Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

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.
Topic: foo_loudness_peakmeter (Read 46807 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #100 –
Quote from: Just_Addict on
Turns out it's only showing ~somewhat exact values if you've got no DSP active at all.
Any DSP that does something to the audio will skew the values one way or the other.
Obviously true as all foobar2000 visualizations (not just this component) gathers audio data after all of DSP effects you put onto the playback chain so if you want "exact" values, just remove all DSP effects from the playback chain

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #101 –
Quote from: Crossover on
I need the component to monitor my self-mixed songs.
What do you mean by "self-mixed" songs?

As I haven't even produced a single music in my entire life obviously, yet I have realtime audio analysis tools developed to my needs to monitor songs produced by someone else (obviously, you can't rely on graphs to gauge sound quality per ToS #8, but it is still a good way to spot fake FLACs or any other lossless/uncompressed audio files sourced from lossy sources with spectrum analyzers and spectrograms) as well as my sound design content I've produced with Audacity (which most of them are mashup of other sources)

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #103 –
Quote from: boxerfan88 on
Hi there,

I'd like to let the developer know that foo_loudness_peakmeter has a slow memory leak issue.
Ref: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,126259.new.html
That could be a problem on 32-bit versions since in this version, it obviously has 4GB hard limit for the RAM usage

BTW, to not clutter this thread like I did on a forum thread for foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer component, I had to create a separate thread if I continue posting almost endless FRs

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #104 –
Quote from: TF3RDL on
When not using "single spectrum" mode, I noticed that the top graph didn't react to right channel (when using the Stereo Balance effect that comes with Utility DSP Array component) but the bottom graph reacts to both channels as opposed to only reacting to right channel but not left channel

Also, the line (which is the momentary LUFS display over time) reacts to both channels on two graphs as opposed to have LUFS lines react to each channel on each graph (which is a FR to add an option to make LUFS line graph react differently to different channels on each graph as opposed to all channels when not using "single spectrum" mode)
Also, this nitpick (or a small bug in this @Crossover component) also applies to single spectrum mode albeit in a different way; the dark part is decreasing on each channel number iteration on this 18ch test tone like this:
X

BTW for those who wondering about this nitpick, here's what this test tone file would look like with "single spectrum" mode disabled:
X
And I think it is correct to have the bottom part of dual graph (in the case of stereo) only reacting to a right channel as opposed to both channels and in the case of multichannel sources like 5.1 and 7.1 surround sound as well as quadraphonic music, 2.1 and 3.0 stereo and 17.1 surround (which maxes out WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE channel mask), I think the number of graphs should change accordingly to number of channels of currently-playing audio (though it might change especially with channel upmixing/downmixing DSPs) rather than being limited to mono and stereo

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #105 –
Hi!
Is it possible to add replaygain compensation when displaying? Perhaps at least a parameter entered manually. I would really like to sometimes see the real peaks of the file, and not what is obtained after applying replaygain.

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #106 –
Quote from: Jaseyn on
Hi!
Is it possible to add replaygain compensation when displaying? Perhaps at least a parameter entered manually. I would really like to sometimes see the real peaks of the file, and not what is obtained after applying replaygain.
but accounting for replaygain processing options (e.g. only track/album peak and/or gain is considered, or none at all even with replaygain tags on it) and preamp is only when the SDK allows for that right?

BTW when comes to version 2.x.x.x of this and Enhanced Spectrum analyzer as well as new components by @Crossover, be patient about this dev becoming active again after 6 or 9 months of inactivity (e.g. after vacation, mixing and mastering their own songs, or even months long of audiosurf trip to calm stress coming from my habits of feature requests)

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #107 –
Quote from: TF3RDL on
Quote from: Jaseyn on
Hi!
Is it possible to add replaygain compensation when displaying? Perhaps at least a parameter entered manually. I would really like to sometimes see the real peaks of the file, and not what is obtained after applying replaygain.
but accounting for replaygain processing options (e.g. only track/album peak and/or gain is considered, or none at all even with replaygain tags on it) and preamp is only when the SDK allows for that right?

BTW when comes to version 2.x.x.x of this and Enhanced Spectrum analyzer as well as new components by @Crossover, be patient about this dev becoming active again after 6 or 9 months of inactivity (e.g. after vacation, mixing and mastering their own songs, or even months long of audiosurf trip to calm stress coming from my habits of feature requests)

No, I didn't talk about taking parameters into account. I understand that it's complicated. Not to mention that there may be different processing later. It seems to me that for rare cases when it is necessary, manual compensation would be enough. I don't plan to switch to version 2.0 yet.

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #108 –
Quote from: Jaseyn on
I don't plan to switch to version 2.0 yet.
You do realize that "version 2.0" does not exist?  Just a "what-if" fantasy by TF3RDL.

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #109 –
Quote from: sveakul on
Quote from: Jaseyn on
I don't plan to switch to version 2.0 yet.
You do realize that "version 2.0" does not exist?  Just a "what-if" fantasy by TF3RDL.
I mean, the whole version 2.x.x.x of this component and foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer does not exist besides fanon wiki, though @Crossover already showcased the upcoming next version of foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer but it would look completely different from interactive mockups like this and this and what the fanon wiki pages (which is just collection of ideas formatted as documentation pages) says about this upcoming version

BTW, there is a 50/50 chance of having peak/RMS meter (and LUFS) bars on this component and/or having a new non-FFT-based transform mode (IIR Butterworth filter bank) for frequency bands mode on Enhanced Spectrum analyzer component

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #110 –
Quote from: TF3RDL on
Quote from: sveakul on
Quote from: Jaseyn on
I don't plan to switch to version 2.0 yet.
You do realize that "version 2.0" does not exist?  Just a "what-if" fantasy by TF3RDL.
I mean, the whole version 2.x.x.x of this component and foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer does not exist besides fanon wiki, though @Crossover already showcased the upcoming next version of foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer but it would look completely different from interactive mockups like this and this and what the fanon wiki pages (which is just collection of ideas formatted as documentation pages) says about this upcoming version

Is the T in your name for Troll?

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #111 –
Quote from: Defender on
Is the T in your name for Troll?
No, it is actually an acronym for my FANDOM/Wikia account (I've contributed some pages mostly on fanon wikis BTW)

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #112 –
What's up with foobar2000 component developers (especially with closed-source and proprietary freeware ones like this, foo_enhanced_spectrum_analyzer, JSplitter, etc.) leaving the forums (or being inactive for a very long amount of time in case of @Crossover and @LUR perhaps)?

BTW, would putting disclaimers like this one on Fanon Wiki actually help with not misleading some people? Especially with the whole version 2.0.0.0/2.x.x.x of @Crossover's components that might not exist

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #113 –
IDK, but I still use the CrossOver's Loudness peakmeter and his Enhanced Spectrum, they are pretty good and useful  :)

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #114 –
Quote from: Avith on
IDK, but I still use the CrossOver's Loudness peakmeter and his Enhanced Spectrum, they are pretty good and useful  :)
Me too but if you and/or I want something more, there is foo_vis_spectrum_analyzer but there isn't for a level meter (besides the foo_vis_vumeter that is only for eye candy), so for the latter until either @Crossover is actually back or JSplitter getting fb.GetAudioChunk() API function alongside much needed bugfixes for the @LUR's component, you should enjoy my own "multichannel" peakmeter visualization project in the meantime, even if that means it is done in a web browser instead of foobar2000

BTW, why no one replied to my post on Reddit regarding @Crossover's inactivity?

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #115 –
Quote from: TF3RDL on
Quote from: Avith on
IDK, but I still use the CrossOver's Loudness peakmeter and his Enhanced Spectrum, they are pretty good and useful  :)
Me too but if you and/or I want something more, there is foo_vis_spectrum_analyzer but there isn't for a level meter (besides the foo_vis_vumeter that is only for eye candy), so for the latter until either @Crossover is actually back or JSplitter getting fb.GetAudioChunk() API function alongside much needed bugfixes for the @LUR's component, you should enjoy my own "multichannel" peakmeter visualization project in the meantime, even if that means it is done in a web browser instead of foobar2000

BTW, why no one replied to my post on Reddit regarding @Crossover's inactivity?
So you have an open-coded peakmeter, that's cool! Really like to see the different approaches for this as well as for the spectrogram visualizers.
Oh and I also upvoted your reddit post lol
 

Re: foo_loudness_peakmeter

Reply #116 –
Quote from: Avith on
So you have an open-coded peakmeter, that's cool! Really like to see the different approaches for this as well as for the spectrogram visualizers.
Yeah but for the web browser, hence no download required obviously though I'd prefer this to be inside foobar2000 but again, it either requires having an experience with C++ and foobar2000 SDK (which I don't have obviously) or wait until JSplitter gets a new API to read currently-playing audio data, which is fb.GetAudioChunk()

Quote from: Avith on
Oh and I also upvoted your reddit post lol
But can you elaborate on why you only upvoted my reddit post and not commented on? I was expecting for a detailed response from someone but my post only have upvotes and no comments, same thing for my another post about whether or not JSplitter should get something like fb.GetAudioChunk() for visualization purposes?