[pkshan]

7/31/2011: v3.4 released
foobar2000 HE v3.4
 
For intel cpu only, AMD do not use:
 

















You can use CPU-Z to determine your CPU SSE version.
foobar2000 HE v3.4 Intel SSE3 / SSE4.1 / SSE4.2 / AVX
*please read the readme file if you don't know how to use it*
 
 
 

 

[fetus]

Pardon my ignorance but what is this? A quick google search didn't provide much info.

 

[JulioCat2]

Thanks. but i can't download any of the Intel versions

 

[pkshan]

v2.2 released ,SQ is much better than before

 

[kashtwa]

v2.2 better than previous SQ-wise? even when using WASAPI or ASIO?

 

[pkshan]

Fixed the compatibility issue under winxp sorry

 

[pkshan]

Quote:

v2.2 better than previous SQ-wise? even when using WASAPI or ASIO?

waveOut sounds better than ASIO in this version

 

[ZorgDK]

what a weird version and it doesn't work here.

 

[drez]

Looks like  stripped back version of standard foobar 2000, for the super-paranoid among us (myself included).
 
Some of the feature look quite useful.  Worth hacking around to get it to work anyway.
 
this is still infinitely more user friendly than cmp2

 

[pkshan]

v2.4 released

 

[Dradder]

I've used this, including the latest version, and I like the way it sounds. But I have to say that the lack of FLAC support is a real deal-killer for me. Is there any way at all to get a future version usable with FLAC files?

 

[pkshan]

For some reason, I can't make a high SQ flac plugin.
the original foobar flac plugin sounds not so good.
 
Even I could make a hi SQ flac plugin, the wav will still sounds better than flac.
because the wav plugin program code is much less complex than the flac,
 
 
I've converted all my flac collections to wav

 

[svyr]

For some reason, I can't make a high SQ flac plugin.
the original foobar flac plugin sounds not so good.
 
Even I could make a hi SQ flac plugin, the wav will still sounds better than flac.
because the wav plugin program code is much less complex than the flac,
 
 
I've converted all my flac collections to wav

yeeees.... *patpatpat*. And for those who don't believe in voodoo, FLAC is easily decodable in s/w or h/w by even 200mhz arm CPUs with barely and cache or RAM...Moreover, you can dump the stream to disk and verify it's bit perfect...Hell, it decodes several frames into a buffer (decodes to PCM lol) in all likelihood anyway so what drugs with delicious placebo are we on today?

Now if you could IDK, say ABX the two and provide evidence of a statistically significant difference...(or even do that for a WAV vs a FLAC file of the same song)

 

[pkshan]

Sound quality is not all about bit perfect, but jitter,
 
complex program codes will greatly increase jitter,
 
Accurate data stream timing is very important for cd transport and software player
 
a bad timing will distort the shape of sound wave, increase high frequency noise etc....

 

[svyr]

Sound quality is not all about bit perfect, but jitter,
 
complex program codes will greatly increase jitter,
 
Accurate data stream timing is very important for cd transport and software player
 
a bad timing will distort the shape of sound wave, increase high frequency noise etc....

ABX wav vs flac in foobar and see whether it substantiates it. Jitter quoted to affect PC audio is from transmission and inherent to USB receiver (and transfer mode) + DAC chip and clock. None of these are as prominent as ground loops, DPC problems, and OS settings that cause audio to blatantly drop packets.
You're streaming data from the decoder buffer where it's in PCM format for both FLAC and WAV after the FLAC decoder that causes <1% CPU load while running. Claiming it produces audible jitter is simply pseudoscience and is equivalent to dancing around the pc naked with a set of drums and facepaint on.

Let me draw a simple parallel for you. There are tens if not hundreds of processes and services/drivers running at a much higher priority and consuming a lot more CPU/IO and memory than the decoder. Even if the decoder caused magical jitter it would be miniscule compared to those. Use basic logic, please. E.g. do a CPU/IO/Memory profile on your system to see how little resources foobar actually consumes compared to the rest of the system. (not to mention transmitting data after it's being decoded to PCM and from a buffer )

Moreover, Wav files are larger and consume more disk I/O as a trade-off, arguably, disk i/o is even worse than CPU use on some systems