|1b70bc01] (0+0/4) No match
 02     [f610bde3|308faad8] (0+0/4) No match
 11     [d5ec9590|b84a3f4a] (0+0/4) No match
 12     [249d0cdf|b9977aa8] (0+0/4) No match
Offsetted by 48:
 01     [6ee04315] (0/4) No match (V2 was not tested)
 02     [1d194b33] (0/4) No match (V2 was not tested)
 11     [398b030b] (0/4) No match (V2 was not tested)
 12     [49eba09b] (0/4) No match (V2 was not tested)
... but with my "fixed" rip, it did match:
Code: [Select]
[AccurateRip ID: 0010dc8f-00a07b17-ac093e0c] found.
Track   [  CRC   |   V2   ] Status
 01     [6ee04315|1588843b] (0+4/4) Accurately ripped
 02     [1d194b33|4f97edd0] (0+4/4) Accurately ripped
 11     [398b030b|1d5aaa94] (0+4/4) Accurately ripped
 12     [49eba09b|df7b53d6] (0+4/4) Accurately ripped
(also, before verifying, I try with removing EAC log files, etc. from the folders, to not "hint" CueTools)

Long story short, my rip is fixed and I'm happy.
Scientific Discussion / Re: Help me understand why sound is one dimensional
Last post by silverprout -
All of the physical stuff being described can be modeled by a competent mechanical/electrical engineering team.  Modeled so accurately that a 'virtual' copy of the speaker can likely predict the behavior incredibly accurately (including the enviornment.)  All of the things like 'standing waves' on a speaker diaphragm are 'old hat', and can be predicted fairly well.

It is perhaps time to add a new knowledge to your personal culture... it hadn't been done yet, i would be very pleased to see one of that kind of study before my death.
In an effort to stay in touch with the topic, i can say that the sound propagation in our environement (air, room and objects) is infinitely complex and unpredictible by nature, and the 1D point of view is a good explanation for the children but not for an adult.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018