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.
Last post by Porcus -
Rockbox.org comparison, only one single test of ADPCM, but: FLAC being 80 percent faster. Than "Intel 4-bit IMA-ADPCM (adpcm-xq)", tested on Sansa Fuze+. Is that IMA-ADPCM heavier than I thought, or just not so well optimized?
Last post by regor -
You can not have 2 playlists with same name. There are multiple warnings via popups when that happens. Also if it's "same name/different type", then its referencing itself, since a reference is matched by name.
I need the file, not a screenshot. Text is larger than the window. You can export the properties at that same panel.
If I summarize: At the moment, the possible formats of choice are:
FLAC: resampled to 48000 and 20 bit = 1000 kbps. Not bad. A few improvements over Red Book (+4000 Hz, +4bit) and decent bitrate. No fear of artifact or noise
FLAC: resampled to 54000 and 19 bit = 1000 kbps. Not bad either (+10.000Hz and +3bit over RedBook).
FLAC: resampled to 54000 and 18 bit = 900 kbps. (+10.000Hz and +2bit over RedBook).
Slight misscalculation in your table: 54kHz Samplingrate = 27kHz bandwidth = +5000 Hz over RedBook
I woulnd't use odd non standard samplingrates. There is a quite big chance that your sound-hardware isn't supporting it. To test it for support, set foobar output to exclusive mode. To playback odd rates additional resampling is required by the player or OS.
Quote from: guruboolez
I tried then 60000 Hz, 58000 Hz, 56000 Hz, 52000 Hz => output file is always 192.000 Khz. Is it a bug or a feature? Probably a bug.
By default Foobar is set to Windows "Primary Sound Driver", the "Primary Sound Driver" is resampling it to the standard samplingrate you're set up in your Windows sound settings.
Quote
Keeping 192.000 Hz is a total waste of space: no information but noise on all recordings I tried (and most of them are modern and state-of-the-art recordings from the last three years
96.000 Hz is from an perceptual point of view the same waste, but from a technical point of view the upper frequencies contains real information (but of course not audible)
As you paid a Premium for your 24/192 Files, I would go to 24/96 or 20/96 to save space and to be still in the area of peace of mind.
-Smooth Browser now has multi-select with the Shift key in addition to the Ctrl key support that was added in the previous release. -Various other Smooth fixes