android
  #21  
Old 11-12-2013, 05:43 AM
sergivs sergivs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 64
Default

The better resolution in Neutron is probably total gibberish (well, I guess some apps might sound different from others if resampling is involved, so if the word 'resolution' is used in the nebulous audiophile sense, with some audio files it could be true). Be that as it may, yesterday I wanted to listen to an old mp3 of my favorite punk band on my Android, which I had never done before, and neither Omich nor PlayerPro were able to open it, but Neutron was, and even displayed relevant cover art. The quality was pretty bad, but that wasn't the app's fault
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #22  
Old 11-12-2013, 06:08 AM
Jeven Jeven is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Great Britain & Northern Ireland
Posts: 428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h1a8 View Post
It has better resolution. I tried poweramp and some others and they are decent but not quite as good sounding. The UI has improved a lot but still not quite as good as poweramp and some others. I hate the eq (wish it was easier to manipulate). I also wish they have a bass setting instead of trying to eq it yourself.

Android rockbox sounds good too. But it has some quirks. For high resolution screens the 480x640 seems to work the best.

But guess what. I found a much better sounding player than them all.
The Sony Walkman app. You must root your phone to be able to install it though. It has clear bass and nice eq. It sounds a lot better than even neutron player (hard to believe). Maybe it's the eq setting that makes me think this way.
I tried the Walkman app on both my Sony phones - it didn't sound any better than any other music app, so I disabled it, but when I EQ using google play music it uses the Walkman EQ settings.
__________________
sent from my Clip+ via BBM
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 11-12-2013, 11:18 AM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,898
Default

I'll say that most apps I've heard sound alike until you start making changes to effects and EQs. Some of them can sound horrible with even slight changes into positive values. The best I've heard will easily cause distortion if you EQ the bass into positive values or apply excessive compression.

Some don't require you do anything for them to sound poor. Jetaudio has a Automatic Gain Control active as a default. Until I found that and deactivated it I couldn't figure out why it sounded so fuzzy. I've read some release notes that make it seem as if they've fixed that but I don't have a recent version installed to test that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sergivs View Post
The better resolution in Neutron is probably total gibberish (well, I guess some apps might sound different from others if resampling is involved, so if the word 'resolution' is used in the nebulous audiophile sense, with some audio files it could be true). Be that as it may, yesterday I wanted to listen to an old mp3 of my favorite punk band on my Android, which I had never done before, and neither Omich nor PlayerPro were able to open it, but Neutron was, and even displayed relevant cover art. The quality was pretty bad, but that wasn't the app's fault
I'll leave the better resolution part alone. I've seen too many people ready to argue to the death over that. When I've down sampled and reduced the bit depth of files that were originally 96/24 to 16/44.1 I can't hear a difference so that's what I go with.

To confirm to my satisfaction it wasn't just my ears I've put the two files in Audacity, inverted one and listened for the difference. Cranked up to the loudest level I can achieve I sometimes hear a very, and I mean VERY, faint white noise type sound. No music just a hiss. They aren't exactly the same but it seems any difference might be quantization noise so I'm comfortable disregarding that. I am NOT going to quadruple my storage or buy tracks at ridiculously high prices to store bits I can't hear under any normal circumstances.

That MP3 of yours might have errors that foobar2000 or MP3Val may be able to correct. Neither of them re-encode the files so there's no loss of audio quality from transcoding. They both look at the header to see if there's errors and can usually fix them. foobar2000 also is able to rewrite the MP3 stream. That's fixed some of my old CBR MP3s that won't work with some apps and software because they error out trying to read the nonstandard info in some MP3 files.
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 11-14-2013, 07:23 PM
sergivs sergivs is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skip252 View Post
That MP3 of yours might have errors that foobar2000 or MP3Val may be able to correct. Neither of them re-encode the files so there's no loss of audio quality from transcoding. They both look at the header to see if there's errors and can usually fix them. foobar2000 also is able to rewrite the MP3 stream. That's fixed some of my old CBR MP3s that won't work with some apps and software because they error out trying to read the nonstandard info in some MP3 files.
Thanks, I'll give that a try sometime. I actually have foobar2000 installed.
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 11-24-2013, 11:02 AM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skip252 View Post
I'll leave the better resolution part alone. I've seen too many people ready to argue to the death over that. When I've down sampled and reduced the bit depth of files that were originally 96/24 to 16/44.1 I can't hear a difference so that's what I go with.
On a related note, I have some 24/96 files made by a guy with high end equipment and done from vinyl. The down sampled versions sounded worse than the original CD. The specific example was Steely Dans Aja. The 24 bit version sounds great on my home stereo, and very good on my car stereo using my Galaxy S3 with Neutron to my Kenwood head unit, but I can tell the limitations of that setup. I think it's possible to hear better quality and clarity from stuff like 24 bit, but it depends on what you are playing it on.
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 11-24-2013, 11:27 AM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,898
Default

First, welcome to ABi

If the downsampled version is audibly worse the resampler is broken or it was used improperly. Find a good resampler like SOX, conduct double blind testing then report back. Until then there's no reason for anyone to believe that your subjective opinion means anything to anyone but you.

I said that I prefer not to argue, not that I'm willing to accept any unfounded opinion that someone who hasn't done proper testing expresses.
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 11-24-2013, 11:48 AM
saratoga saratoga is offline
Rockbox Developer / Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirFiero View Post
On a related note, I have some 24/96 files made by a guy with high end equipment and done from vinyl. The down sampled versions sounded worse than the original CD. The specific example was Steely Dans Aja. The 24 bit version sounds great on my home stereo, and very good on my car stereo using my Galaxy S3 with Neutron to my Kenwood head unit, but I can tell the limitations of that setup. I think it's possible to hear better quality and clarity from stuff like 24 bit, but it depends on what you are playing it on.
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
__________________
Interested in Google's Summer of Code ? PM me.
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 11-24-2013, 12:08 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saratoga View Post
Well thank you, but could you tell me what I'm seeing in those graphs? I don't know how to interpret what I'm seeing.
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 11-24-2013, 12:18 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skip252 View Post
First, welcome to ABi

If the downsampled version is audibly worse the resampler is broken or it was used improperly. Find a good resampler like SOX, conduct double blind testing then report back. Until then there's no reason for anyone to believe that your subjective opinion means anything to anyone but you.

I said that I prefer not to argue, not that I'm willing to accept any unfounded opinion that someone who hasn't done proper testing expresses.
First of all, I didn't do the down sampling. In fact, I don't know for sure if it was actually down sampled or it was done as a separate recording, one in 24/96 and the other in 16/44. I'd have to do some research.

Secondly, I don't see where I presented my results as anything other than my own personal experience. So I understand that you want scientific info to be posted, but I didn't imply anything other than my own subjective opinion.
Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 11-24-2013, 12:37 PM
saratoga saratoga is offline
Rockbox Developer / Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirFiero View Post
Well thank you, but could you tell me what I'm seeing in those graphs? I don't know how to interpret what I'm seeing.
Thats a comparison of a huge number of resamplers. Go through, pick one thats perfect, and then when you resample you won't have any change in quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirFiero View Post
Secondly, I don't see where I presented my results as anything other than my own personal experience.
You stated pretty authoritatively that they sounded worse, so people are going to assume that you meant it. If you didn't mean it, don't say things like that.
__________________
Interested in Google's Summer of Code ? PM me.
Reply With Quote

  #31  
Old 11-24-2013, 12:47 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Since I was the only one listening, and I'm relating that experience, why would someone assume otherwise? How would you prefer I have worded it?
Reply With Quote

  #32  
Old 11-24-2013, 01:34 PM
saratoga saratoga is offline
Rockbox Developer / Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirFiero View Post
Since I was the only one listening, and I'm relating that experience, why would someone assume otherwise? How would you prefer I have worded it?
"I've heard downsampled files that I think sounded different, but I don't know how they were downsampled or if my experience is relevant to what is being discussed".

At least reading your followup post I think thats what you actually meant.
__________________
Interested in Google's Summer of Code ? PM me.
Reply With Quote

  #33  
Old 11-24-2013, 01:49 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saratoga View Post
"I've heard downsampled files that I think sounded different, but I don't know how they were downsampled or if my experience is relevant to what is being discussed".

At least reading your followup post I think thats what you actually meant.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. I didn't intend to imply otherwise, or start any arguments.
Reply With Quote

  #34  
Old 11-24-2013, 02:39 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,898
Default

Please don't think of this an an argument. What we do here is learn from each other by discussing things as intelligent adults. That frequently means that there will be differences of opinions. I've found that as long as we address the subject of the conversation, not personalities, there's a potential here to pick up things it's difficult to discuss anywhere else.

You'll notice there's no "Boy, you're dumb.", it's "That information isn't accurate, here's a source of information that will help you learn more". That may be said in no nonsense terms but I know from experience it's intended to clarify, not demean.

Doing it that way I've discovered springboards to info that have me in a position I never would have imagined when I joined here. I've learned that top quality, not "pretty decent" or "good enough", digital audio playback is dead cheap and simple to achieve.

That info doesn't help sell products or keep me on an endless quest to improve my setup beyond my ability to hear so there's quite a few people that don't consider it very sexy. I'm too busy enjoying my music to do anything more than feel somewhat sorry for them and keep rockin' out.
Reply With Quote

  #35  
Old 11-24-2013, 05:12 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

It is pretty difficult to tell whether you're actually hearing the difference, or it's all in your head rather than your ears. Since storage is cheap, I'm tending to do FLAC format and 24-bit when I can. It doesn't hurt, but I'll try not to have any illusions that it's that much better.
Reply With Quote

  #36  
Old 11-24-2013, 06:06 PM
saratoga saratoga is offline
Rockbox Developer / Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirFiero View Post
It is pretty difficult to tell whether you're actually hearing the difference, or it's all in your head rather than your ears.
Its incredibly difficult, which is why ABX is so useful. For digital processing it makes it trivial to figure out conclusively if a difference you think you hear is as real as it seems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirFiero View Post
Since storage is cheap, I'm tending to do FLAC format and 24-bit when I can. It doesn't hurt, but I'll try not to have any illusions that it's that much better.
Yeah, 24 bit can be useful, but its pretty rare. If you go look at 24 bit content in something like lossywav, its pretty rare that it reports even 16 bits. Often stuff sold as 24 bit is just a dithered copy of the 16 bit master. Vinyl rips are the worst, since people making them usually have no idea what they're doing.
__________________
Interested in Google's Summer of Code ? PM me.
Reply With Quote

  #37  
Old 11-24-2013, 07:09 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Ok, here are the specs on the vinyl rips I was talking about:

++++Useless info that results in google results to pirate sites removed+++

Last edited by skip252; 11-24-2013 at 07:25 PM. Reason: Useless info that results in search results to pirate sites removed
Reply With Quote

  #38  
Old 11-24-2013, 07:27 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Huh? Those were the specs of the digital recordings of vinyl, the site name wasn't mentioned.
Reply With Quote

  #39  
Old 11-24-2013, 07:47 PM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,898
Default

It seems there's a part of information about any rip you haven't done yourself can't be allowed here you're not getting. Because someone did a needle drop, processed the hell out of it and the results sounds good to doesn't mean that there's an inherent superiority of 24/96 as a delivery medium.

You first need an original 24/96 file. "Original" meaning it was properly recorded and preserved at 24/96, not upsampled like all the "rips" I've deleted the info to. That would give you an original that could be converted to various formats then compared to the original under double blind conditions. That's the ABX testing saratoga has mentioned.

Someone posting an elaborate set of processing criteria means nothing if you think about it. From my point of view someone who is copying copyrighted material and posting the results isn't the most reliable source for information me to do research to base my buying choices on. For all you actually know they could have just ripped a CD to an lossy format, transcoded that and spent a few minutes typing up what they care for you to believe.

EDIT: I removed those because when I selected the text and did a google it took me to download sites. Someone using the same terms would wind up here. We don't need anyone showing up here for that.
Reply With Quote

  #40  
Old 11-24-2013, 08:20 PM
AirFiero AirFiero is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Or you could give the benefit that they are telling the truth.

I don't seem to be doing very well here. I guess I will just move along.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.