Database Users

Do you carry an alternate media player.

I listened to my sisters ipod a couple days ago and realized that I was missing out on good quality music. So I purchased a Zune. I use skullcandy headphones. I compared the sound of the same tracks on my Xperia and on the Zune and the sound from my Zune rocked.
Hence my poll. How many of you carry an alternate media player, ipod, zune iriver etc and have an Xperia?

I do, I carry my xperia for phone calls, text messages and internet and my creative zen V plus just for the music

i carry my walkman player.. sony walkman nwz-a728

Funny this post came up, now that its warmer and i'm not using my jacket to store my x1. I just literally started to charge and load up my zen vision m with my music for listening. Ill probably buy a hip case thingy for my xperia or just stash it in my bag.

ummm.... am i the only one wondering why everyone bought a pda if your just gonna use it for phone/internet? THEN getting an ipod for music? this seems totally ridiculous to me, the X1 is a big enough device without having an extra mp3 player in your pocket! may as well just carry an old nokia 3210 with your ipod for music, digital camera for photos, and laptop for internet

In my opinion my X1 sounds with good earphones like my Sennheiser CX500 or my Creative EP633 even better than every iPod with the same earphones. last year I bought a Creative ZEN and I just gave it back because my W960i sounded better. Even if the Xperia doesn't sound 100% as good as my W960i, it still sounds too good for me to take some other device with me...

SamAsQ said:
ummm.... am i the only one wondering why everyone bought a pda if your just gonna use it for phone/internet? THEN getting an ipod for music? this seems totally ridiculous to me, the X1 is a big enough device without having an extra mp3 player in your pocket! may as well just carry an old nokia 3210 with your ipod for music, digital camera for photos, and laptop for internet
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From a logical point of view your comment is valid. However sometimes life is not black and white. Windows Mobile devices have been able to play music from day 1 aka PPC2000. However, if sound quality or media player functionality is not a concern or issue for you then definitely play your jams with the X1 or any other windows mobile device.
However you've got to realize that PMP are specialized and offer more than just playing music with shuffle and repeat functions.

I thought I'd just list some reasons why I like using my Zune 120 over my X1 for music.
- Space: I have a large music library
- Battery life: I commute an average of 4 hours everyday
- Sound quality:It's not all about headphones; the device has to produce the frequencies
- Bit rate :X1 cannot play lossless 320kb audio
- Screen size :This is trivial but I like the big screen
- Sync speed : Even though the X! is USB 2.0 capable you have to switch it to USB mode else it take forever to sync files. I had a 16GB sdhc card
- Seamless : The Zune just works. It's seamless and doesnt get bogged down. I can even sync it wirelessly and has tons of features.
Mind you, a lot of the reasons I listed can be recreated directly or with 3rd party apps on most WinMo devices ie sound improvement with SRS WOW HD or Conduits pocket player for more functions but my point is that my Zune just works. It does what it does best without any hacks or 3rd party purchases or freeware.
Now I'm not trying to sellup my Zune because I'm sure the same goes for an ipod or Iriver or Creative device. Until MS integrates such seamless functionality into WinMo device PMPs will do the job.

No longer since I have the X1. Battery life is still okay. I charge every night and listen to music about 6 to 8 hours a day. But now I might consider switching back to carrying a MP3 Player because I bought Sennheiser MX W1 wireless (in-ear) headphones and it might be that the Kleer Wireless Audio @ 2.4 Ghz interferes with WCDMA @ 2.1 Ghz. At least the signal is interrupted quite often compared to bluetooth connections, also over short distances < 1m "through" a human being. I will definitely experiment with that. Sound quality is awesome.

Firefall! said:
No longer since I have the X1. Battery life is still okay. I charge every night and listen to music about 6 to 8 hours a day. But now I might consider switching back to carrying a MP3 Player because I bought Sennheiser MX W1 wireless (in-ear) headphones and it might be that the Kleer Wireless Audio @ 2.4 Ghz interferes with WCDMA @ 2.1 Ghz. At least the signal is interrupted quite often compared to bluetooth connections, also over short distances < 1m "through" a human being. I will definitely experiment with that. Sound quality is awesome.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Music quality on new generations of MP3 Players, Phones, and Computers is just a placebo effect. Music quality is a "lie". What determines music quality = head phones or speakers. What mp3 player you use is just plain old placebo BS.
I mean seriously people have done tests in which you see listeners who listen to high fidelity and low fidelity and they couldn't find any difference. This includes music producers and artists, and even the producers who claim th be able to tell the difference between a .wav and a .mp3 is straight up BS.
We humans can only hear a certain amount of frequencies.

poetryrocksalot said:
Music quality on new generations of MP3 Players, Phones, and Computers is just a placebo effect. Music quality is a "lie". What determines music quality = head phones or speakers. What mp3 player you use is just plain old placebo BS.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL! You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. However that's ok! The media is crucial when it comes to sound quality. You can have the best and most expensive media player but if the media player cant output the frequency nor process at the bit rate then you are screwed.
Windows Media Mobile cannot process lossless audio. The difference in disparity between media encoded in 192VBR/F and 320KB /f is ridiculously clear regardless of headphones.
Please utilize the internet before quoting "false" facts. Nice try though.

Sony NWZ A818 is my music player.

I carry y Xperia for messages, telephone etc,
and my iphone for music.
i hate it to use the xperia for music with the headset, because i cannot skip the music with the headset, just like with the iphone

ash969 said:
I carry y Xperia for messages, telephone etc,
and my iphone for music.
i hate it to use the xperia for music with the headset, because i cannot skip the music with the headset, just like with the iphone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's pretty unique

I use my X1 for phone internet and videos and music/podcasts but also have a Meizu M6sl... pretty much because I had that before I got my loverly X1... I still use both though...

poetryrocksalot said:
Music quality on new generations of MP3 Players, Phones, and Computers is just a placebo effect. Music quality is a "lie". What determines music quality = head phones or speakers. What mp3 player you use is just plain old placebo BS.
I mean seriously people have done tests in which you see listeners who listen to high fidelity and low fidelity and they couldn't find any difference. This includes music producers and artists, and even the producers who claim th be able to tell the difference between a .wav and a .mp3 is straight up BS.
We humans can only hear a certain amount of frequencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BS
Everything factors into sound quality from your headphones, the bitrate, the quality of the MP3 conversion software, to the amplifiers in the listening device. The chain is only as good as the weakest link.
On cheap equipment (most consumer stuff), it is hard to tell the difference between a good .mp3 and a .wav. On professional equipment, the difference is night and day. A professional sound engineer/mixer can probably tell the difference even on cheap equipment.
So there probably is a difference in the sound circuitry of a standalone media player as opposed to a do-it-all smartphone.

poetryrocksalot said:
Music quality on new generations of MP3 Players, Phones, and Computers is just a placebo effect. Music quality is a "lie". What determines music quality = head phones or speakers. What mp3 player you use is just plain old placebo BS.
I mean seriously people have done tests in which you see listeners who listen to high fidelity and low fidelity and they couldn't find any difference. This includes music producers and artists, and even the producers who claim th be able to tell the difference between a .wav and a .mp3 is straight up BS.
We humans can only hear a certain amount of frequencies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends. Arguably an audiophile would argue that a portable source in general is compromised when compared to a home source as the former doesn't have the space for a proper amp output stage. Though I get what you're saying.
Moreover the nature of the amplifier used in the output stage of the digital audio player can have adverse or preferable effects on the final sound (I hesitate to say "sound quality" as this is more of a "sound signature"). Hence why some players might sound comparatively warm and mellow, with rounded-out midrange and toned-down treble (my old Cowon iAudio X5, Meizu M6 MiniPlayer SP, and Nokia N86, for example). Conversely, other players might sound a bit colder, trading a rich midrange for some more emphasized treble. And of course there is always the sterile ground of neutrality that some may prefer (I think my iPod Video 5.5G 80GB fell under here).
I can't quite figure out where the sound signature of the X1 belongs. It doesn't sound like it offers as much body compared to the N86, but its bass is around the same level. Regardless, I believe the sound signature of the Zune is what the OP might prefer. Although all modern players are capable of reproducing the full audible spectrum audibly, many reproduce them in subtly different ways.
Plus there are externalities such as hiss, which is prevalent on my X1 (and on my M6 SP, but less so) but wasn't a concern on my N86 or X5 or iPod.
But the components between a high-end smartphone and a dedicated portable media player are negligibly different. Due to the size of their components and the compromises that are made for that portability, they are both in the same range of circuit quality. You'd have to get something like a $500 Kenwood Japanese import MP3 player to get an amp output stage that is noticeably superior, and even that difference is arguable.
I've read much speculation on the head-fi forums (admittedly before the "Sound Science" forum was created) and most people there concluded that for all but perhaps two or three portable media players (the Kenwoods I mentioned above), 192kbps MP3 is virtually lossless. On the home front it was generally believed that 320kbps performs the same effect, being indistinguishable from FLAC, ALAC, WAV, WMA-L, et al. As your bitrate strays down from these values in the respective setups, you (depending on your level of hearing) are prone to hearing more compression artifacts.
Then there were a few that claimed they could hear stark differences. These few were the kinds that invested upwards of ten thousand U.S. dollars on audio cables. I'd like to scream "snake oil" but I can't, as I haven't tried such extravagant setups myself.
I used to care a lot about this, and spent so much time debating on sound quality that I forgot what was really important: the music. I sold all my MP3 players, stuck to the X1 and my Sennheiser HD25-1s, and I couldn't be happier for it. Much better to appreciate what's great than to worry about what little is wrong and could be improved.

alabij said:
LOL! You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. However that's ok! The media is crucial when it comes to sound quality. You can have the best and most expensive media player but if the media player cant output the frequency nor process at the bit rate then you are screwed.
Windows Media Mobile cannot process lossless audio. The difference in disparity between media encoded in 192VBR/F and 320KB /f is ridiculously clear regardless of headphones.
Please utilize the internet before quoting "false" facts. Nice try though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According the the wikipedia page WMA lossless does play on windows media player mobile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio#Windows_Media_Audio_Lossless
I just downloaded a sample file and it played on my xperia - or am I missing something? Arn't there 3rd party players that will play FLAC and other formats too?
Personally I think the media and headphones matter the most, whats in between makes little difference to all but self confessed audiophiles who will claim that using gold plated oxygen free cable makes a difference too. (ie BS)

scote said:
According the the wikipedia page WMA lossless does play on windows media player mobile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Audio#Windows_Media_Audio_Lossless
I just downloaded a sample file and it played on my xperia - or am I missing something? (ie BS)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm . . . You've got me there. I wish you would post a link to this sample file. Last I checked WMP Mobile 10 could not and does not support WMA 320Kb/s F Lossless. Mind you this is not the same as .wav which is supported by the hardware though playing/loading a full song 03 3 mins r above in .wav might take a min or two and probably freeze your device.

???? 320kbps != lossless.
Lossless = FLAC, ALAC, APE, WMA-L, WAV, et al.
WAV is generally 1411kbps, the rest are inherently VBR as there is a variable amount of lossless information in a track per time. I think FLAC is around ~700 ABR for most of my tracks.
Regardless, 320kbps and lossless are transparent to most people (regardless of setup) anyway so it doesn't really matter. Lossless arguably doesn't benefit portable sources, which are generally transparent to 192kbps.
Also I am unsure that WAV would freeze a device, especially if it is in solid-state memory. In hard disks it generally requires a lot of seeking and consequent power consumption, but hard disk players are phasing out anyway. The point is that WAV requires no decompression as it isn't compressed at all, and therefore uses the least processing power. WAV is less taxing on non-hard drive portable media players than even MP3s.

Any plans/patches for FLAC and OGG support?

As far as I remember in some Magic custom ROM at least FLAC got a support.
It's be great, esplecially with FLAC which is lossless.

Well, I am missing this, too, so I am looking into building a FlacPlayer and had very little success so far. However, I am blaming it on the fact that I have plenty of "real work" to do, so I don't really have time to study the FLAC-code in detail.
I'll keep you updated if I make any progress.

I love flac, but I also love free space. With flac taking 30mb per song. Ouch is needed. but again i know its lossless but you really need decent headphones to notice.

Danie1 said:
Well, I am missing this, too, so I am looking into building a FlacPlayer and had very little success so far. However, I am blaming it on the fact that I have plenty of "real work" to do, so I don't really have time to study the FLAC-code in detail.
I'll keep you updated if I make any progress.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excuses....

OGG (audio) files already play fine (at least it does via the default HTC media player).

Why in hell would want flac on your mobile phone?
The DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) which handles the conversion to analog signal in the headphone jack is very compact and will not take advantage of flac on a mobile phone. Not to mention You would require hifi headphones, the battery would drain A LOT faster and it would take a lot of space on SD card.

Four reasons:
1. FLAC is lossless.
2. FLAC is easier to decode than MP3 (and thus uses less CPU)
3. My earpieces are hifi.
4. Why not?

Uqbar said:
Four reasons:
1. FLAC is lossless.
2. FLAC is easier to decode than MP3 (and thus uses less CPU)
3. My earpieces are hifi.
4. Why not?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2. Probably not even true . FLAC can take a surprising big amount of CPU time to decode (edit: compared to MAD mp3 decoding) and uses a bit more RAM (if the FLAC's are encoded at >= q7 or q8). And playing back MP3 / AAC might even use (a bit) of hardware acceleration. Anyway you cut it, FLAC files are bigger, so it requires more read-actions from the SD card and that takes up more battery in the end.
3. Good for your earpieces. But the quality the phone can output over the 3,5mm jack is abysmal at best. Even worse, on my Hero I prefer to use my ultra cheap bass-heavy in-ear-headphones instead of my $130 Sure's because that cheap ones kinda mask the crappy quality. There is quite a lot of hiss and static noise on the output (Signal-to-noise ratio is to-pee-yourself-laughing-so-bad).
Any quality-gain the FLAC format would have, the phone is not able to output that through the headphone jack or USBext connector, so it's useless. Use a proper iriver or iAudio mp3 player for that kind of stuff .
4. The above 2 reasons.
And please remember that Android development at the moment is all Java based (I don't know if the NativeSDK is already useable or not). That means any kind of audio decoder has to be completely CPU based and has to be written in Java. Doesn't mean it can't be done (or isn't already done), but most libraries and implementations floating around aren't in Java so they would require porting. And porting lowlevel stuff to Java is simply something a lot of developers aren't happy doing.

Why flac support?
The answer for me is simple, I have all my CDs ripped as flac for use with my Squeezebox and iAudio S9. I don't like taking my S9 out with me when I'm going for a beer or two, which means the Hero is my choice music player in those situations. As there is no flac support on Android by default, I have had to convert my entire collection to mp3, I don't like having to have two copies of the same file, it annoys me.
Flac is supported in CyanogenMod ROM from version 3.9.3 onwards.
Florida.

dipje your 130 dollar Shures are not high end... It's spelled with an H by the way. High end would be westone labs or JH or Ultimate Ears. If this guy wants to listen to flac it's his choice. The truth of the matter is mp3 320 (the maximum you can go) cuts off EVERYTHING above 20,000. Whether you hear this or not is inconsequential because a: there is empty bandwith now and that means less dyanmics for the rest of the frequencies and b: there is a second selective bandpass filter employed by mp3 encoding that cuts all the way down to 16,000 and YOU DO hear those frequencies even on the MOST TERRIBLE OF TERRIBLE devices.
The size of the jack has very little to do with the quality of the output. 1/8" or full size 1/4" it does not matter. FLAC is BY FAR easier to decode than mp3 just like it is BY FAR easier to ENCODE than mp3. When I encode WAV to FLAC it is practically done as soon as I hit encode. Of course, you know how long mp3 takes I hope. You do rip and encode your own music right?

Anyway, I could prefer FLAC just because my battery would run longer.
The lossless and dynamics things would just add some more benefits, as well as the freedom that's in there.
By the way, FLAC can be (of course) written in Java: http://jflac.sourceforge.net/ but native code would allow my battery to run even longer.

nikonmikon said:
dipje your 130 dollar Shures are not high end... It's spelled with an H by the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't say they were high end. Trust me, I know better . And sue me for a spelling error, that's what you get with auto-correcting on-screen-keyboards .
nikonmikon said:
If this guy wants to listen to flac it's his choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No denying that! Sorry if it sounded like it, but I _really_ don't mean to say something like "FLAC on a Hero is stupid, so stfu" or anything like it. Ofcourse, the choice is there for everybody.
I was just noting arguments what would be against FLAC on a device like the Hero. If anybody would say "I don't care about those points" then by all means, feel free .
nikonmikon said:
The truth of the matter is mp3 320 (the maximum you can go) cuts off EVERYTHING above 20,000. Whether you hear this or not is inconsequential because a: there is empty bandwith now and that means less dyanmics for the rest of the frequencies and b: there is a second selective bandpass filter employed by mp3 encoding that cuts all the way down to 16,000 and YOU DO hear those frequencies even on the MOST TERRIBLE OF TERRIBLE devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you make a very good point, the basic lowpass filters applied with almost all MP3 encoders out there indeed destroy a lot of detail that even something like the crappy DAC in the Hero will miss.
nikonmikon said:
The size of the jack has very little to do with the quality of the output. 1/8" or full size 1/4" it does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did I say something like that??
The jack output indeed doesn't matter. But the fact is that the internal design of a small phone / device will have an impact on the shielding and interference on the audio signal. Dedicated audio devices / mp3 players are (hopefully) designed with this in mind, but on phones it can affect quality (much). On my old Diamond for example you hear ticking and a static noise appear suddenly on the line (quite high volume actually) the moment the GPS is activated. If there are more things like this that affect audio quality, I don't know. I think there are, and quite some of them are audible, specially by someone who prefers a format like FLAC. But I don't know this fore sure at all.
nikonmikon said:
FLAC is BY FAR easier to decode than mp3 just like it is BY FAR easier to ENCODE than mp3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You actually tried it? You know the reason why a lot of devices like Cowon iAudio devices only support FLAC's encoded with the quality parameter set to 7 or lower? Take any kind of software on a Windows Mobile (for example) device with a Qualcomm 72xx chipset, let it play a q8 or q9 FLAC file. Measure the complete system load while doing so. The device struggles. The I/O calls on an embedded platform like that make for a huge impact, making even normal FLAC files harder to decode than most MP3 files. Make it a q8/q9 file with 24bit and the CPU will struggle. The memory needed for decoding also increases very rapidly with q8/q9 files.
nikonmikon said:
When I encode WAV to FLAC it is practically done as soon as I hit encode. Of course, you know how long mp3 takes I hope.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It ofcourse all depends on your system configuration. But if you let LAME 3.98+ encode on with the default --vbr-new method, you now it doesn't take long _at all_. Ripping an entire CD from WAV to FLAC (or direct from CD with EAC or something similar) takes (still) less CPU than MP3 yes, but the disk activity of writing more data makes it pretty much the exact same speed as ripping to MP3. But now we're getting off topic, this was just to give you a little more insight on my thinking.
nikonmikon said:
You do rip and encode your own music right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let's not start any kind of flaming, ok? (Just as a precaution). Ofcourse I do. And I don't just state things I make up in my mind, I state them because I noticed those things myself, and maybe even researched it for my work.

Anyone make any progress about the equaliser app that we are missing on the HTC?
I dont know why we are wasting time talking about lossless audio crap when we can make any badly ripped mp3 sound good by tweeking the eaqualiser.
I heard HTC were going to make it available in the new ROM, but it aint there.
Whats the verdict?

dipje said:
"buncha stuffs said"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did not realize you were posting from a device with a limited keyboard.
It did seem like you were coming off as telling him to give it up but, I can see how you were bringing those points up to make sure he knew what he would be up against. It only takes one developer who is actually enthusiastic about FLAC though and those all fall away.
For the jack, I agree that the device has a relatively small footprint which makes isolating things difficult and traces undoubtedly get put next to one another that would never be true in such a case as a preamp or amplifier. Noise will certainly be introduced. I thought you said that the tiny jack would be terrible in sound quality. I was mistaken. Someone who does enjoy flac will hear these ticks and such but, they do not negate the higher frequencies gained by using FLAC over a lossy compression. It would be akin to some insane audiophile who prefers vinyl over digital on a $500,000 (or euro) stereo and simply ignores the pops and clicks that comes with vinyl. (This happens often in the audiophile world)
I am pretty sure Cowon devices support all the way to 8. I don't believe you can encode a "9" as 8 is the maximum. My girlfriend has a Cowon s9 that I bought for her so I know this to be true (about the 0-8 support). I believe the website also says this. However, it is likely that FLAC playback uses more power than mp3. I don't know to be honest. Accessing a card takes much power? I figured it wouldn't matter because it's not mechanical. The multiple IO actions happen all the time on the phone doesn't it?
Relatively speaking I was saying that FLAC encodes and decodes MUCH faster than mp3. Regardless of the system configuration unless it somehow had mp3 hardware encoding/decoding. The disk activity is not actually called by EAC if you recall EAC does not encode to anything. It merely rips wav from the disc in question.
I don't think I was flaming just considering you not knowledgeable in this area but you definitely proved me wrong
Oh also, I should state that the selective filter is adjustable with mp3 encoding but it defaults at 16khz.

Those noises appearing at low volume parts, especially when fading between tracks. Are they totally hardware related. And are they always appearing equally. Sometimes i think it's worse than others. And after i started using Meridian player. I don't have the funny skipping, that sometimes appeared at the beginning af a song, with the original player.

5.1 surround amazing

anyone watch a movie on the stock player??
I love the stock player since its got 5.1 surround. It makes a night and difference watching movies...even without headphones...I wish there was a way to implement that into other players such as mobo, vplayer, and rockplayer etc.
I'm sure with touchwiz UI their gonna really boost the multimedia aspect of this thing.

Can you post the specs (using something like MediaInfo) of the movie? My impression was that HC's stock player can't play 5.1 audio currently.

Will be trying it out on Sunday for my flight back East, looking forward to hearing it on my new Audio-Technica ATH M50's!

e.mote said:
Can you post the specs (using something like MediaInfo) of the movie? My impression was that HC's stock player can't play 5.1 audio currently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if you start to play any movie in the stock player there's a button on the bottom left that says 5.1 srs click it and you'll hear the difference. I was playing a divx version of a movie called "girl who kicked the hornet's nest"
here are the info directly from vlc player
codec: MPEG audio layer 1/2/3 (mpga)
Channels: Stereo
Sample rate: 48000 Hz
Bitrate: 128 kb/s
I don't believe this is completely stock player. Samsung is always about good media and always trying to implement 5.1 into everything. My brother's Samsung vibrant has the same features on his stock audio and video players provided by samsung. the phone only has one speaker so when you press that button on his phone it says this mode only works with headphones. But for the Galaxy tab 10.1 we've got two great speakers on the right and left perfect for 5.1. Although its not true 5.1 it makes a huge difference. I've tried it even on things I recorded with my galaxy tab 10.1. I think it's a software modification of some sort done by samsung to make it sound very realistic.
Give it a try...let me know what you guys think.

e.mote said:
Can you post the specs (using something like MediaInfo) of the movie? My impression was that HC's stock player can't play 5.1 audio currently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a Samsung future that you can chose to have the tab make mono/stereo audio sound like its sorround.
Its like fake 5.1 from stereo speakers
-Creates an accurate 5.1 virtual surround sound experience over any stereo headphones
-Utilizes SRS Circle Surround decoder to generate the highest quality surround sound - placing left, right, center, surround left and surround right speakers accurately around the listener's head
-SRS Dialog Clarity boosts the frequency range of the human voice in a way that lifts the dialog above the audio effects, so you can clearly hear every word that's being spoken
-Improves overall bass response of the headphones
-SRS WOW HDimproves the dynamic audio performance of both compressed and uncompressed audio, by expanding the size of the audio image

Yup. I hate how they confuse people with that "5.1" button when it's really "Fake5.1"

Entropy512 said:
Yup. I hate how they confuse people with that "5.1" button when it's really "Fake5.1"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you have to admit that it sounds pretty realistic when you turn it on...no tablet can do that right now...the xooms speakers are horrible way in the back and sound is muffled...and only high end laptops are able to only replicate a 5.1 surround, I wouldn't complain unless you want them to put a sub-woofer in there and two more speakers lol....

listening to flac

can you feel the differece of flac and loseless audio on this phone compared to normal mp3?

ajithpa said:
can you feel the differece of flac and loseless audio on this phone compared to normal mp3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really a fair question... too many variables... for example, what quality MP3 (128kb/s or 320kb/s? huge difference), what headphones (Bluetooth is lower quality than hard wired), what headphones, etc.
Would a FLAC audio file sound better than a 128kb/s MP3? Probably.
Would a FLAC audio file sound better than a 320kb/s MP3? Probably not.
To be honest, on any mobile device I have been hard pressed to notice ANY difference in audio quality, regardless of format, once sampling rates exceed 192kb/s.

acejavelin said:
Not really a fair question... too many variables... for example, what quality MP3 (128kb/s or 320kb/s? huge difference), what headphones (Bluetooth is lower quality than hard wired), what headphones, etc.
Would a FLAC audio file sound better than a 128kb/s MP3? Probably.
Would a FLAC audio file sound better than a 320kb/s MP3? Probably not.
To be honest, on any mobile device I have been hard pressed to notice ANY difference in audio quality, regardless of format, once sampling rates exceed 192kb/s.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so i should just stick with 320kb/s mp3?

ajithpa said:
so i should just stick with 320kb/s mp3?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure...
I doubt 99.99% of people would notice any difference for any file encoded over 192kb/s, regardless of format, so if you have 320k MP3's there would be no advantage at all to go back to the original source material and re-encode it in FLAC or Monkey Audio, quality wise.

Why 3rd party music player only support 48Khz and not detect 192Khz?

Im sorry if there any duplicate thread or this question has been asked before.
My S8 and my friend's S8+ (Exynos) (Or you may have the same problem) Cant choose more than 48Khz of sampling rate in 3rd party apps like Hibymusic or neutron.
AFAIK the S8 and S8+ has the hi res compatibility up to 32bit 386Khz (cmiiw), but only samsung music detect this and im not sure if this app play the bit perfect of 386Khz because other apps cant detect that.
So is there any limitation from android system which limit the sampling rate to 48Khz or there any incompatibility of the 3rd party software to the samsung internal DACs?
I dont want to use usb dac because i didnt have money to buy that.
And lastly thanks for your answers or any response of my post!

aryaputraz said:
Im sorry if there any duplicate thread or this question has been asked before.
My S8 and my friend's S8+ (Exynos) (Or you may have the same problem) Cant choose more than 48Khz of sampling rate in 3rd party apps like Hibymusic or neutron.
AFAIK the S8 and S8+ has the hi res compatibility up to 32bit 386Khz (cmiiw), but only samsung music detect this and im not sure if this app play the bit perfect of 386Khz because other apps cant detect that.
So is there any limitation from android system which limit the sampling rate to 48Khz or there any incompatibility of the 3rd party software to the samsung internal DACs?
I dont want to use usb dac because i didnt have money to buy that.
And lastly thanks for your answers or any response of my post!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BlackPlayer plays my FLAC and DSD just fine at appropriate volumes if that makes a difference.

aryaputraz said:
Im sorry if there any duplicate thread or this question has been asked before.
My S8 and my friend's S8+ (Exynos) (Or you may have the same problem) Cant choose more than 48Khz of sampling rate in 3rd party apps like Hibymusic or neutron.
AFAIK the S8 and S8+ has the hi res compatibility up to 32bit 386Khz (cmiiw), but only samsung music detect this and im not sure if this app play the bit perfect of 386Khz because other apps cant detect that.
So is there any limitation from android system which limit the sampling rate to 48Khz or there any incompatibility of the 3rd party software to the samsung internal DACs?
I dont want to use usb dac because i didnt have money to buy that.
And lastly thanks for your answers or any response of my post!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have music recorded at 192khz and or @32bit? I would find this incredibly surprising. Such high audio parameters are only used for audio work and only because the extra bit depth and /or sample rate is useful for maintaining headroom while processing the recording.
The reason 44.1/16 has been used for so long is that it is capable of reproducing every frequency the human ear is capable of hearing with perfect precision. This means recording at higher levels of either does nothing more for listening and would only take up space for nothing

partcyborg said:
You have music recorded at 192khz and or @32bit? I would find this incredibly surprising. Such high audio parameters are only used for audio work and only because the extra bit depth and /or sample rate is useful for maintaining headroom while processing the recording.
The reason 44.1/16 has been used for so long is that it is capable of reproducing every frequency the human ear is capable of hearing with perfect precision. This means recording at higher levels of either does nothing more for listening and would only take up space for nothing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah figured you'd answer something like this lol. You you. You audiophile you