Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
General - (fb2k) / Re: Can foobar can remain partially off screen when switching from Clone > Extended?
Last post by MaxDread -
What I meant was, a single application could fix the issue for just itself, by keeping regular track of where its windows are, and tracking through system messages when the desktop layout changes, and resetting window positions after the desktop settles back into a familiar configuration that matches its previous layout.

Excellent!  Well, that's kind of what I thought you meant; I just wasn't able to explain it so well :)  The rest of the application I have are not a problem, so if foobar stops re-configuring, everything will fall into place nicely.

So that leaves the question...  Presuming that foobar doesn't do this now, how difficult a thing would it be to write into the application?  Is it something developers might take an interest in doing?  And if so, how best should I make the request?

Many thanks
2
General Audio / Re: This is a High Resolution Listening test
Last post by cliveb -
I don't do Facebook, so I downloaded it from Dropbox and also tried the attachment to your post.
In both cases, my results were as follows:

Decoding failure at 0:00.085 (Unsupported format or corrupted file)

Anyone else get this error?
3
General Music Discussion / Re: Can remastered CDs sound too different and modernized?
Last post by magicgoose -
some albums labeled as "FDR" (that's full dynamic range), when they were previously released only with a lot of compression:
Carcass — Swansong
At the Gates — Slaughter of the Soul
(for all of the above I ignored releases on non-digital mediums, of course)

Earache's "full dynamic range" series, well ... not all have higher DR. I have not scrutinized it, but I found that both Bandcamp downloads of Sleep's Holy Mountain have a DR of 13, which is the same as my 1992 CD.
So they have a "full dynamic range" remaster with no higher dynamic range ...
That's why I added "when they were previously released only with a lot of compression".
Of course some of them had no problem to begin with.
4
General Music Discussion / Re: Can remastered CDs sound too different and modernized?
Last post by Porcus -
some albums labeled as "FDR" (that's full dynamic range), when they were previously released only with a lot of compression:
Carcass — Swansong
At the Gates — Slaughter of the Soul
(for all of the above I ignored releases on non-digital mediums, of course)

Earache's "full dynamic range" series, well ... not all have higher DR. I have not scrutinized it, but I found that both Bandcamp downloads of Sleep's Holy Mountain have a DR of 13, which is the same as my 1992 CD.
So they have a "full dynamic range" remaster with no higher dynamic range ...
5
General Audio / Re: Source for objective headphone review
Last post by 16Bit Audiophile -
do IEM raw measurements need to be compensated at all for a good picture of their performance? they pretty much only interact with the eardrum, so ideally shouldn't they be simply flat on raw measurements?
Exactly the opposite, but you already found a link for explanation yourself.
If you look at raw measurements, you basically want to see a rising slope from 1 to 3 kHz that slowly falls down after. (Extremely simplified. It's a bit more complex and it also depends on the coupler you are using. Finally, every person has a different HRTF.)
However, many people do prefer a v-shape, especially boosted bass for IEMs so they can feel the bass. I think it also has to do with the volume so some added bottom-end leads to lower listening levels as shown by Fletcher and Munson. In my experience, I listen at lower volumes with IEMs than larger headphones.

In the end, IEMs are highly subjective. I do think there are some very objective approaches but the user market is just much too diverse. A perceived linear reference just doesn't achieve as high popularity as a near-field monitor would. That, for me, is the main finding of Harman referenced in the article - the target curve not so much.
6
WavPack / Suggestion/feature request: True VBR mode (fixed SNR goal) for WavPack lossy
Last post by magicgoose -
Right now one can only set a bitrate and WavPack encoder will introduce extremely varying distortion.
In can be even demonstrated by encoding a sine sweep with -x3 and lowest possible bitrate. For the most part it sounds okay, but there will be several distinct bursts of noise when the frequency goes higher up.
A reasonable lossy encoder would try to distribute distortion more or less evenly across the record — in order to not spend too much bits on the parts which have less distortion than the worst part of the record.

Given the nature of WavPack, I think something simple could do the job — for example setting a fixed signal to noise ratio as a quality goal, in dB.
For example, a quality setting of 30 dB would mean that at any short part of the record the encoder is allowed to add distortion that's up to -30 dB as loud compared to the momentary loudness of the record at this point in time, but not louder (unless some other settings, such as "pre-quantize", make this goal unreachable at this moment).

When the goal is to have predictable quality level, this will both prevent spending unnecessary bits on super easy parts, and neutralize the most notorious killer samples by spending as much bits as needed to always meet the quality goal.
7
Support - (fb2k) / Option buttons - problem
Last post by Tropoje -
I wanted to add a new shortcut to my button bar, in this case "Quick convert panel"



Unfortunately, the button does not start an option. The same option available from the context menu works fine



Can you check if this is a bug in the program ?

foobar2000 v1.4 beta 11
Windows 8.1 Pro
8
General Music Discussion / Re: Can remastered CDs sound too different and modernized?
Last post by magicgoose -
There's no universal answer. The authors do whatever the hell they decided to, and their motivation could be anything really.
In practice, most of the remasters in rock/metal genres which I have encountered were made to make the sound worse, and this is mostly about Loudness War, indeed.
But a few also were the opposite — usually when the original recording was extremely bad (that is, as almost any other recording of rock/metal made after 1994).
Notable examples of music albums which were later re-released with actually better mastering:
Ulver — Nattens Madrigal …
Agalloch — Ashes Against the Grain
some albums labeled as "FDR" (that's full dynamic range), when they were previously released only with a lot of compression:
Carcass — Swansong
At the Gates — Slaughter of the Soul
(for all of the above I ignored releases on non-digital mediums, of course)

You can also try searching on http://dr.loudness-war.info/ if you're interested in something specific.

Quote
One of the things STILL happening is that many recordings (certainly not all) are still left with DolbyA encoding.  That helps to explain for excessive compressed sound, a sense of distortion and HF emphasis.  I have decoded more than just a few CDs and digital distributions from DolbyA, and gotten audiophile results.
Any specific examples?
What software did you use to detect that it's a kind of steganographically encoded data and not a normal record?
9
Support - (fb2k) / Re: Foobar playlist jumping randomly
Last post by 6uoW -
Hello thanks.

About configuration changes i think i have registered file types, and set enqueue as default action, nothing else.



Quote
Core (2017-11-24 08:00:06 UTC)
    foobar2000 core 1.3.17
foo_albumlist.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:40 UTC)
    Album List 4.5
foo_cdda.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:36 UTC)
    CD Audio Decoder 3.0
foo_converter.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:34 UTC)
    Converter 1.5
foo_dsp_eq.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:56 UTC)
    Equalizer 1.2
foo_dsp_std.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:42 UTC)
    Standard DSP Array 1.3.1
foo_fileops.dll (2017-11-24 07:57:40 UTC)
    File Operations 2.2.2
foo_freedb2.dll (2017-11-24 07:57:34 UTC)
    Online Tagger 0.7
foo_input_std.dll (2017-11-24 08:23:10 UTC)
    FFmpeg Decoders 3.2.4
    Standard Input Array 1.0
foo_rgscan.dll (2017-11-24 08:03:34 UTC)
    ReplayGain Scanner 2.2.2
foo_ui_std.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:50 UTC)
    Default User Interface 0.9.5
foo_unpack.dll (2017-11-24 07:58:40 UTC)
    ZIP/GZIP/RAR Reader 1.8
10
General Music Discussion / Re: Can remastered CDs sound too different and modernized?
Last post by jsdyson -
The endless confusion arises, I think, from ignorance of what 'mastering' meant historically.  By the time the workflow:  multitrack tape recording --> mix down to two track 'original master tape(s)' (OMTs)-->release on stereo vinyl (LP or 45)  became routine, 'mastering' was the  step after the mixdown, and was *necessary* because tape is a higher fidelity medium than vinyl.   I.e., in order to 'fit' the signal on tape onto vinyl that could be played on typical home systems the signal on tape had to be compromised  (e.g. bass filtered and summed to mono and ; treble rolled off near the end of a 'side') .  That (and more mundane things like adjusting overall levels, track-to-track levels, fades, spacing, and sequencing the tracks)  was what 'mastering' was.  It was really 'mastering for a lower fidelity distribution medium'.  


99% of the time* the two-track mixdown master tape *was* the artist's intent.  Everything on vinyl was an attempt to get close to *that*.  The EQ moves etc that were used during vinyl mastering and cutting were typically captured in real time on another tape, the 'production master'.  This was used for repressings, so that the mastering and cutting engineers didn't have to re-create their art every time.

Since the advent of CD, or *at least* since the advent of hardware that might be better equipped to play back full-range CD signal, 'mastering' the EQ and dynamics of an analog OMT in the vinyl sense really has not been *necessary*. CD (Redbook PCM) is a *higher* fidelity medium than tape, and can handle anything in the audible band that magnetic tape can throw at it.  (Sequencing, spacing, fades etc still are mastering functions).  But mastering , in the sense of  'sculpting' what's on the OMT, was/is still done, as we all know.  Mastering for CD (or other digital medium) is done to make the tracks 'hang together'. To make them 'pop' on radio. To make them sound 'professional'.  To 'fix' something that was deemed wrong with the OMTs.  TO give them that 'final touch of magic'.  Whatever. Ask a mastering engineer today to justify his job, go to their websites and read their descriptions of what services they offer, the answers can be interesting.



Industry lore has it that much of the first wave of early-mid 1980s CD issues came from vinyl production master tapes, or tapes of even higher generation, with all the generational tape noise, and EQ moves etc, that that implies.  Hence we had a wave of 'remasters'  of the same albums in the late 80s/early 90s  trumpeting as being sourced from 'original master tapes' -- mixdown masters.   Though that didn;t necessarily mean 'flat transfer with no changes in EQ etc'  Furthermore, and very unfortunately, the 'remaster' era was soon overlapped  by the 'loudness wars' era, which arguably negated or rendered moot the sonic benefit  of OMT sourcing.  And that in turn led to yet another wave of remastering, this time in 'hi rez',  to get 'better sound , though once again there was NO GUARANTEE that the dynamics and EQ weren't altered compared to the OMT source.  This bullsh*t went on for years and now we have possibly a final iteration where places like HDtracks are having their feet held to the fire by audiophiles to deliver 'original master tape' sound as unadorned as possible.   And (for no good technical reason) in 'high res'.   However, HDtracks et al only get what the (notoriously lax) record companies deign to give them, so the wheel keeps turning.....


*A figure I am pulling out of my ass, but seriously, the exceptions I'm aware of are when some element or production move (e.g. an instrumental part fly-in, a fade-in or fadeout) was added at the cutting/production master stage...in that case the closest source to the artists's 'approved' version would be the production master tape, or the original master with those later moves re-created.


 



One of the things STILL happening is that many recordings (certainly not all) are still left with DolbyA encoding.  That helps to explain for excessive compressed sound, a sense of distortion and HF emphasis.  I have decoded more than just a few CDs and digital distributions from DolbyA, and gotten audiophile results.  The worst thing is when they take the DolbyA masters, don't decode them, and then further compress -- YUCK!!!
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018