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
11
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Dynamic Range plugin
Last post by omasciarotte -
Quote from: Treelady on
MAAT Digital obtained the rights to the DR intellectual property from Pleasaurize and immediately issued the plug-in meter as well as the off line stats generator.  LUFS may be standard, but it fails to accurately represent some genres of music, which is why DR is useful.

Yup! We are the guys who created the PMF back in the day. I was a board member along with Karl Maria Brandenburg, and my MAAT co–founder Friedemann Tischmeyer was the PMF’s creator. Friedemann is a member of the ploud group that formulated 1770. We designed and launched the DRi standard to provide an easy to understand and repeatable measurement method to represent the perceived loudness of pop music.
12
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Dynamic Range plugin
Last post by omasciarotte -
Quote from: darkflame23 on
IMHO completely unnecessary now we have True Peak, LUFS-I and PLR available natively in Foobar.

Hi Mr. “darkflame,”

The BS.1770 metrics to which you refer, True Peak and LRA (as expressed in LUFS-I; LUFS is a unit of measure) were never designed to represent subjective or perceived loudness. In a digital broadcast environment, LRA is a standardized dynamic range measurement, but it is tailored specifically for a particular purpose; the algorithmic control of playback gain to provide uniform subjective loudness across all broadcast program content. That standardized measurement is LRA or Loudness Range, and is part of the ITU-R BS.1770 family of recommendations ( as recommended by the ploud expert group) used by content providers, distributors, and hardware manufacturers to automatically reproduce all broadcast audio content at a similarly perceived loudness.

LRA was designed to reflect the deviation of loudness events primarily for broadcast applications. Unfortunately, LRA isn’t ideal for evaluating the subjective loudness of pop and other styles of music since most of recorded music happens in a range of amplitude which is explicitly ignored by the mandated LRA algorithm. LRA is a “weighted” or purposefully skewed measurement, designed to force “interstitials” or short duration content, usually advertisements, into a similar perceived loudness as that to the “program” or long–form content that surrounds them. For good or ill, BS.1770 has come to be thought of as The Path to subjective loudness control of all audio, even of music, even though it was designed to crush television commercials that were too loud.

As to Crest Factor and PLR, there is no standard measurement method. So, different manufacturer’s meters and algorithms display varying results, with each showing its own interpretation of the same audio source. As an example, many use RMS instead of Short–term LU or Loudness Units. The difference between PLR and DRi (integrated DR Dynamic Range) is simple: PLR is the difference between peak and average, and is not standardized, while DRi is always, repeatably DR. The i in DRi stands for integrated in the same way that the I in LUFS–I also stands for integrated. That is, integrated or “windowed” over time; a rolling integration. Also, DRi ignores low amplitude information, so called “background loudness,” for the sake of a more predictable measurement result. That is the opposite of LRA, which ignores the highest amplitude information. Plus, the DR algorithm incorporates additional processing for meaningful measurement of the dynamic integrity and dynamic density of popular music.

Lastly, for easy understanding and comparison, official DRi is always an integer value. Note that the Foobar plug–in does not perform either an LRA nor a DRi measurement. BTW, neither does Roon!

P.S. — True Peak or “TP” has absolute nothing to do with perceived loudness in the human perception sense, or Loudness in the 1770 sense. The human ear cannot detect True Peaks! TP was designed to prevent, by way of accurate measurement, DAC overloads and subsequent distortion due to inter–sample peaks. As with 1770 as a whole, TP is about machine behavior, not human hearing.
13
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: Lossless music stores (files!) not offering FLAC, but other lossless compressed?
Last post by Porcus -
Quote from: mycroft on
Last time i checked all >2ch music mostly was classic only.
Maybe what is released as audio-only. DVD and BluRay?

Since you mention TAK ... which needs a time capsule, but anyway: http://audiograaf.nl/losslesstest/revision%206/Average%20of%205.1%20surround%20sources.pdf
(The only that decorrelates more than channel pairs?)
15
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: Lossless music stores (files!) not offering FLAC, but other lossless compressed?
Last post by Porcus -
Quote from: guruboolez on
Tried with Qobuz on 192 Khz album:
Qobuz claim to support those four you mention, but for CDDA also WMAL: https://help.qobuz.com/en/articles/10167-what-are-the-different-audio-formats-available-for-download

Quote from: guruboolez on
I know that the 2L label (classical) also has different exotic options for file delivery:
- MQA
- flac
- mp4 (?)
- mkv
- wav

(the DXD discrete channels WAV 7.1.4 immersive only costs 80€…)
https://shop.2l.no/collections/latest-releases/products/lyden-av-arktis?variant=41448957968567
Dolby Atmos TrueHD is something I don't know. If it is high-channel Atmos (5.1.4/7.1.4/9.1.4) encoded with TrueHD (= MLP), then in the very least they are losslessly compressing more channels than FLAC can handle.
https://shop.2l.no/en-us/collections/dolby-atmos-mp4-files/dolby-atmos-truehd-in-mkv

They deliver that in MKV, as dual stream. The MP4 version of that album seems to be more conventional Dolby Atmos.

If you want to pay $52 extra to get DXD-WAVE in place of that MKV, then maybe Mr. Lindberg will drink something better than Carlsberg for dinner.

16
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)
Last post by Hakan Abbas -
This is what I use for WMA. It works without loss.
XX
I used LossyWAV in the default way. ( LossyWav.exe filename.wav )
If you mean lossless codec HALAC, I have not made any block adaptation. I don't know if this is important in terms of results or not. However, the block size I tested contains 4096 samples and does not deal with Sample Rate.
17
Other Lossy Codecs / Re: lossyWAV 1.4.2 Development (was 1.5.0)
Last post by Nick.C -
Quote from: Hakan Abbas on
I made a few experiments with LossyWAV (I used default setting). I hope the results are not deleted again.
As this is not a thread dedicated to a lossless codec other than your own, and that lossyWAV is designed to be stored in a lossless codec (that makes use of the "wasted bits" feature of FLAC), there's little likelihood of your results being deleted, IMO.

Unexpected that WMA often beats FLAC.

Also please confirm that, where possible, the lossless codec's block size has been set to the appropriate size for lossyWAV output, e.g. 512 for 44.1/48kHz, 1,024 for 88.2/96kHz, etc..
18
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: foo_scrobble
Last post by Habanero -
For standalone recordings that don't have a track_id (and instead have a recording_id), does Last.fm accept the recording_id? Or is track_id the only valid field it accepts? Would this $if work if it does?

$if(%MUSICBRAINZ_TRACKID%,%MUSICBRAINZ_TRACKID%,%MUSICBRAINZ RECORDING ID%)
19
Lossless / Other Codecs / Re: Lossless music stores (files!) not offering FLAC, but other lossless compressed?
Last post by guruboolez -
Tried with Qobuz on 192 Khz album:
- flac
- alac
- wav
- aiff
(and also MP3 and AAC)

Same choice for 96KHz album and 44.1 KHz only album.

I also bought a 352KHz/32bit album once in a small label store: it was sent as wav files in a zip archive.

I know that the 2L label (classical) also has different exotic options for file delivery:
- MQA
- flac
- mp4 (?)
- mkv
- wav

(the DXD discrete channels WAV 7.1.4 immersive only costs 80€…)
https://shop.2l.no/collections/latest-releases/products/lyden-av-arktis?variant=41448957968567

Finally, I can also mention nativedsd.com which sells DSD (mostly upsampled) even if source file are PCM:
https://www.nativedsd.com/product/alpha1056-jri-reinvere-ship-of-fools/
20
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Dynamic Range plugin
Last post by Treelady -
Quote from: darkflame23 on
Exactly, LUFS-I and PLR are industry standard measurements for perceived loudness of programme material., DR was only ever used by an obsolete component and an obsolete website.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  MAAT Digital obtained the rights to the DR intellectual property from Pleasaurize and immediately issued the plug-in meter as well as the off line stats generator.  LUFS may be standard, but it fails to accurately represent some genres of music, which is why DR is useful.  Conversely, you can have a record with wildly differing DRs but the LUFSi helps get things consistent for the client, which I'm sure you deal with.