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.
Recent Posts
1
General Audio / Re: Can higher bitrates sometimes sound worse than lower ones
Last post by DVDdoug -
No.

...As long as you define "better" as sounding more like the uncompressed original and the CODEC isn't badly designed.

The bitrate is (partially) related to how much information is thrown-away to make a smaller file and with a higher bitrate less data is thrown-away.

But you may prefer the lower less-accurate bitrate.
2
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: [Not My Release] ELPlaylist
Last post by tromd -
Ok ignore my previous post for now, what I really want to know is how to expand all subgroups within a group on a single click? At default only the first subgroup is expanded.

Alternatively, if someone could tell me how to collapse subgroups (in this case discs) into the main header. I've currently set to hide the subgroup headers if the main header is collapsed, but since only the first subgroup is expanded the other subgroups remain invisible.
4
Support - (fb2k) / Re: foobar2000 2.25 Preview 2025-05-09 -> UPnP
Last post by papavlos -
Quickly checked - IT WORKS! THANKS!  :D

Finally we can abandon (very) old "foo_upnp" 32-bit only plugin (as its developer has abandoned it also many years ago) and migrate to modern 64-bit  native environment.
It works also under Linux-WINE in x64 wineprefix.
And regarding DSD: I confirm that we have FIRST 100% working solution for foobar2000 for streaming native DSD playback over home network.

Foobar2000 becomes FREE and complete alternative for other commercial solutions. And it is light years ahead of them, in terms of usability and flexibility. Seriously.  8)
5
General Audio / Can higher bitrates sometimes sound worse than lower ones
Last post by fred-hy -
because of poor optimisation?

For example, let's say an encoder is optimised to give the best quality between 128 kbps and 256 kbps. Could using 320 kbps with this encoder sound worse than 256 kbps due to that?

Do any encoders have this problem, especially FDK and opus-tools?
7
3rd Party Plugins - (fb2k) / Re: Biography Discussion
Last post by sveakul -
Thanks for the update!

Can anyone point me to/describe how I would update from 1.4.2 mod 1 to 1.4.2 mod 2 without losing my current settings?

I am running JSplitter 3.6.1.14 with Foobar v2.24.5, 64-bit.  Biography is the only SMP package I have installed.

I appreciate any help you can give.
8
Audio Hardware / Re: Question in-ears magnetic driver
Last post by classicaran88 -
understood then the magnetic force exerted by a large 29" CRT TV does not come close to causing magnetic damage to the dual magnetic dynamic drivers used in In-Ears headphones KZ EDX Pro and KZ EDC Pro

it is something very different from the comparison with 2.5" HDDs that demagnetize more easily
9
FLAC / Re: Multithreading
Last post by cid42 -
Quote from: Porcus on
As I just posted over at https://hydrogenaudio.org/index.php/topic,106129.msg1062688.html#msg1062688 , I ran flaccid against flacout, and it won big time without even digging into apodization functions more than "-8" already does. Limited corpus, since 76 minutes of audio took flacout 44 hours to process.

I gave a "suggestion" in that post:
flaccid as a re-compressor for flac files, where you frame by frame compare source to flaccid and if flaccid cannot improve the frame, then just copy it? (Sure you lose some bits in the frame header by committing to variable block size, but if we really want to nitpick on that, let's just compare the audio part of the final files.)
Doesn't have to take that much development work ... ?

You're suggesting a recompressor that works within the boundaries of the frames in the source? So a 4096 fixed frame could be sliced into arbitrarily small frames or combined with adjacent frames, but if none of that is an improvement just output the (slightly modified) original frame. I mean that could work, but I don't see a whole lot to gain. Unless the source used very strong settings that flaccid isn't, the source frame is unlikely to be smaller. Unless the point is to not recalculate the 4096 frame size at all, which would save a little computation. Flac is a simple enough format that with libflac doing the grunt work you could knock out this sort of thing in a day, converting a fixed frame to a variable frame is a mild pain as you need to redo the frame number and crc's but it's not hard.

flaccid chokes on non-ascii filenames, by that do you mean some windows utf16 nonsense? That wouldn't surprise me. Can't say I've tried utf8 on Linux, that has a better chance of working but it might not.