Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Recent Posts
1
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Playlist-Tools-SMP
Last post by regor -
Your question has nothing to do with SMP or these scripts, so I would recommend you to open a new thread at the suppor forum and ask there for help. It seems you only need tagging multiple tracks with specific values, so I would say the masstagger component would help you there (which can be bound to a key shortcut).
3
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Dynamic Range plugin
Last post by Case -
I did some improvements to my DR Meter implementation, download updated version from https://foobar.hyv.fi/?view=foo_dr_meter.

I added the extra info the official component displayed to the result dialog too (per-channel DR, RMS and peak).
And I did some improvements / fixes to the DR value calculation. Turns out the official component reverts to using highest peak when the second highest peak they tell you to use is too low. I saw this causing issues with short and very quiet test signals.
The result dialog also has the dark mode improvement marc2k3 mentioned.
4
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: TSAC: Very Low Bitrate Audio Compression
Last post by neoOpus -
I had an idea, but I'm unsure if it's a viable solution to improve things further. What if we use a lossy codec with a proven track record to compress audio files, then compare the result with the original and extract the differences? We could then encode these differences using a codec like this to achieve a sort of lossless quality while reducing the required resource requirements and compression time associated with computationally heavy codecs like this one. I'm curious to know if this hybrid approach could lead to a versatile solution that offers the best of both worlds.
9
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar seems to ignore LFE channel.
Last post by Case -
The default outputs you have without any components are WASAPI outputs since foobar2000 v1.6. The ones without "[exclusive]" in the name use shared more and they resample/downmix the signal to match Windows mixer, just as the shared mode is designed to work. They won't try to play anything else. If they did, it would only result in an error.
The outputs marked "[exclusive]" send the signal to audio drivers without any alteration. If your hardware doesn't support the format you will get an error like you quoted.

The additional WASAPI component from Peter is old WASAPI exclusive mode component. You don't need it, it's for people using foobar2000 v1.5 or older.

Quote from: mzso on
Edit:
So I do get LFE with your wasapi component. But do I understand that it's outputted as stereo now?  Or was that always the case?
Your output has always been stereo if Windows mixer says you have stereo speakers.
10
General - (fb2k) / Re: Win Volume Integration
Last post by Case -
The option you are after is found at Preferences -> Advanced -> Display -> Integrate with Windows Universal Volume Control. It's a built-in feature and audioscrobbler does not affect it.