Latest restricted WACUP beta release is build #18654 (March 24th 2024) (x86 & x64 changelogs) | Latest WACUP public preview is build #17040 (September 30th 2023) (x86 only)


NOTE: Beta testers are added in a limited & subjective manner as I can only support so many people as part of the beta test program to keep it useful for my needs.

Unless I think you're going to be helpful, not all requests will be accepted but might still be later on. Remember that beta testing is to help me & the limitations currently works for my needs for this project.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CodeLurker

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: Downloading WACUP on Microsoft Edge
« on: July 29, 2020, 11:39:27 PM »
FWIW: Code signing, IMHO, isn't (yet) so oppressive that it's not feasible for an independent freeware author to get a signed cert.  If you are an author of freeware, and it is e.g. under a license like the GPL, LGPL or MIT freeware licenses, there are many cert. authorities who will sign your software for free.  At least, that was the situation when I looked into it last.  (I have an app. I'd like to market, but it's stalled, since there are important usage cases it doesn't work for.)

The situation is similar to domain registrars, where there are a long list of cert. authorities to choose from.  Each will probably have more or less different corporate cultures.

Having never got far enough into it, I can't speak to what private info they ask for, or if it is given to a govt.  Also, since you don't hold the copyright to WinAmp, but you do rely on parts of its executables, you might not be able to get a certificate for that.  You might think of a freeware WinAmp upgrader, such that you ask for WInAmp to be installed first, and then your freeware with a free cert. is installed over it, and patches it.  You might want to have it as an alternate vers., for users with problems with installing.  When Wacup has finally replaced all the closed-source code, then you wouldn't need WinAmp to be installed first.  I do hope it goes open-source, since when things kept happening to NullSoft, and the source was unavailable to the community, it was impossible to develop it further.  I see a post where you mention a Linux vers., and I have become rather fond of the Qt framework.  It's pretty flexible, cross-platform, and I suspect it might could even do a WInAmp.  You can use it for free, under LGPL.  wxWidgets is another option.  It uses native widgets of a given platform, but is less powerful, generally, and in terms of an IDE, Qt Creator is way more advanced than anything similar for wxWidgets.  wxWidgets has been used to create, e.g., Audacity, but I've long since moved on.  I have even heard of people able to create their own digital signatures; but I can't say what Windows Defender would make of such signatures.  I encourage you to look into a digital signature.  It might not be as bad as you think.

Note that I routinely use a hard-to-find utility (not mine) to turn off the requirement for digital signatures on my Windows 7; which I've attached.  It might solve some problems like this for Win7 users, like myself, or Win10 users even.

2
After some further testing, I found out that this heavy compression occurs on FLAC and AAC files, but not on WAV files.

3
I downed the official 5.8 when it came out, and had been using it for some months.  I noticed that on John Petrucci's "Damage Control", that at about 3:30 in, he has a part where he gives two quick chords, followed by silence, and then repeats both.  On 5.8, there is an instant of very loud output after the silence both times.  This indicates that heavy compression can be heard on it.  On re-listening to it, I found that I can also hear other heavy pumping artifacts.

Modern music production professionals often decry the overuse of compressors.  It limits dynamic range, and introduces said pumping artifacts.  It can also cause unwanted over-amplification of the noise floor.  As to just what the appropriate use should be, varies considerably by taste, but overuse and misuse are often a sign of an amateur production.  This is not to say that Winamp should apply no compressors, but that they must be optional, if used.

When I play "Damage Control" and hear those artifacts, I've pointedly disabled anything that should be able cause it.  My output plugin is Direct Sound.  My DSP/Effect is "(none)".  I've temporarily disabled "Use Replay Gain".  The equalizer and limiter are disabled on the Playback|Equalizer tab.

This is a stopper for me.  I posed a message about this in the Winamp general discussion yesterday; but it hasn't as yet been approved for posting.  I don't detect the problem in WACUP.  They say that 5.8 is their final desktop update; but it appears to be fatally flawed in this regard.

4
Wishlist / Feature Requests / Re: EBU R128 loudness normalisation
« on: June 07, 2019, 08:20:05 AM »
Quote
I thought I had been open minded in providing the 2 common methods that other players are using so a) I maintain compatibility for those needing it whilst b) adopting what from my research has been deemed the more appropriate solution to use. If there are other options that a decent majority are using then I'm open to trying to add support for them, subject to code & licensing related to it.

I'm not aware of any choice two methods when calculating Replay Gain, or even what is being used now.  I see "Send to|Calculate Replay Gain", and that's it.  Under Replay Gain in options, I don't see a choice of method for calculation.

Quote
With regards to manually editing of the values, its not been done yet as not all of the input plug-ins that are responsible for handling such matters have been replaced &/or modified to make it viable to generically edit that metadata. Once that's done then the singular & batch edit dialogs will get the support added to them.

I'm not sure why editing the Replay Gain setting would require generic editing of metadata; but I'm glad to hear it is in the works.  This is a huge thing foobar2000 has on WinAmp.

Quote
I know most just see it is disabled edit controls but to have things done consistently (which has been an issue with Winamp not doing that) then there's a few pieces that need to be sorted out which is part of my end goals to have key tagging functionality somewhat isolated from the input plug-ins so things can be done to it without having to update half a dozen plug-ins &/or the duplicated code that comes from some of them using the same tagging format (e.g. ogg vorbis + flac plug-ins).

I'm not aware of what disabled edit controls you refer to.  I can certainly see that you wouldn't want to repeat metadata code in all the input plugins.  Sounds like you'll have a .dll plugin that handles them for more than one input plugin; or are putting it in winamp.exe.  That there are only a few pieces to be sorted out sounds like you've been making great progress, and I look forward to its impending arrival.  In short, it all sounds great, and I like where you are saying you are going.

5
Wishlist / Feature Requests / Re: EBU R128 loudness normalisation
« on: June 05, 2019, 09:11:53 AM »
This is a fine idea, IMHO; but it does not go far enough.  IMHO, no players do yet.  Loudness perception is a squirrelly thing, and there are numerous loudness standards out there.  There is also the US measure: ATSC A/85, and the Japanese: TR-B32.  Digital Full Scale (dBFS) with K-weighting can probably be safely ignored, as it is an earlier, less effective attempt.  (See 5 Common Myths About Loudness Metering Debunked.)

More importantly, foobar2000 allows the editing of ReplayGain settings.  The EBU R128 algorithm is only an approximation of how loud something sounds to the human ear.  It can't always get it right.  Sometimes after I use foobar2000 to set Replay Gain for files, a song just sounds too soft or too loud.  Thus, I need to tweak its Replay Gain to something more appropriate.  It seems to me that this is metadata, and if the medadata editor isn't allowing this number to be hand-adjusted, it isn't complete.

Thus, I strongly recommend allowing Replay Gain to be edited, and to at least be open-minded about alternate loudness measures.

Pages: [1]