10-30-15 08:37 PM
46 12
tools
  1. dangerousfen's Avatar
    Yes, all the fantastic features are great, but if it can't do absolutely everything the built-in player can, then it's a dealbreaker for me.
    OK. I'll rest my case then. Hope you find your utopian music player.

    "Z30 STA100-2 UK" 10.3.2.2474 Get's a Ten from Fen.
    10-14-15 03:24 AM
  2. glamrlama's Avatar
    My solution for sound manipulation is Audacity. Runs under windows, mac and linux. I don't use replay gain so for tracks that play too quietly (or loudly) I import into audacity, tweak them as necessary and re-encode them. Nice program also for trimming intros/outros and editing minor imperfections in sound files. Freeware. Don't let that fool you; a full audio edit suite with support for numerous file formats and numerous effect and tools available.
    10-14-15 10:46 PM
  3. Someone7272's Avatar
    My solution for sound manipulation is Audacity. Runs under windows, mac and linux. I don't use replay gain so for tracks that play too quietly (or loudly) I import into audacity, tweak them as necessary and re-encode them. Nice program also for trimming intros/outros and editing minor imperfections in sound files. Freeware. Don't let that fool you; a full audio edit suite with support for numerous file formats and numerous effect and tools available.
    Don't get me wrong, I use Audacity to edit music and remove profanities (I work at a school as an I.T. technician, but this role is very versatile ) but unfortunately, you can only manipulate the waveform when the sources is a lossless format... i.e. FLAC, WAV, ALAC, APE... otherwise you lose huge amounts of quality. However, strangely FLAC or other lossless formats which BlackBerry 10 can play is much less likely to suffer from EQ clipping than lossy formats like M4A, MP3, OGG etc...
    10-16-15 07:44 PM
  4. ronfc's Avatar
    I refuse to support the MP3 format, because to me, it sounds poor quality, even at 320kbps.
    AAC can achieve the same transparency level with lower bit rates than MP3, which also means lower file sizes, but saying MP3 is not doing great even on 320 kbps is simply not entirely true. While there is indeed "killer samples" or passages which proved difficult for the MP3 encoder to encode, it is also the same for the AAC encoder. And as the saying goes, even though the audio technology has improved and will be further improved in the future, our ears have not. I'm a big believer of the ABX‎, and I myself with all honesty, cannot tell the difference between the FLAC and the 190 kbps VBR MP3. Unless you have tested and proven to yourself that A is better than B, everything is just placebo, my friend.

    And for the record, I don't use lossless audio on my Z30 because it's just a waste of space and processing power, it won't amount to anything if you cannot hear the difference.

    My solution for sound manipulation is Audacity. Runs under windows, mac and linux. I don't use replay gain so for tracks that play too quietly (or loudly) I import into audacity, tweak them as necessary and re-encode them. Nice program also for trimming intros/outros and editing minor imperfections in sound files. Freeware. Don't let that fool you; a full audio edit suite with support for numerous file formats and numerous effect and tools available.
    I hope you realize that editing a lossy audio file like MP3 and AAC on Audacity or Audition and then saving it again as an MP3 or AAC will degrade the sound 2x. Lossy audio encoders work by removing parts of the sound that it thinks is unnecessary, of course, your settings and the psychoacoustic model taken into account. Running an MP3 and saving it again as MP3 will encode it again, and thus removing more bits of information in the process. It is recommended to use FLAC, WAV, or any other lossless audio format on an audio editing software, adjust the volume as you like, then save it as a lossy audio file.
    10-18-15 03:59 AM
  5. glamrlama's Avatar
    Lossy formats are what they are and sometimes that's all that is available. For me the benefits of cleaning up a sound file out weigh the known trade offs in sound quality. When editing spoken word or comedy tracks I really can't tell the difference. To be honest I don't ABX the music files I re-encode but assume the slight (usually) increase in volume will mask most of the fidelity loss and I am happy with the results I hear.
    Last edited by glamrlama; 10-18-15 at 07:43 AM.
    10-18-15 07:29 AM
  6. ronfc's Avatar
    Lossy formats are what they are and sometimes that's all that is available. For me the benefits of cleaning up a sound file out weigh the known trade offs in sound quality. When editing spoken word or comedy tracks I really can't tell the difference. To be honest I don't ABX the music files I re-encode but assume the slight (usually) increase in volume will mask most of the fidelity loss and I am happy with the results I hear.
    Well, as long as you're happy, right? For spoken word, podcasts, and such I'm not that paranoid about quality, as long as it doesn't sound VHF radio-like on a bad weather condition, it'll be fine.
    10-18-15 10:08 AM
  7. Someone7272's Avatar
    Wow, everyone is getting riled up! Let's see what we can do...
    AAC can achieve the same transparency level with lower bit rates than MP3, which also means lower file sizes, but saying MP3 is not doing great even on 320 kbps is simply not entirely true. While there is indeed "killer samples" or passages which proved difficult for the MP3 encoder to encode, it is also the same for the AAC encoder. And as the saying goes, even though the audio technology has improved and will be further improved in the future, our ears have not. I'm a big believer of the ABX‎, and I myself with all honesty, cannot tell the difference between the FLAC and the 190 kbps VBR MP3. Unless you have tested and proven to yourself that A is better than B, everything is just placebo, my friend.
    I've personally done a 320kbps MP3 ABX test with the help from a friend. I always got it right. What gave it away? The cymbals/high-hats. They sound absolutely terrible with MP3 even at 320kbps. The technical reason is that AAC is capable of reproducing frequencies up to 22KHz, whereas MP3 has a hard cutoff at 16KHz, even at 320kbps.

    And for the record, I don't use lossless audio on my Z30 because it's just a waste of space and processing power, it won't amount to anything if you cannot hear the difference.
    When you have a 64GB (soon to be 128GB) SD card, it really doesn't waste much space. If I was concious of space, then I would convert to M4A, but only if I really had to. I can't tell the difference between a well encoded 256kbps AAC file (exceptions apply) and FLAC. The only reason I haven't really bothered to convert my FLAC files to M4A is simply because they were ripped from the discs as FLAC files, I can't be bothered to convert them to M4A and there is no need.

    Lossy formats are what they are and sometimes that's all that is available. For me the benefits of cleaning up a sound file out weigh the known trade offs in sound quality. When editing spoken word or comedy tracks I really can't tell the difference. To be honest I don't ABX the music files I re-encode but assume the slight (usually) increase in volume will mask most of the fidelity loss and I am happy with the results I hear.
    This is correct. If you want to edit a lossy encoded music file, re-encoding them to another lossy format will extremely decrease the audio quality. If you absolutely must do this, then I recommend exporting the edited audio file as lossless, that way you won't lose any additional quality by re-encoding, but it will waste more space.
    10-18-15 01:49 PM
  8. ronfc's Avatar
    I've personally done a 320kbps MP3 ABX test with the help from a friend. I always got it right. What gave it away? The cymbals/high-hats. They sound absolutely terrible with MP3 even at 320kbps. The technical reason is that AAC is capable of reproducing frequencies up to 22KHz, whereas MP3 has a hard cutoff at 16KHz, even at 320kbps.
    I hope you do realize that MP3s have different implementations, different encoders. That means the 320 kbps output of Windows Media Player might be different on iTunes. As of now, the highest quality encoder is called LAME MP3 encoder (the one used in foobar2000) version 3.99.5. I suggest you look into that. And also, while AAC might be capable of reproducing frequencies up to 22KHz, it doesn't really matter to us humans since we can only hear 20Hz to 20kHz of the audio spectrum, well, except if you are a dog, cat, or bat.
    10-18-15 11:59 PM
  9. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    I hope you do realize that MP3s have different implementations, different encoders. That means the 320 kbps output of Windows Media Player might be different on iTunes. As of now, the highest quality encoder is called LAME MP3 encoder (the one used in foobar2000) version 3.99.5. I suggest you look into that. And also, while AAC might be capable of reproducing frequencies up to 22KHz, it doesn't really matter to us humans since we can only hear 20Hz to 20kHz of the audio spectrum, well, except if you are a dog, cat, or bat.
    If memory serves most humans can't hear much past 15kHz or 16kHz.
    10-19-15 11:00 AM
  10. ronfc's Avatar
    If memory serves most humans can't hear much past 15kHz or 16kHz.
    That's correct. Only kids, probably in pre-teen age years, and some gifted people can hear as high as 19-20 kHz.
    10-19-15 11:05 AM
  11. glamrlama's Avatar
    If memory serves most humans can't hear much past 15kHz or 16kHz.
    Run some test signals in your favourite player and your best cans. I'm down to about 13kHz! I certainly don't listen to music at the volumes I used to and wear hearing protection any time I am in any noisy (non musical) environment.
    10-19-15 05:50 PM
  12. Someone7272's Avatar
    Run some test signals in your favourite player and your best cans. I'm down to about 13kHz! I certainly don't listen to music at the volumes I used to and wear hearing protection any time I am in any noisy (non musical) environment.
    I have just tried this, and I can tell you that at 21 years of age, going to countless nightclubs and the daily use of a 1200W sound system in my bedroom, somehow miraculously, I can still hear up to between 18.5KHz and 19KHz.

    That means, my previous points in this topic are valid, well at least to my ears

    Posted via my Dell Mobile Workstation - bring back signatures!
    10-27-15 09:18 PM
  13. ronfc's Avatar
    I have just tried this, and I can tell you that at 21 years of age, going to countless nightclubs and the daily use of a 1200W sound system in my bedroom, somehow miraculously, I can still hear up to between 18.5KHz and 19KHz.

    That means, my previous points in this topic are valid, well at least to my ears

    Posted via my Dell Mobile Workstation - bring back signatures!
    Then you must be some kind of God!
    DrBoomBotz likes this.
    10-28-15 12:06 AM
  14. Someone7272's Avatar
    Then you must be some kind of God!
    Or just blessed.

    In the end, I ended up buying a headphone amplifier, which has a built-in EQ and can belt out 200mW of power (depending on Ω), so now I can just disable the device EQ and the distortion/clipping is gone! (Except for songs which have been clipped as a result of total s**t mastering )

    So not the best solution because some tracks still have different volumes. I just adjust the volume on the headphone amp to low when changing songs.
    Last edited by Someone7272; 10-28-15 at 08:53 PM.
    10-28-15 08:42 PM
  15. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Just tried the test with this sample
    For me perceived loudness drops sharply ~8khz and can't hear anything after ~13.5khz.
    10 minutes have past and I am still hearing "ginger ale" between my ears and I have a mild headache.
    10-28-15 09:51 PM
  16. Someone7272's Avatar
    Just tried the test with this sample

    (YouTube)

    For me perceived loudness drops sharply ~8khz and can't hear anything after ~13.5khz.
    10 minutes have past and I am still hearing "ginger ale" between my ears and I have a mild headache.
    Due to YouTube's extremely poor lossy audio compression technologies which cuts out frequencies above 16KHz (approx), this immediately voids the credibility of this kind of test.

    Find a WAV or non-compressed version (like the one here) and try it again, the results might surprise you. This was the one I used.
    10-30-15 04:26 PM
  17. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Due to YouTube's extremely poor lossy audio compression technologies which cuts out frequencies above 16KHz (approx), this immediately voids the credibility of this kind of test.

    Find a WAV or non-compressed version (like the one here) and try it again, the results might surprise you. This was the one I used.
    Did I just tweak your OCD?
    10-30-15 05:15 PM
  18. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Due to YouTube's extremely poor lossy audio compression technologies which cuts out frequencies above 16KHz (approx), this immediately voids the credibility of this kind of test.

    Find a WAV or non-compressed version (like the one here) and try it again, the results might surprise you. This was the one I used.
    Tried your sample and got the same results.
    10-30-15 08:07 PM
  19. Someone7272's Avatar
    Tried your sample and got the same results.
    Fair enough. Just double checking. I could go to 18.5KHz to 19KHz before completely losing the audio. I did encounter a fairly steep rolloff around 16KHz but could still hear the signal up to 18KHz before it started getting difficult.

    I guess not all human hearing is equal, I must be one of the lucky ones.
    This topic seems to show that people around 30-35 can still head up to 17KHz, so either you're older, have damaged hearing, or just plain unlucky.
    10-30-15 08:20 PM
  20. DaDaDogg's Avatar
    If memory serves most humans can't hear much past 15kHz or 16kHz.

    Still NO ReplayGain support on the BlackBerry 10 built-in music player?!-img_20151031_012045.png



    I did a hearing test recently and got over 19 kHz and I'm over 30, but I'm sure it's all downhill from hear on. ( pun Intended )
    10-30-15 08:28 PM
  21. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Fair enough. Just double checking. I could go to 18.5KHz to 19KHz before completely losing the audio. I did encounter a fairly steep rolloff around 16KHz but could still hear the signal up to 18KHz before it started getting difficult.

    I guess not all human hearing is equal, I must be one of the lucky ones.
    This topic seems to show that people around 30-35 can still head up to 17KHz, so either you're older, have damaged hearing, or just plain unlucky.
    I am frankly skeptical of these results. > 10% claim to hear 20khz+. Seriously, do you find that plausible?
    10-30-15 08:37 PM
46 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-30-16, 07:21 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-15, 07:24 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-29-15, 08:47 PM
  4. Is this the beginning of the end for Crackberry?
    By Jakob Greve in forum Site Feedback & Help
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-29-15, 06:02 PM
  5. Is this the beginning of the end for Crackberry
    By Jakob Greve in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-15, 05:57 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD