# Foobar2000 installation guidance in 2023

#### 2tec

##### Member
so when you turn the volume up or down, you're adulterating the signal? I'd like to see you provide evidence of this effect ...

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
so when you turn the volume up or down, you're adulterating the signal? I'd like to see you provide evidence of this effect ...

Let's focus on the digital side, inside foobar.

1. Assume a music track sample -- original signal sample value is +0.5 FS (full scale).
2. Assume the replaygain is -1dB -- which equates to 0.891.; and preamp gain is 0dB which equates to 1.
3. Foobar will calculate the -- output signal sample value is +0.5FS * 0.891 * 1 = +0.4455FS.
4. Foobar will output the "adulterated" sample value of +0.4455FS to the DAC.
5. This is repeated for every sample in the music track.

We can see that original sample of +0.5FS has now been changed to +0.4455FS.
The sample sent to the DAC is not the same as the original sample from the music file, the signal has been "adulterated".

QED.

This thread may help you better understand what goes on inside foobar relating to replaygain & preamp.

Per post #19, disabling foobar replaygain & no preamp & no other DSP running will keep the signal "unadulterated".
Whatever sample value that came from the music track will be sent to the DAC untouched.

Last edited:

#### 2tec

##### Member
Let's focus on the digital side, inside foobar.

1. Assume a music track sample -- original signal sample value is +0.5 FS (full scale).
2. Assume the replaygain is -1dB -- which equates to 0.891.; and preamp gain is 0dB which equates to 1.
3. Foobar will calculate the -- output signal sample value is +0.5FS * 0.891 * 1 = +0.4455FS.
4. Foobar will output the "adulterated" sample value of +0.4455FS to the DAC.
5. This is repeated for every sample in the music track.

We can see that original sample of +0.5FS has now been changed to +0.4455FS.
The sample sent to the DAC is not the same as the original sample from the music file, the signal has been "adulterated".

QED.

This thread may help you better understand what goes on inside foobar relating to replaygain & preamp.

Per post #19, disabling foobar replaygain & no preamp & no other DSP running will keep the signal "unadulterated".
Whatever sample value that came from the music track will be sent to the DAC untouched.
This is absolutely not true. You've made these figures up and that's not what happens.

I challenge you to prove any of this.

I'm off to Hydrogen Audio to see what they say about your 'theory'. This should be fun.

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
This is absolutely not true. You've made these figures up and that's not what happens.

I challenge you to prove any of this.

I'm off to Hydrogen Audio to see what they say about your 'theory'. This should be fun.

I am happy to be proven wrong and I’ll get corrected, or you’ll get educated. Win-win.

I repeat what I have shared: applying replaygain adjustment on a track to be played will definitely change the sample value from the original sample value prior to output to DAC.

Last edited:

#### Vincent Kars

##### Addicted to Fun and Learning
Technical Expert
Perhaps stating the very obvious but be it volume control, replaygain or any other type of DSP, by design it alters the samples otherwise it won't work.
If one should call this change "adulterating" is another thing. It suggest that DSP is wrong, evil, etc. so a bit silly moral judgement imho.

#### 2tec

##### Member
This is absolutely not true. You've made these figures up and that's not what happens.

I challenge you to prove any of this.

I am happy to be proven wrong and I’ll get corrected, or you’ll get educated. Win-win.

I repeat what I have shared: applying replaygain adjustment on a track to be played will definitely change the sample value from the original sample value prior to output to DAC.
Ok, first off, if the "original signal is 0.5 dBFS and you apply replaygain -1 dB, you will get -0.5 dBFS.", shouldn't you? Furthermore no samples are changed, the signal level is being increased or decreased in its entirety. This is the same as any digital volume controlled signal received by a DAC isn't it?

I decrease the gain on non RPG files with RPG on.

When I change the volume, the level of the sound changes but the signal itself remains the same just louder or softer. This is my understanding of what volume is. My understanding of RPG is that the volume is raised or lowered so tracks have a relative loudness rather than an absolute loudness. This makes the quieter tracks louder and the louder tracks 'relatively' quieter which provides for less need to increase or decrease volume levels manually since this is being done automatically and in a measured way.

I consider replaygain to be a benefit when listening and I'm confident that there's zero 'adulteration' or signal degradation at all. Even if there were, such differences are inaudible in my experience and I hear no evidence that replaygain has any detrimental effect on perceived sound quality. I think it is the best approach to the concern of volume normalization.

I'm not an expert on the math behind replaygain. This is just my layperson end-user perspective. However, I do trust the rigorous development process replaygain has gone through.

Last edited:

#### Ruhled

##### Member
By this definition anyone without their volume control at max is adulterating the signal. Mmmmmmkayyyyy.....

##### Major Contributor
If one should call this change "adulterating" is another thing.
But for spreading FUD it works pretty well

Ok, first off, if the "original signal is 0.5 dBFS and you apply replaygain -1 dB, you will get -0.5 dBFS.", shouldn't you?
He wrote 0.5 FS, so he could mean half FS, so about -6 dBFS.

Whatever sample value that came from the music track will be sent to the DAC untouched.
And then, a possibly digital volume control in DAC will do the same "adulteration" as replay gain would have done.

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
Perhaps stating the very obvious but be it volume control, replaygain or any other type of DSP, by design it alters the samples otherwise it won't work.

Agreed.

If one should call this change "adulterating" is another thing. It suggest that DSP is wrong, evil, etc. so a bit silly moral judgement imho.

I choose to associate original sample modification with "adulterating". Am I not entitled to do so?
Anyways, it's perfectly okay for you to judge me as silly. That is your opinion.

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
Ok, first off, if the "original signal is 0.5 dBFS and you apply replaygain -1 dB, you will get -0.5 dBFS.", shouldn't you?

Incorrect.

Furthermore no samples are changed, the signal level is being increased or decreased in its entirety.

Incorrect.

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
By this definition anyone without their volume control at max is adulterating the signal. Mmmmmmkayyyyy.....

Not just volume control at max.

For the signal to be "unadulterated" in foobar, there must be:
• No DSP that modifies the signal. (eg. resampling, EQ,...)
• No gain adjustment (ReplayGain, PreAmp preset, digital volume other than 100%).

Last edited:

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
But for spreading FUD it works pretty well

I choose to associate original sample modification with "adulterating". Am I not entitled to do so?
And it is perfectly okay for you to view it as FUD.

He wrote 0.5 FS, so he could mean half FS, so about -6 dBFS.

Yup yup. Just as an example value, so as to explain my point about how gain adjustments will change the original sample value.

And then, a possibly digital volume control in DAC will do the same "adulteration" as replay gain would have done.

Yup yup. Digital volume control inside the DAC does the same thing prior to conversion to analog.

On a separate note, I use my foobar to fully "adulterate" the playback signal.
• I have Replaygain enabled
• I use foobar volume control
• I have "No ReplayGain" preamp preset at -3dB
• I have resampling going on.
• I have MathAudio Headphone EQ in the chain
• I have foo_subwoofer in the chain
And I love the sound of my foobar "adulterated" signal

#### 2tec

##### Member
1. the action of making something poorer in quality by the addition of another substance.
diction matters

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
1. the action of making something poorer in quality by the addition of another substance.
diction matters

Sure, diction matters.

Let's take for example, a 24bit sample from your favorite song.
If foobar replaygain reduces the value by 6dB (-6dB), that's 1 effective bit thrown away.
If foobar volume control is set at -12dB, that's 2 more effective bits thrown away.
Out of the original 24bit sample, now only 21bits of effective data is sent to the DAC.

Surely throwing away bits result in poorer quality, therefore, I choose to call this throwing away of bits "adulterating".

Sure, you can freely call this something else. Nothing wrong at all.

ps: I am told, foobar processes everything in floating point, yet at the end of all the processing, foobar needs to convert the sample back to 24bit or 16bit for transmission to the DAC.

Last edited:

#### 2tec

##### Member
Doubling down on a losing hand, and in public? Well it's up to you, I made my point, it's not my fault if you can't learn from the obvious.

Self-assuredness goeth before the fall, just saying.

I'm guessing you don't like Foobar2000? Anyways, I clearly made my point and I'm done wasting time on a non-issue brought up by someone with a grudge.

Thanks.

Last edited:

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
Doubling down on a losing hand, and in public? Well it's up to you, I made my point, it's not my fault if you can't learn from the obvious.

I have also made my point. Looks like it's the reverse, one cannot even learn when the facts are laid out.

Self-assuredness goeth before the fall, just saying.

I'm guessing you don't like Foobar2000? Anyways, I clearly made my point and I'm done wasting time on a non-issue brought up by someone with a grudge.

Thanks.

Oh how absolutely wrong you are!! Me having a grudge with foobar2000?

Gosh ... who planted that idea inside your brain ? Mr. Covid ?

I have been using foobar2000 for the past 15 years, and I am currently using it everyday, and absolutely lovin' it!

Take a look at the eye candy that I get to enjoy on a daily basis... and I love the sound of my foobar "adulterated" signal

Can you imagine ... to listen to Tidal ... I even route the signal through foobar2000 so that the stream can get properly "adulterated" to my taste... (hint: use HiFi Cable).

Beautiful VU meter, nice loudness peak meter, very colorful spectrum analyzer ... all to dance along with the music playing.
Definitely superb eye candy for me, and makes listening to music even more enjoyable.

Not to mention many VSTs available to "adulterate" the signal even further based on my whim and fancy --
Vinyl wow&flutter + click&pop, Reel-to-Reel emulation of tape hiss & harmonics, Tube PreAmp, just to mention a few...

Still think I have a grudge against foobar2000?

Last edited:

#### 2tec

##### Member
Language is revealing ... you chose the wrong word, there's no shame in admitting one has made a mistake. As well, is this a case of needing to get in The Last Word? :~)

#### boxerfan88

##### Senior Member
Language is revealing ... you chose the wrong word, there's no shame in admitting one has made a mistake. As well, is this a case of needing to get in The Last Word? :~)

Indeed. I thought you didn’t wanna waste anymore time on this? It is you who is casting judgement on me and accusing me of choosing the “wrong word”. If you think the word is wrong, that’s your problem, not mine. I am perfectly happy using my chosen word. You also accuse me of having a grudge against foobar2000, which is blatantly false, and I had to show that I love using foobar2000 and that I’m using it daily. You are the one who came with all guns blazing. One also refuse to admit one’s lack of knowledge that after replay gain adjustment the original sample value is changed. Ignorance is bliss.

Last edited:

#### sejarzo

##### Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
I thought Foobar zero padded samples to 32 bit before any manipulation, so that allows for 8 bits/48 dB of attenuation before significant bits in a 24 bit file would be affected, or 96 dB attenuation for 16 bit files.

Is that incorrect?