Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
Does anyone know where I can get a standard working version of foo_playlist_revive or know how to install foo_playlist_revive as a .dll file?  If not, does anyone know how I can manually update filepaths for specific tracks?  I've tried editing the Properties tab in the Properties window, but even though I can select the filepath, I'm unable to change it.

I'm using the 1/12/2018 version of foobar2k on Windows 8.
2
Okay, redownloaded and reinstalled it again and this time, it worked perfectly. Thanks so much.
3
We've been talking more or less about the same subject within this quite recent thread.

4
General Audio / Re: BatchEncoder (Audio Conversion GUI)
Last post by wisodev -
BatchEncoder 3.2 preview - automatically download missing tools: https://youtu.be/Wj-MkzOAlRw
5
Scientific Discussion / Re: What am I not understanding?
Last post by saratoga -
Now, it looks to me as if the irDAC is doing a lot better at keeping harmonics well below the noise floor. 

Assuming neither DAC is clipping, the second one is a little better, although both are not great by today's standards. 

So, my question is this:  do I not understand what the measurements are showing, or are the folks at Stereophile showing the measurements but not choosing not to explain them, because they like the ultimate sound signature in the Ayre gear so much? 

In terms of how they sound, hearing a 1st harmonic at -70dB is not likely, so while none of those DACs performs very well, they probably do sound more or less similar, or at least close enough that a reviewer isn't likely to notice a problem. 

Is this an instance of it being remarkable that the centipede can walk at all, but since Stereophile is known for measuring components, it would look odd if they simply didn't measure components that didn't incorporate feedback? 

Reading highend DAC reviews is like watching paint dry if looking at paint somehow prevented it from drying.  It is so pointless, it isn't worth the effort.  I assume the point of the review is to find something different to talk about.
6
Some may have noticed, some not, that right now we have an official component that allows reversed playback of our music:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_input_reverse

However this not new idea - in the past other developer (as far as I remember banned from here) has also released foo_input_reverse. There are 2 main differences beytween those 2x foo_input_reverse :
- older one required additional library (libmmd.dll) to operate
- older worked immediately and straightforward. New one does not...

Dear @Peter - I would like to ask you for making some changes to this plugin:
- could it work without adding a new playlist? Creating new playlist might be good idea, if someone tried it on an Autoplaylist entry, but on standard playlist it's bit odd. Could this behavior be differentiated based on playlist type (std - no new playlist / autoplaylist - new playlist is created)?
- could it work immediately? I mean - even if new playlist is created, then I would expect foobar to simply jump playback to that playlist and start playing there. If I choose command like "Play reverse" from keyboard shortcut it means for me that I want it now - not when track finishes nor when playlist finishes, and especially not after additional special clicking (changing focus and firing playback on new playlist).
7
Scientific Discussion / What am I not understanding?
Last post by bitrot -
I recently listened to an Ayre Codex, which I liked the sound of. 

But I'm scratching my head over the measurements at Stereophile of DACs. 

For example, Fig.7 Ayre Acoustics Codex, 16-bit data, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 0dBFS into 100k ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale)



vs

a measurement for the much less expensive, and recipient of a lukewarm review, Arcam irDAC II

Fig.9 Arcam irDAC-II, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 0dBFS into 600 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale)



Note that the second measurement is against a 600 ohm load, which I've seen described as a more challenging load.  I don't know if that's an appropriate statement in the context of these two reviews, though.

Now, it looks to me as if the irDAC is doing a lot better at keeping harmonics well below the noise floor. 

It's not the only measurement where, at least to my eye, the Arcam team is more faithfully reproducing the input signal.  The 16 bit sine wave representation looks much better at defining three voltage levels for the Arcam than the Codex. 

The situation is even more striking for the much more expensive Ayre network DAC, the QX5 twenty

https://www.stereophile.com/content/ayre-acoustics-qx-5-twenty-da-processor-measurements

It seems to roll off high frequencies on CD audio starting well before 20k - it looks about 3 db down at 20 khz? 

The 50 hz tone is a mess, too, yet  at the end of the review "QX-5 Twenty digital hub offers superb measured performance." 

So, my question is this:  do I not understand what the measurements are showing, or are the folks at Stereophile showing the measurements but not choosing not to explain them, because they like the ultimate sound signature in the Ayre gear so much? 

I gather that Ayre's design philosophy is not to incorporate feedback for error correction.

Is this an instance of it being remarkable that the centipede can walk at all, but since Stereophile is known for measuring components, it would look odd if they simply didn't measure components that didn't incorporate feedback? 


8
Listening Tests / Re: Unexpected results from ABX test
Last post by Porcus -
Neither method deals with the problem of undisclosed results. Someone could easily do four sets of 16 trials and get relatively normal results but only publish the fifth set which was unusual.

Or, assuming "way more good faith" and yet getting the same problem:
Four people would get the normal result - which in their honest opinion is nothing to write forum posts about. Then every now and then, by coincidence, someone will by chance get a strange score. And a certain fraction of them would by chance get it twice.

By the way, on the Bayesian approach:
It does not seem controversial to advise the OP to try the test again, in order to find out whether we can write it off as chance.
But that advise is a (rough!) stopping rule.
9
Hi all

Sorry for the Lo-Fi el cheapo post! I reserve my decent headphone listening to my music room, but I sometimes listen to my iPod when on the go...

So I'm looking for a cheap pair of in ear headphones. Here's the criteria:

- Comfort. So will preferably have changeable ear pieces or some other method of getting a good fit.
- Price. Let's say around £15. The cheaper the better, but also happy to go a bit more if it means getting a lot more for my money.
- Cable noise. Some of the cheap headphone I've had in the past have noisy wires/cables. Any time they're touched or hit your body, etc it can be heard. Drives me mad!
- In-line controls for the iPod. Play/Pause, Next Track are the most important for me. Anything else is a bonus. I could live without controls though so will consider models that don't have them.

I had a couple of pairs of Ultimate Ear 200vi and liked them, but they didn't last long at all. So something that is well built and will last for more that a few outings would be good too!

Many thanks :)
10
General - (fb2k) / Re: DATE does not show YEAR tag
Last post by EpicForever -
OK, understood. But you know that you can also choose which subitems will be present? You can thus limit "Tagging" section to contain only "Reload info (...)" if you need - just click that white triangle next to "Tagging" and uncheck what you don't need, leaving "Reload (...)". Looks like this may be function that you will be needing quite often, if for some weird reason you prefer to keep the modification date of retagged file to be left intact...