Jump to content

Timmy Fox

Approved Members
  • Posts

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Downloads

Poweramp Knowledge Base

База знаний Poweramp

Poweramp知识库

Poweramp Equalizer Knowledge Base

База знаний Poweramp Equalizer

Everything posted by Timmy Fox

  1. Uh, just a curiosity here since I don't feel it's been made clear enough; What's the difference between this (706/707) and the "older" beta (790)? Haven't tried running either yet but judging by the version numbering I'd assume 706/707 are relatively minor updates from the, at this point, rather old 705 build (mainly for compatibility purposes and some minor bugfixes) as opposed to being further updates to the rather more experimental build 790 which dropped rather recently as well. Is this correct?
  2. 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.
  3. @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
  4. 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. Sure the real world isn't flawless but the little bit of extra leeway added with 44.1 and 48kHz (over the theoretical requirement of 40kHz) is enough to eliminate these. Thus, there is no other reason than the "bigger numbers must be better"-mentality to have higher sample rates for mere audio reproduction. Secondly, I think you misunderstand bit depth. It has little to do with sample size and is all about amplitude and dynamic range. With 16 bits we can seamlessly reproduce 120dB of dynamic range which is plentiful unless you want to go loud enough to cause yourself permanent hearing damage in a matter of minutes, if not even seconds, whilst simultaneously trying to hear a mosquito or needle falling in the background. You can't compare it to video that way because your eyes work quite differently and there are very different sensitivities to be applied; Most shortcomings in video is limited by costs and technology whereas audio is limited only by your ears. But sure, if you absolutely wish to compare your eyes and ears in this manner then the more fair comparison would be these: Take an IR-emitter (like a remote controller) or a true blacklight. Most likely you won't actually be able to see any real light yet you know it's there. If you photograph it with a camera you'll see it's probably really bright even if your eyes can't see anything. That is a limitation of your eyes. You physically cannot see it. This is a much better analogy to why higher sample rates won't actually make any difference. You know how, if you've looked at a bright light and gotten dazzled it can get to see anything, especially things that are dark? This is the limitation of your eyes' dynamic range; Your eyes are physically limited in how much difference they can make out between bright and dark. You usually don't notice it very much however because your eyes constantly adjust themselves much in the same was as a camera adjusts itself depending on whether your trying to photograph something bright or something dark. In other words, there is a limit to how big the difference between bright and dark can be for your eyes to be able to clearly make out any details (also why it's so hard to see anything in a dark room after you have just been in a bright room). It's the exact same for your ears, there's a limit to the loudest and quietest sound you are able to make out at the same time, though for your ears they don't have to adjust nearly as much as your eyes will and the limit is closer to where it's so loud it starts hurting and you'll eventually go deaf due to sheer loudness. 16 bits is enough to cover this range practically seamlessly.
  5. Huh, cause I have a faint memory of accidentally setting a rating on my PC on a song that showed up in Poweramp after I copied the file to my device.. I might be mistaken though, or perhaps it just reads rating tags but doesn't write to them?
  6. I thought this already was implemented? Perhaps it depends on what file type you're using?
  7. As has been said before, your best option is to contact Max directly via Poweramp.maxmpz@gmail.com rather than post on the community forum.
  8. That's strange because if DVC is turned off, the preamp is disabled/doesn't do anything so long as EQ is disabled.
  9. Is EQ turned on of off? Try turning up the preamp to the highest available setting, also try turning on the "limiter".
  10. Try disable DVC for Bluetooth; Settings > Audio > Advanced Tweaks > BT Direct Volume Control
  11. Then you're better off asking Max for employment. I did the entire Swedish translation and never got, not asked, for anything in return. I paid for my license and so did all of my friends who uses Poweramp. You can't expect to be paid for voluntary work without an agreement. That's like walking into a random store, fixing an incorrect sign or something and then expecting salary. It doesn't work that way. If you want to be paid for your work, then ask someone who's actually authorized to do so (Max). No one here even has licenses to give you, so even if we wanted to give you a license, WE DON'T HAVE ANY. So now, again, ASK THE DEVELOPER, MAX, AND NOT US. If you need help with that, the contact email is Poweramp.maxmpz@gmail.com.
  12. I'm gonna come up with a better usename for you, can I have $100 for my hard work?
  13. You're asking free stuff in return for helping an open crowdsourced translation project where anyone can submit their translations?.. What if you do get a free licence and then anyone else can simply just create an account and get a licence for free by clicking a few buttons and typing a few words?.. That's like asking for compensation for voluntarily editing an article on Wikipedia. ... No offense but I think your best bet would be to actually contact the developer through email or a private message instead of more or less begging on a forum thread.
  14. 1. What the heck does this have to do with new features planned for upcoming new versions? 2. If you'd take just 3 minutes to actually look around the website you would find this page which answers your question: http://powerampapp.com/buy-Poweramp/
  15. 1. No asking for ETA, pleeease 2. Persumably when opus becomes a format someone actually uses?
  16. I think it's bit of a joke, but it does hold a point. The point of having a standard is so that things will be compatible as the same standard will be used by everyone; having many different standards are thus pointless unless they are compatible.
  17. I'm quite sure it's been confirmed for 2.1/3.0 which is still being worked on it seems.
  18. I did, though I have hard believing some points. These look legit though, should've been in from the start... PLEASE NO
  19. Whoa, wait a moment... purchasing an app doesn't automatically mean any updates are guaranteed. And I know you're not being quite serious but I may add that this is the to-do list, for requesting features there is a dedicated section of the forum.
  20. I can't confirm it, but I've been following the twitter feeds and page updates for a while, so it seems be due for 2.0.7 or 3.0 Max confirmed Google Music support is coming on Twitter few months ago. Then I've seen various hints saying it's due for 3.0, which initially was said to be the next update (but that seems to have been changed since :/)
  21. It's due for the very next update that should be out pretty soon!
  22. No offense but Beats is bullcrap. Poweramp offers identical, if not better, performance with more versitility and customisability. Try messing with the lower (lefternmost, 31, 62, 125 and 250) sliders of the EQ, increasing them rather much and you should get pretty darn similar sound. The Bass and Extreme Bass presets are also recommended you try. Also, I think he meant more as in system library for browsing your music. This will have zero effect on sound quality or other sound enhancers (unless they are system-wide).
×
×
  • Create New...