Jump to content

ToaneeM

Approved Members
  • Posts

    18
  • 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 ToaneeM

  1. @maxmp Please can you fix this album art problem and include it in the next possible release. Thanks.
  2. @maxmp On your reply "Do you mean you want to force Poweramp to use just the selected source(s) for cover and disable others?"... I didn't really expect Poweramp to actually have a complicated art-source-choosing mechanism that it needed forcing away from :-) There's a lot of emphasis in the menus on automatically downloading album art, almost as if that'd be everyone's preferred route. Not so - I want to have a handle on the art files in the library and I imagine others may, too. My library's used by several players and is nice and portable. Options to specify the source of album art seem reasonable. To be honest, they're what I'd expected to see in Poweramp, which usually excels at making the most of a decent music library. The current menus for album art are pretty untidy. They're asking me to hint what I want Poweramp to do rather than just explicitly selecting it. And just clarifying what the menus do will get me nowhere, I'm afraid. I have beautiful 1000x1000 and 1500x1500 album cover .JPGs in my music folders and, instead, Poweramp picks the dreadful MP3 embedded art or offers to download a dodgy picture of the band or something. It's painful... :-) Please, please can you change Poweramp to have the following two options in the Album Art menu... First Album Art source Second Album Art source: Each is a follow multi-choice option with the following possible values: Music file art Folder file (.jpg etc) Downloaded art This then makes it easy. Users can specify 'MP3 art if present, folder file if not' and so on. I can specify 'Folder art if present, MP3 art if not'. Please do add this or something very like it. Thanks very much, Max.
  3. Thanks very much, Max, appreciated 🙂 That option's a little bit tucked away, wouldn't have thought of looking there.
  4. Hi Max (truly brilliant player, by the way) Yes please, that's it: I'd like to be able to select the primary (and only) source of album art, to be used in all views of songs from that album. I prefer control over the album art as I download 1500x1500 jpg's of album covers. Those are 2 MB or so and look beautiful but can't be buried in each MP3, obviously. I use the same library on my PC's player and it uses these high-res images to great effect. Incidentally, please can you also add a menu option to choose the artist's album to be displayed against that artist's name. At the moment, Poweramp seems to pick its own one. Cheers.
  5. Please can you correct a bug which lets the song title overwrite the controls on the lock screen. An example is shown below. This bug appears in v3-808. I don't know if it appeared in earlier versions.
  6. Album Art can come from several sources, including: embedded in song file; image file in album directory; downloaded by Poweramp. I want to use the image file (.jpg) in the album directory only. I never want art downloaded and I'd rather have no art if there's no image file with the album. I can't get Poweramp to do this. Finding the setting to do it is very confusing. I'd expect the Settings/AlbumArt menu to offer each of the sources I've listed, as equal alternatives to each other. Unfortunately, the menu talks a lot about downloaded art and seems to offer 'image file in directory' by omission i.e. if other options aren't selected then maybe I'll do it... Regardless of how much I've got the wrong end of the menu's stick, the menu could be much clearer. Please can the menu be modified to offer the choice of sources I listed above using a single selection. Below are my current settings which attempt to use 'image file in directory' but instead get me 'image embedded in song file'. (I have tried clearing the art cache then doing a full rescan.) Thanks for an otherwise-excellent music player.
  7. 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.
  8. The theory you're misquoting says that if you sample a continuous waveform at less than 2x the frequency of that waveform, your samples can contain an alias. Nysquist himself was talking about sampling communications data streams but people attach his name to the later work done by Shannon etc. What wasn't said was that sampling a waveform at 2x the incoming waveform's frequency would guarantee a perfect reproduction of the waveform when played back through a low-pass filter ("only 2 samples is actually needed to perfectly reproduce an identical analog signal"). Ten minutes with graph paper and pencil dots will show you the fallacy of that argument, let alone progressing through the mathematical analysis. Two samples into a low-pass filter can reconstitute a sine wave. But, as per Fourier analysis, complex waves consist of multiple sine waves called harmonics which are of increasingly-higher frequencies than the frequency of the complex waveform itself. And these need to be sampled and captured to recreate the original waveform. So your 18 kHz note needs to have its harmonics captured to reproduce the waveform to some acceptable quality. Well, either lots of software and the DVD and music industries are deludedly wasting storage space using pointlessly-high sampling frequencies or your paragraph here is wrong. Have another think about it. There's plenty of text on the internet on the subject. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...