@Wemppu I've had requests for selection previews in the past but have not gotten around implementing it as pretty much everything about the component(s) is designed for showing the current track, with no real way of rendering or waiting for scans for other tracks.
It could possibly be implemented if I got around to it, but I don't have any immediate solution for you. I hacked a bit on a "generate HTML report" feature for foo_wave_minibar but got stuck on the bit where I may have needed to scan new signatures as I went
In the meantime, maybe you could scan your files with ReplayGain or something, and show the track-gain value in a playlist column, to give you a hint of how loud it is. You can also configure the player to ignore or honor RG values for attenuation/amplification, which may solve the core problem of things being too loud.
The free software vb-audio cable allows to use 7.1 with EQ-APO in any case. (e.g. also when your soundcard only supports stereo for headphone playback). I strongly recommend it. Peace is in my opinion the best gui for EQ-APO and the fastet way to switch between different rooms. I also recommend it.
If you don't like to install additional software then you can still use the usual EQ-APO config file configuration.
The old pack was done for the convolver VST at a time where EQ-APO couldn't do convolution. Hence, you can call this pack a superset of the old pack including a few additional rooms and separate headphone filters.
When you follow the links in the end of the pdf you will find information about the rooms and headphone filters. So far, I had no time to do a description. The pdf was written in very short time...
Given your tests there is a decent gap in encoding speed. but it's still not much unless you got a really old CPU. but even in these cases you will spend a lot more time with EAC (Exact Audio Copy) ripping the CD's to where that extra 5-10 seconds or so per CD won't mean much. even if that was say 30seconds or so a CD it's not much.
plus, according to Porcus above there is no decoding speed hit as it's only initial encoding time that you pay a slight speed penalty.
so given what was said in here on that whole FLAC 5 and FLAC 8 thing... i would lean towards FLAC 8 unless you got a really slow CPU, which i imagine not many people are still using nowadays. but i guess on the flip side of things is that FLAC 5 (which is Foobar2000's default for the pre-setup FLAC profile in it's 'Convert' section) is barely larger in size and gives a decent encoding time speed boost.
i guess about the only time FLAC 5 would have a real advantage over FLAC 8 would be if the time savings between those two were say at least 1min or so at which time the time saved will become more valuable than the 3-5MB of hard drive space it saves going with FLAC 8.
so at the end of the day... it really does not matter whether someone uses FLAC 5 or FLAC 8 as the benefits and drawbacks are roughly the same either way(no clear cut better choice) as it boils down to whether one would rather save a little hard drive space or spend a little more time during initial encoding.
either way, you can't go wrong. but even for those who are trying to save disc space would barely see any saving there as even if you saved 5MB per CD and have 100 CD's that's still only about 1 FLAC CD in hard drive space savings and hard drive storage space is pretty cheap for a lot of it lately.
I have no idea where I got the 30MB per GB but it's much much less, I think it can go up to 30MB per GB depending on the type of music.
Yeah, just given what i have noticed on a random CD's it seems to be around 3-5MB per CD (like difference in space savings between FLAC 5 to FLAC . that's what i noticed when i use the most recent version of FLAC (Jan 1st 2017) included in the Foobar2000 Encoder Pack with FLAC 5 vs FLAC 8.
p.s. but given what i have encoded with FLAC i noticed Classical music tends to compress much better then the rest of the music i got.
Does each playlist in foobar hold an inherent song order, such as the way iTunes does? Where each song holds a specific number or value (which you can change) in that playlist alone? Where you can sort the playlist by album or artist, but then you can go back and sort the playlist according to the "playlist order"? It's kind of hard to explain this, hopefully with my explanation combined with the attached screenshot, what I'm asking is understandable. The order I am referring to is represented by the number at the left of each track in this screenshot.
The reason I am asking this question is the following:
I have just transferred my 20000-song music library from iTunes to foobar. I have dozens of playlists, and some of these playlists have thousands of tracks which are in a specific order. If I accidentally click on the "artist" or "album" tab in the playlist, it will automatically re-sort everything and lose its order. It would be ideal for me if these playlists do have an "inherent" (for lack of a more accurate term) order which I can return to (and change), like in iTunes.
If there is a way to lock a playlist's order, this would be an okay work-around, but it would be less than ideal, because anytime I unlock the playlist and want to add tracks or move tracks, there would still be that risk of accidentally clicking one of the tabs and completely losing the playlist order.