Skip to main content

Notice

Please be aware that much of the software linked to or mentioned on this forum is niche and therefore infrequently downloaded. Lots of anti-virus scanners and so-called malware detectors like to flag infrequently downloaded software as bad until it is either downloaded enough times, or its developer actually bothers with getting each individual release allow listed by every single AV vendor. You can do many people a great favor when encountering such a "problem" example by submitting them to your AV vendor for examination. For almost everything on this forum, it is a false positive.
Recent Posts
6
General - (fb2k) / Re: Running Foobar in Linux
Last post by Air KEN -
I updated Wine from 6.5 to 6.6 (Development).
https://www.winehq.org/announce/6.6
foobar2000 can not start.

Wine 6.6 (Development) uninstall.
Wine 6.0 (stable) install.
foobar2000 install.
No ploblem.
--------
foobar2000 v1.6.5 and v1.6.4.
Linux Mint 20.1 Ulyssa Cinnamon (64-bit) and Xfce (64-bit).

>Reply #539
Linux Distribution version and foobar2000 version, These don't seem to matter.
Only wine 6.6 (dev).
9
Opus / Re: Best way to convert lossy codecs to opus
Last post by ThaCrip -
Good thing is your V0 (245kbps) is already more than good enough lossy bitrate. so considering your converting from MP3 @ V0 to Opus @ 80kbps your converted files will still be good enough I am sure.

I do all of my conversion using Foobar2000 with Encoders Pack installed. this will especially be easy to do if your music is not all that organized as the easiest thing to do would be to drag-and-drop all of your V0 MP3's into Foobar2000 then select all of them (so they are highlighted in blue color) and then 'right click > Convert' (tweak things to your liking), then select destination folder, and just sit back and wait and they will all be in the same folder as this process won't take all that long unless you got a boatload of music. but even then, it will still be quick enough especially if your CPU is a quad core (or at least a faster dual core CPU) or better.

but if you got music organized a bit into folders (like with artists and albums) and your MP3 tag data is setup well, you can do something like the following...

'Convert > ... > Destination' (and obviously, select Opus here on Converter Setup > Output Format (may need to select EDIT and adjust bit rate to 80kbps which is easy enough to do))). then on window that appears (Converter Setup) on the 'Output style and file name formatting' section, of which the 'Convert each track to an individual file' will already be selected, you simply select the small '...' on the right side of the white section with text in it below (you click the '...') which will bring up the 'File Name Pattern Selector' and from here it can make things easier to organize stuff properly as this is mainly helpful if you got a certain artist with full albums as then you might select "artist - album (year)" on the left side and I typically use "nn. title" on the right side. either way, I tend to have my presets setup so it at the least uses "nn. title" as then tracks will be listed a bit better in the sense instead of say "Track Title.mp3" it will be "01. Track Title.mp3" (assuming your tag data of the files your converting is setup decently with track numbering in tag data).

but that should get the gist of it across ;) (NOTE: I am assuming since your using MP3 it's probably standard 44.1/16. if not one can tweak that stuff with SoX Resampler etc (one has to install SoX but there might be other options already installed(?)). but the resampler stuff is done though 'Converter Setup > Processing' section. but if a person is using standard 44.1/16 lossless files when they made those MP3 files to begin with, things should be pretty standard and you likely won't have to mess with resampling)

p.s. while I imagine the OP probably already sorted things out, I figured I would make this post as it could be beneficial for others in a similar situation in the future to keep things simple enough.
10
Opus / Re: xHE-AAC : The Death of OPUS?
Last post by ThaCrip -
Quite a lot of people prefer offline storage for various reasons.
Let's start with Spotify, YouTube and other streaming services.

How many times has your playlist been "decimated" by streaming services?
Yesterday you had 100 songs in your playlist, tomorrow you have 90. 10 of them were removed for unknown reason.
This cannot happen with offline storage.
What about TV shows and movies?
Yesterday streaming service A had movie B, tomorrow that movie was bought by streaming service C and there is no way to watch it.
You are forced to buy another useless subscription service.
With offline storage you can watch anything anytime.

Exactly. that's why I never bother with streaming in general, at least for anything I care about and will want to listen to or re-watch here and there as the years pass.

it's always best to have a file stored locally (or physical copy of some type) as then you can always listen/watch it anytime you want. plus, not everyone has a fast internet line and in cases like this, all the more reason to have it locally stored as then ones internet line speed does not matter all that much.

so while some casual YouTube stuff is okay for some basic videos here and there, for music/movies I always prefer to have a locally stored copy, especially when it's a movie/song ill want to see/listen to from time-to-time as the years pass.

Multiple times a week I see people with perfectly usable AAC audio but they insist they need to convert it to MP3 just because that's what they're used to. Often they'll be turning 96 - 128k AAC -LC into a CBR 320 , or V0 MP3 because they (think they) know that's "best" , so lose quality in the transcode, risk more artifacts, and waste a ton of space on their precious  iDevice.

It seems anyone with a basic understanding of audio/video compression would now you can't raise quality of something that's already lowered, it just goes downward with each conversion from lossy-to-lossy.

with that said... while not optimal, as you already know, I could possibly see someone going from say a 320kbps MP3, or higher bitrate AAC-LC file (and the like), to a lower bit rate lossy file occasionally. but, as you already know, it makes no sense to go from something already pretty low on bit rate back to a higher rate, especially from say a AAC-LC 96-128kbps up to 320kbps MP3. so it's always higher-to-lower, not lower-to-higher as a general rule.

but with that said... if I have a rough understanding of how many see this stuff, which probably sums up the group of people your talking about, they probably don't care all that much as long as the audio file still sounds 'good enough' to them. which pretty much means as long as the audio is not obviously bad to them and remains close to what you hear on a radio for example. hence, even doing those 96kbps AAC-LC to 320kbps MP3 probably won't matter to them since the quality will not degrade enough for it to matter to them and they think the conversion worked perfectly okay, even though it just wasted some storage space. but even this won't matter to them when they got storage space to burn as it seems the only time this would matter is if they can't fit the songs they want onto a device at which point they might be forced to learn more about it, which probably won't happen nowadays given storage space of music is dirt cheap compared to what it used to be say about 10-15 years ago or so. like back in the old days when 512MB or 2GB cost quite a bit, bit rate of encoded music was much more important. but once 8-16GB or so started to become reasonably priced, short of people who wanted to store boatloads of music on their device, you could pretty much fit ones entire collection on there at a decent enough bit rate.
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021