• Announcements

    • andrewilley

      Poweramp v3 Project Update   04/24/2017

      As you may be aware, the Poweramp developer has been working hard on an updated material design user interface for Poweramp v3 which required a full ground-up rebuild of the code and is taking some time to get to a beta-test stage. See the forum thread for more details and to discuss.    
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
barcajuvebilbao

High Resolution Audio Processing discussion

58 posts in this topic

On 12/9/2017 at 8:45 AM, quirK said:

The weakest link in an audio chain is the speakers or the headphones. So that's where you find the biggest improvement and pleasure in your audio journey. 

I have to caution that you're still only referring to your subjective experience. The answer to the "problem" of mp3 is not high res. The problem of mp3 is not low res, but suboptimal frame sizes and sfb21 bitrate bloat that affects 16 kHz and above. It suffers from pre-echo due to the first, and deprivation of bits below 16 kHz due to the second, if the lowpass is not low enough.

The answer to mp3 is the modern codecs that were designed to overcome its specific weaknesses, or designed after years of dealing with psychoacoustic models, transforms, and filters, and learning about minimising the non-linear artifacts that arise from using them. These codecs today are lc-aac and opus, opus being unencumbered by patents. 

If one is sensitive to the various artifacts of lossy codecs, they can go on to lossless codecs like FLAC or ALAC, FLAC being unencumbered by patents. 

The sufficiency of 16-bits and 44.1 kHz has been proven by hard research data again and again. Perhaps a handful of people can go beyond, and even so, it's more likely that they are simply _different_, not better. There is no need to envy them or to try to be like them. 

The latest audio technology was created because of people who did correct science. Why then, may I ask, do you insist on applying anti-science when promoting high res as a magic potion? 

 

Is it wrong for Poweramp to playback high res? No. If technology improves and creates a bigger buffer against mistakes made in studio mixing and recording, then we should move in that direction. 

Is it wrong to falsely claim that high res is audible? Yes. 

Seriously, if you can't get your information accurate, don't comment.  I don't mean to be rude, but it's frustrating dealing with people don't understand insisting they know better.

MP3 was invented to minimize the size of the file because back then storage mediums couldn't hold a lot of data.  That literally meant cutting out part of the information, which literally means reducing the accuracy and quality of the music.  We're talking about art here, and the finest details are significant.  You don't just make a sound, you play it, express it, and you feel it.  The way it all blends together to create music is something we feel on a soul deep level, and it's why people say digital audio isn't as good as a live performance.  There's your different right there.  Higher resolution literally means more closely related to the original source.  Listening to Hi-Res is supposed to feel like actually having the artist there playing just for you.  Digital recreation on a low res, it's like listening to the music with a wall, or several walls between you and the people playing.  Maybe that's an extreme example, but my point is you don't feel the presence of the artist, you can't feel the way they are expressing themselves as closely.

When someone creates a fine painting, or sculpture, you don't just see shapes and colors, you see the stroke of the brushes, and the way the person put themself into their work.  Pictures can't express that emotion, that experience, that's why people go to museums.  We're not talking about a science, we're talking about art, and an artist will tell you the type of lead matters, type of strings, type of hammer and nails.  All the details matter, and when a guitarist plucks a string, it doesn't just ring, he can bend it, stretch it, play with it in ways that it speaks, and to say what we had decades ago was good enough to capture that level of detail is ignorant.  You may as well be saying "throw out the Mona Lisa, the digital pictures are good enough".

This is art, culture, it's what we experience with our hearts, not just our heads, and I'll speak for every listener who truly loves music that we want to feel it, not just hear it.

 

Poweramp development is appreciated, and all the enhancements are worth paying extra for if it was asked.  What I'm trying to say is, thank you to the developer for having the passion to give us something so incredible, and the compassion to not even charge us for the extra.

 

Hopefully people stop talking about other apps, cause this is Poweramp, and people should be focused on this app, and what it represents, which to me is everything a music app should be.  I'm satisfied just using the beta, as the new depth of the music gets to me like it touches my very soul.

Edited by andrewilley
Discussion split from unrelated thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw similar discussions over and over again , and 'pro-hires audio pipeline' ppls do same and same mistake again - they trying to appeal to some specific issues from the deep and grim signal processing world ... while their opponents clearly demonstrates that they even do not understand basics :
Let's get back to Nyquist frequency / criteria  , Nyquist–Shannon theorem etc : what u should realize at first ? ( unfortunately , this simple thing usually missing or even misinterpreting in lots of introductory papers/articles/books ) Yes, it's about sufficient condition, but it's sufficient only in case of ideal/perfect signal ( in 'math' meaning !  yes, yes, I know this is not 100% correct terms use , but it's correct enough for short note in such discussion  ) . Add imperfect world where this should be implemented .... and we can easily postulate - related criteria/frequency/whatever , actually , is not about 'sufficiency' but about 'necessity' in case of 'imperfect' ( again, in 'math' meaning) signal .
Note: if u don't trust such quick and simple explanation , just try to dig more on issue, and u quickly find papers where it's explained in more 'academic' way.
And only after realising that simple fact, we can dive into , again, grim details of signal processing, conversion and 'generation' , real-word application, 'tricks' used by different software and hardware implementations etc etc  .
So, no , "The sufficiency of 16-bits and 44.1 kHz has been proven by hard research data again and again" is completely wrong ... Only something like "The necessity of 16-bits and 44.1 kHz has been proven by hard research data again and again" can be considered somewhat 'close' to reality.
       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, aie said:

I saw similar discussions over and over again , and 'pro-hires audio pipeline' ppls do same and same mistake again - they trying to appeal to some specific issues from the deep and grim signal processing world ... while their opponents clearly demonstrates that they even do not understand basics :
Let's get back to Nyquist frequency / criteria  , Nyquist–Shannon theorem etc : what u should realize at first ? ( unfortunately , this simple thing usually missing or even misinterpreting in lots of introductory papers/articles/books ) Yes, it's about sufficient condition, but it's sufficient only in case of ideal/perfect signal ( in 'math' meaning !  yes, yes, I know this is not 100% correct terms use , but it's correct enough for short note in such discussion  ) . Add imperfect world where this should be implemented .... and we can easily postulate - related criteria/frequency/whatever , actually , is not about 'sufficiency' but about 'necessity' in case of 'imperfect' ( again, in 'math' meaning) signal .
Note: if u don't trust such quick and simple explanation , just try to dig more on issue, and u quickly find papers where it's explained in more 'academic' way.
And only after realising that simple fact, we can dive into , again, grim details of signal processing, conversion and 'generation' , real-word application, 'tricks' used by different software and hardware implementations etc etc  .
So, no , "The sufficiency of 16-bits and 44.1 kHz has been proven by hard research data again and again" is completely wrong ... Only something like "The necessity of 16-bits and 44.1 kHz has been proven by hard research data again and again" can be considered somewhat 'close' to reality.
       

I stand corrected. I was trying to leave some face, some space, for the hi res shills. But I admit I haven't refreshed my reading in recent months.

The data does say that 48 kHz is actually better because the lowpass filter can be gentler when tapering off from 20 kHz to 24 kHz. But that's because of the Fourier transform. Brickwalling right at 22.05 kHz would introduce more obvious ringing artifacts.

Other than that, 16 bits is more than enough for playback. It is more than the difference between the softest whisper and standing next to a jet turbine. That said, if 24 bits can be had for no extra financial and processing cost, why not? Sad fact is that 24 bits is purely marketing, to increase the damn costs. Only studio engineers need to use it, for DSP headroom. The end listeners don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 9:24 AM, ACE7F22 said:

Awhile back I became curious about audio quality, and studied the digital formats, processing, analog, and hardware characteristics including impedance, responsiveness, ect.

 

A piece of information I came across is that there is a limit to perceivable quality in digitally reproduced media.  This is a limit in our own senses, which is why TVs of different resolutions are recommended based on how close you are viewing from.  The finest details become impossible for us to notice, or pick out no matter how hard we try.  The cost of producing technology, and equipment that can recreate on that level begins to outweigh it's benefits.

 

Considering this, there are many variables, such as differences between each person's own senses, some people may pick up on what others physically or mentally can't.  Also some media isn't made in high level of detail to begin with, so low quality music through the best system money can buy will still sound cheap even to the finest set of ears.  It's a chain of things that the weakest link will bring everything else down to it's level, and having something that goes beyond does become redundant.

 

That being said, yes, even portable devices can give extremely high quality audio experiences. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars, or have an expensive media station.  These days being able to play high quality is a standard, and the important part that's missing is the high quality audio source, such as music files.

 

If you want to know the difference, my biggest example is "Dare" by Gorillaz.  I first started listening to this song before I got good headphones, and after the difference and detail was breathtaking.  I also recommend Metallica.  Listen to the music with low quality settings, and then listen to it again with the high quality settings, or an upsampler.  Make sure the track is at least 24bit, I found it makes a big difference, even with MP3.  Generally I aim for files that are larger, if I'm downloading, cause they have more volume and dynamic range.

 

The goal of Hi-Res is to step up from the mp3 error that cut out so much quality of the original music.  Back then hearing the music was enough, but Hi-Res allows you to actually feel the music, experience it.  With Poweramp, and some good headphones, I experienced songs like I never heard them before, some if them I grew up with, and it was overwhelming.

 

Final note, remember that your music will only be as good as the weakest link from the file itself, to the sensitivity of your own ears and how you feel.  If it doesn't move you, than something somewhere isn't stepping up, and if you don't believe there's a difference, find, or put together a real chain of all high quality, such as the files, audio engine, DAC, and speakers, and remove any one part, and you'll feel the difference.

 

I hope this helps.  People forget that it's a system of things, and you can't make a bad file sound good just because you have the best equipment and software.  And you don't need the best to feel the music as the artist intended, just decent stuff.

This is incorrect. Based on your descriptions it sounds like you've simply downloaded different versions of the same song from different sources and equated that because there is a difference it must be because of the format. This is untrue.

One common misconception is that louder is better; This is false as well. If you take two identical audio tracks and make one louder than the other, it will psychologically be perceived as better due to being louder despite being otherwise identical.

Now, remember there will be differences between different tracks; The same song will not necessarily always sound the same depending on where it comes from. This is due to differing masters; The same song on 2 different albums or even the same song on the same album printed at different times can actually have differences. This is because different so-called "masters" are often used when producing an album and they aren't always exactly identical. There's also the marketing aspect of it where places that sell so-called "high-res" audio will actually try and find some of the better masters and even intentionally modify the song slightly so that it will sound different. Thus you can't just download a song in 24 bit and another in 16 and compare them directly because they may already be intentionally made to be different.

So, how to give this a fair comparison? Well, take that Gorillaz song you mentioned and make sure it's 24 bit (because that's supposed to be better you say, yes?) and then convert it yourself down to 16 bit. Foobar is quite good at doing this. Then compare your original file to the resulting converted file and I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference (spoiler alert, you won't be able to). Also, if using foobar, one good tool to compare them is Foo ABX which lets you directly compare the files and eliminates bias and placebo because you won't actually know which one is which; You'll just be asked to compare them and guess which one you think is which and then it will tell you if you're right or not.

If you still don't agree with me, feel free to send me the tracks in PM and I'll compare them to see if there really is as big a difference you claim there to be.

As for MP3, in case you weren't aware, this an open-source format with a large variety of different codecs and implementations available, some with different focus than others. It is true that mp3 originally was intended to degrade the audio to save space but several codecs, most notably the LAME one, rather aims to preserve as much quality as possible whilst still maintaining a reasonably small file size. LAME-encoded mp3 files at around 256kbit and higher are shown to be practically transparent; Meaning that the only loss in quality compared to the source PCM data is so small that it's next to impossible to hear it with your own ears. This has been put to the test numerous times through blind tests and there's hardly anyone who, through proper scientific method, been able to actually tell the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is audio quality matters.  The smallest detail is a big difference because it is art.  An hour long song with one note missing or changed isn't the same.  If you're not passionate enough about music to want to feel it to the fullest extent, why are you even here?

Yea, power Amp looks cool, and the settings for controlling your experience are amazing, but the most important part is the sound, and the audio engine that gives us that.  I'm here because I appreciate it, and I support what the developer is doing.

If you're not here with support, don't bother replying.  This isn't a place for reviews, or negative statements about High Resolution being irrelevant.

 

(Eagerly awaiting next update)🎧

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/12/2017 at 3:04 PM, Timmy Fox said:

@ACE7F22 @ToaneeM Then I invite you two to do a full double blind test and tell me if you can actually tell the difference because I sure can't with notably higher performing equipment than what a mere phone is capable of.

Even IF there is a difference you speak of, it's so small that if I and a bunch of other people can't make it out on any of the tests I've conducted on a variety of dedicated DAC/AMP combinations with numerous different high-end headphones including some HD800, Hifiman, STAX etc. you'd very likely impossibly be able to tell the difference using a mobile integrated dac/amp and essentially any portable headphones.

Either way, don't take my word from it, here's one of several popular papers that go more into detail about it written by someone who's actually done this type of work professionally for many years; https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Sorry but you've lost me, @TimmyFox.  You posted a pretty firm and declarative statement about sampling theory:

"I'm sorry but there is several things that are factually incorrect about this."

"Firstly, the "Only sampling 2 times" has been proven through the Nyqvist theorem to be enough to reproduce the full soundwave indetically to its source. Surely we can capture more points and such but that's completely redundant because only 2 samples is actually needed to perfectly reproduce an identical analog signal."

I replied, explaining how you're wrong about sampling theory and inviting a response on sampling theory. Then you changed to blind tests and "IF there's a difference" etc.

But we're talking about sampling theory, aren't we, that's what you specifically posted about.

Let's stick to the point we're discussing. Are you saying that what I posted is how sampling theory works...or isn't how it works? If not, please go over why higher sample rates are "completely redundant" in sampling theory.

Thanks very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez... All these numbers and technical mumbo jumbo. Not that I don't appreciate numbers (I do), but it gets to a point where the magic of audio is lost. Because one guy thinks he can hear that 372khz sin wave working its magic to make a sawtooth wave sound amazing. Everyone's ears are different. If you think you hear a difference, cool beans, but don't get all salty if someone else cant hear it.

 

The only time anyone has to worry about numbers is when they're mastering or engineering an audio track or sound. Those guys are the ones who have to worry about resolution and bit depth. It's like shooting 4K, 10 bit, 4:2:2 with a V-log profile at 300mbps. They need all the info they can have to mess around and come up with the final look of the video. In the end, the end user is watching a 1080p, 40-50mpbs video.

 

Sure quality matters, but in the "arts" perspective, it's also the arrangement of the music. I still listen to and enjoy the hell out of a song I have that's rendered at 32khz, 96kbps (got it off some download site years and years ago) Sure it sounds shit, but I still enjoy it because the music itself is awesome. I'd find a higher quality version of it if I had the time, but I'm not talking about the technicalities in this particular paragraph. I'm talking about the art. The pure essence of music. And that's what really matters.

 

Dang. Now I have to say something Poweramp related... Uh.... Keep up the good work, Max! Can't wait to see and listen to the new version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To defend everything I've said, Poweramp is like a beautiful well tuned digital instrument to play back my favorite music, and huge varied music collection at that.  Like a record player designed to best enjoy those records, except this is the digital age, and numbers, formats, processing, programming, and the numbers are all part of what makes the Poweramp experience.  What's the difference between the old mp3 players and now?  Or even the old version of Poweramp and v3?  Besides user interface, the main difference is format support, processing power, and the ability to pull out every subtle detail from the music we listen to, and that is a numbers game.  The difference between recognizing a song, and falling in love with it all over again.  This is evolution of how we enjoy art, and I'll say the user interface is a work of art itself.

 

My point being, I believe this is all relevant to the new version, and I don't consider it to be off topic to praise the work being done to make our music truly sing.

 

Oh, note, some music is so emotional, so well made, it brings me to tears.  Hearing it clearly, the detail, depth, it's a blessing to someone who appreciates it.  Maybe some people can't tell the difference, and hearing is just hearing, but to an audiophile, the smallest difference can mean everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ACE7F22 said:

To defend everything I've said, Poweramp is like a beautiful well tuned digital instrument to play back my favorite music, and huge varied music collection at that.  Like a record player designed to best enjoy those records, except this is the digital age, and numbers, formats, processing, programming, and the numbers are all part of what makes the Poweramp experience.  What's the difference between the old mp3 players and now?  Or even the old version of Poweramp and v3?  Besides user interface, the main difference is format support, processing power, and the ability to pull out every subtle detail from the music we listen to, and that is a numbers game.  The difference between recognizing a song, and falling in love with it all over again.  This is evolution of how we enjoy art, and I'll say the user interface is a work of art itself.

 

My point being, I believe this is all relevant to the new version, and I don't consider it to be off topic to praise the work being done to make our music truly sing.

 

Oh, note, some music is so emotional, so well made, it brings me to tears.  Hearing it clearly, the detail, depth, it's a blessing to someone who appreciates it.  Maybe some people can't tell the difference, and hearing is just hearing, but to an audiophile, the smallest difference can mean everything.

We all are audiophiles that being the reason we are on the Forums eagerly waiting for the next Update! But since you can enjoy the audio processing power in the Alpha already its not necessary to put all the 24 bit stuff here.. create a different thread i am sure people who are interested will respond keep this thread as clutter free as it can be coz many people rely on this people for timely updates and big replies just don't help them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RockStar2005 said:

(note: Mastered for iTunes albums ARE Hi-Res despite being downsampled)

Wat. 

Elaborate this utterly sketchy statement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Quade13 said:

Wat. 

Elaborate this utterly sketchy statement.  

Yeah lol........... I was shocked too. I was payin' like $15-$20 per Hi-Res album, and now I realize iTunes Store has the same albums from apparently the same masters but for HALF the price! Just found this out a month or so ago. So been buyin' their MFiT Hi-Res albums instead of the ones from HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds, or 7digital (my "usual go-tos"). And the ones on iTunes that are not MFiT are STILL sourced from CDs, NOT mp3s! 

I always downsample ALL my Hi-Res and CD-Quality music to 256-320 kbps AAC as it has been statistically proven to sound no different than the same song/master in FLAC format. Keeping it in the larger formats is simply a waste of space IMHO. As long as it's above mp3 (AAC is mp4, or "next gen" mp3), it doesn't matter. 

See my thread on Head-Fi about this. Skim/read it all, then respond there not here please. MOST DEF see posts #1, 18, 21, & 29 if short on time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RockStar2005 said:

Yeah lol........... I was shocked too. I was payin' like $15-$20 per Hi-Res album, and now I realize iTunes Store has the same albums from apparently the same masters but for HALF the price! Just found this out a month or so ago. So been buyin' their MFiT Hi-Res albums instead of the ones from HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds, or 7digital (my "usual go-tos"). And the ones on iTunes that are not MFiT are STILL sourced from CDs, NOT mp3s! 

I always downsample ALL my Hi-Res and CD-Quality music to 256-320 kbps AAC as it has been statistically proven to sound no different than the same song/master in FLAC format. Keeping it in the larger formats is simply a waste of space IMHO. As long as it's above mp3 (AAC is mp4, or "next gen" mp3), it doesn't matter. 

See my thread on Head-Fi about this. Skim/read it all, then respond there not here please. MOST DEF see posts #1, 18, 21, & 29 if short on time. 

As long as it sounds good to me, then it does not matter how far better format or bitrate it should be. I got most of mine backed up at 320kbps cbr mp3 but bring it down to vbr 190 mp3 for listening on phone, and I can't even tell the difference, but I sure can tell a difference on equalizer from PA and the other apps on google play. PA just makes it sound better no matter what. Oh and having the samsung galaxy s7 edge with the UHQ Upscaler helps a lot too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, utahman1971 said:

As long as it sounds good to me, then it does not matter how far better format or bitrate it should be. I got most of mine backed up at 320kbps cbr mp3 but bring it down to vbr 190 mp3 for listening on phone, and I can't even tell the difference, but I sure can tell a difference on equalizer from PA and the other apps on google play. PA just makes it sound better no matter what. Oh and having the samsung galaxy s7 edge with the UHQ Upscaler helps a lot too.

That's cool. Yeah I ONLY play my music off PA, whether on my headphones or in my car (wired connection via Aux port). And I do use PA's EQ presets as well as custom EQs as well, so for me, it matters. I do agree.............PA always makes it sound better. lol 

From what I've read AND experienced, the reason why CDQ and esp Hi-Res albums sound better is not really so much the higher resolution, but that these other releases (esp Hi-Res) get the BEST sounding masters, where the worst ones tend to be released as mp3s. This is why I have no hesitation with regards to downsampling my Hi-Res and CDQ FLAC purchases to 256-320 kbps AAC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RockStar2005 said:

Yeah lol........... I was shocked too. I was payin' like $15-$20 per Hi-Res album, and now I realize iTunes Store has the same albums from apparently the same masters but for HALF the price! Just found this out a month or so ago. So been buyin' their MFiT Hi-Res albums instead of the ones from HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds, or 7digital (my "usual go-tos"). And the ones on iTunes that are not MFiT are STILL sourced from CDs, NOT mp3s! 

I always downsample ALL my Hi-Res and CD-Quality music to 256-320 kbps AAC as it has been statistically proven to sound no different than the same song/master in FLAC format. Keeping it in the larger formats is simply a waste of space IMHO. As long as it's above mp3 (AAC is mp4, or "next gen" mp3), it doesn't matter. 

See my thread on Head-Fi about this. Skim/read it all, then respond there not here please. MOST DEF see posts #1, 18, 21, & 29 if short on time. 

That is upsetting. I do hear a difference by comparing a downsampled 320 mp3 file and a ripped flac. Most of the time this manifests in distinctive loss of detail or hiss on treble-induced instruments. Speed metal and/or similar genres turn out to be hell to listen to. 

I'm looking forward to grab a pair of Ety iems soon, that should mitigate my keenness of listening to lossy formats, ever again lol

 

Back on the topic: this is the principal reason to avoid PA as it does not match up to the correct frequency output of a file, and either of the formats are imparing due to resample to android's default. So, even a lossy format would be upscaled to 48khz with a sampler lib (not sure which one PA utilizes), not even at a 2:1 ratio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quade13 said:

That is upsetting. I do hear a difference by comparing a downsampled 320 mp3 file and a ripped flac. Most of the time this manifests in distinctive loss of detail or hiss on treble-induced instruments. Speed metal and/or similar genres turn out to be hell to listen to. 

I'm looking forward to grab a pair of Ety iems soon, that should mitigate my keenness of listening to lossy formats, ever again lol

 

Back on the topic: this is the principal reason to avoid PA as it does not match up to the correct frequency output of a file, and either of the formats are imparing due to resample to android's default. So, even a lossy format would be upscaled to 48khz with a sampler lib (not sure which one PA utilizes), not even at a 2:1 ratio. 

What is upsetting Quade? 

Yeah.........the 2 things I typically notice when comparing the mp3 version of a song and the FLAC version (even sometimes when they come from the same master too) are 1) That the FLAC version tends to have a more full-bodied, tighter, and deeper bass range than the mp3 version 2) The mp3 version's cymbals tend to sound a lot more "wet" and artificial, esp if under 320 kbps. Sometimes I think detect other things too. It varies. 

Cool. Or you could try some over-ear headphones too. I also have a running list of great IEMs as well. PM me on Head-Fi if you'd like help. But my current Sennheiser HD1 Over-Ears are really something truly special. My review says it all. It also includes screenshots of custom EQs for the HD1s that I created in Poweramp! There's a main one, and also an optional "Bass Xtra" and a "Bass Lite" one as well. 

I think I know what you mean Quade.........I've noticed that a lot of times, a song I play on PA will show up with a slightly different bit rate. Like a 256 mbps AAC file might show up as 277. Or a 512 kbps AAC might show up as 522, etc. I think it even happens with FLAC files too. Everything still sounds amazing to me despite all that, so I can't say it's an issue. I currently use my LG V30 with its Quad-DAC and super powerful amp to play my music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downsampling to 320kbps AAC instead of MP3 is a lot better option of you struggle with space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morgenstern said:

Downsampling to 320kbps AAC instead of MP3 is a lot better option of you struggle with space.

I agree, but it's not even about "struggling" with space. It's just that there's no difference in sound quality IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck would someone care about what others say about what it sounds like or is better? It is what our own ears perceive it to be good or not, not what others says or numbers to prove that it is what it is. All I read in this whole thread was circles of someone saying the other is wrong. Who cares? I just enjoy it the way I like it, and if that bothers any of you, then the problem is not me, but who ever says something about it. All I see are you all saying that everyone else should agree with how you like it. I almost think this is the worst thread I ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, utahman1971 said:

All I read in this whole thread was circles of someone saying the other is wrong.

Why do you think I separated this to a separate thread where people can discuss it without clogging up other areas? Sometimes psycho-acoustic subjective opinions get a bit heated.

It's not as bad as the more extreme hi-fi addicts who will tell you one gold-plated digital cable gives a better bass response than another digital cable though. :) 

Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference you claim to hear in things like Black Sabbath vinyl rips is very likely not what you think it is. Unlike CDs, Vinyls are analogue format, to get that into a digital format, you need to interpret it. That gets filtered by the player to a sound which is different than the original recording. You might objectively find it more pleasing, as it might be a warmer and more relaxed sound, but it is not identical to the original. If you're comparing a vinyl rip to a CD rip, that's the difference you're hearing, not the added detail of the file format. What you should be doing is taking your vinyl rip and compressing it to 320 mp3. I've done this, and with a/b testing on PC with good hardware, heard no difference despite originally thinking I did.

You seem overly concerned with numbers and shit that would look great advertised on the front of a box. 768 khz, wow! That MUST be the best! I mean, nevermind that you're never actually going to get files in that format, or that your hearing would never discern it, or that there's almost no hardware that legitimately outputs that even if it can process it, I'm going to get that because it MUST be the best. Use your damn ears. Stop being a tool that accepts marketing gimmicks unquestioningly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago I've updated my Zenfone 3 to Android Oreo and the setting for the High Res Audio has disappeared. The app works properly, then again i miss listening music via high res output.  Wish Max good luck with his project and hopefully we'd be able to recieve the update sometime in the future. 

Screenshot_20180201-174603.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quade13 said:

You are out of luck, like hundreds of users on this forum. Fallback to your former OS version, or grab another player. 

I can't just roll back to Android 6.0 when high res output is working, Can't trade the performance and battery optimization of Android 8.0 to Android 6. I'll stick to Poweramp due to high flexibility of the settings for Audio and Audio quality. Still hopeful we're gonna get the update soon. 

5 hours ago, speedingcheetah said:

 ur on the wrong thread...

If u had searched the forum...there is other threads about the No high res audio option on Android O.  (notification control is also broke in 8.1. no fix for that)

There is a solution i found that worked for me in one of those threads. Ill see if i can find it and post a link

EDIT: 

Tried the settings, thanks Audio quality improved slightly, Still the output stays at 16Bit, but the digital signal processing is doing it at 24bit. (Which makes it 16bit due to the output) but hey least it sounded slighty better, thanks. 

 

Screenshot_20180202-112058.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Draconican said:

I can't just roll back to Android 6.0 when high res output is working, Can't trade the performance and battery optimization of Android 8.0 to Android 6. I'll stick to Poweramp due to high flexibility of the settings for Audio and Audio quality. Still hopeful we're gonna get the update soon. 

Hold on, it's not over yet. Have you tackled with build.prop values, by any chance? Specifically, the triggers for Samsung and Meizu driver implementations (the Lenovo one is atrocious, skip on it). 

A dumpsys log will sort it out. Of course, requires a rooted device, or some dodgy trials to get it working with a computer through dev debugger. You might have been tricked to believe it is functioning properly. 

 

Here is my readout on rerouting output threads. Notice the direct thread still outputs 48khz on a 96khz file. It has nothing to do with the system, but Poweramp itself. 

Screenshot_20180202-065004_01.thumb.png.2de64ce8af55cb2e852f1de564c212d8.png

P. S. In fact, you should look up logcat for DAC triggers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont kno if this fixes the issue with the hi-res issue but it might...In 8.0 & 8.1 go to about phone (possibly inside about phone, click software) find build # click on it 7x pop ups will confirm how many more click u have. Then exit about phone, u will now see developer options In ur settings, click on developer options Then scroll down till u see all the shit having to do with bluetooth. Play around with this n see if it helps at all

 

Sorry 4got then changed the whole settings, go to system, then about phone, then back to system n developer options will be there

Screenshot_Settings_20180202-031336.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, KiLLaBee said:

I dont kno if this fixes the issue with the hi-res issue but it might...In 8.0 & 8.1 go to about phone (possibly inside about phone, click software) find build # click on it 7x pop ups will confirm how many more click u have. Then exit about phone, u will now see developer options In ur settings, click on developer options Then scroll down till u see all the shit having to do with bluetooth. Play around with this n see if it helps at all

 

Sorry 4got then changed the whole settings, go to system, then about phone, then back to system n developer options will be there

 

No...that does not effect anything to do with High Res output. Also, that only affect Bluetooth, not AUX jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0