or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Sansa Clip+ Impressions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sansa Clip+ Impressions - Page 18

post #256 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
 

 

Yes, that was my concern. It's not so much about the «tiny» (since the Sport may even work with 128 GB cards), but rather about a sound quality that's – although very good for the price – far from revealing or high-end. I'd say even if one is able to discern MP3 from Flac, it's questionable if the difference is relevant in any way. The MP3s on my FiiO X3 II or X5 II definitely sound much better than any Flac counterpart on the Sport ever will. That said, I do use Flac on both FiiOs.

Several years ago, before deciding on 256kbps mp3 as my standard for music files, I did several tests at different bitrates. I had trouble differentiating 256kbps mp3 from 320 kbps and the CD. 192 kbps sounded pleasant, however it seemed like something was missing in the highs. 128 kbps did not sound pleasant to me. Part of my decision to choose 256kbps was that there were no 32GB microSDHC cards then. If I was going to rip the CDs now, I would use 320 kbps mp3. I have the CDs handy so I could rerip them all, however it doesn't seem worth the effort.

post #257 of 269

We seem to have about the same sensitivity to MP3 compression. These days I encode good recordings in Lame -V0 (VBR of ~245 kbps) for my SanDisk players, alhough -V2 (~205 kbps) would still be undiscernable to my ears – on the SanDisk players! For my FiiOs I encode good recordings to Flac, though – to be on the safe side and to have an additional lossless backup of my music collection. Moreover because they also are the heart of my home system, where they feed a Chord Hugo with digital signals.

 

I think I have a good hearing, but apparently I'm not very sensitive to MP3 artifacts (in contrast e.g. to cable sound :eek:). I absolutely acknowledge that others may be more sensitive to those, but still think that lossless files are wasted space and battery on the Sport. Now whirlwind may have a different experience, and if so, I'm not going to debate it. To each his own.

post #258 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
 

We seem to have about the same sensitivity to MP3 compression. These days I encode good recordings in Lame -V0 (VBR of ~245 kbps) for my SanDisk players, alhough -V2 (~205 kbps) would still be undiscernable to my ears – on the SanDisk players! For my FiiOs I encode good recordings to Flac, though – to be on the safe side and to have an additional lossless backup of my music collection. Moreover because they also are the heart of my home system, where they feed a Chord Hugo with digital signals.

 

I think I have a good hearing, but apparently I'm not very sensitive to MP3 artifacts (in contrast e.g. to cable sound :eek:). I absolutely acknowledge that others may be more sensitive to those, but still think that lossless files are wasted space and battery on the Sport. Now whirlwind may have a different experience, and if so, I'm not going to debate it. To each his own.

I took this audio test and got 4 out of 6 right. The two I got wrong were the vocal only track and the classical music track. Those were also the ones I was most unsure about.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/09/412271433/audio-quality-quiz-results-you-did-slightly-better-than-guessing-randomly

post #259 of 269

I got 6 from 6.

 

I cheated though because for the first time ever my slow internet speed was an advantage. Whichever one took the longest to load was the WAV. I would like to take a test like that properly though.

post #260 of 269

I wanted the flac support because that is what most of my albums are ...so it is just a matter of getting to use my whole library on the sport....both mp3 and flac...so far all my 16/44 flac are working fine from my external card

post #261 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by whirlwind View Post
 

I wanted the flac support because that is what most of my albums are ...so it is just a matter of getting to use my whole library on the sport....both mp3 and flac...so far all my 16/44 flac are working fine from my external card

Many use FLAC to archive the music Cds, and keep FLAC copies on their PC, plus copies of the FLAC files on removable media for backups. Many of them though don't use FLAC on their portable player, but instead make 320kbps mp3 files to use on their portable players. they do this either to save space(fit more music on the player) and/or to get better battery life. Sandisk players  seem to get much better battery life using mp3 files than with other formats.

post #262 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK1 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whirlwind View Post
 

I wanted the flac support because that is what most of my albums are ...so it is just a matter of getting to use my whole library on the sport....both mp3 and flac...so far all my 16/44 flac are working fine from my external card

Many use FLAC to archive the music Cds, and keep FLAC copies on their PC, plus copies of the FLAC files on removable media for backups. Many of them though don't use FLAC on their portable player, but instead make 320kbps mp3 files to use on their portable players. they do this either to save space(fit more music on the player) and/or to get better battery life. Sandisk players  seem to get much better battery life using mp3 files than with other formats.

I guess I never thought about better battery life, even though it makes it thru my work day just fine.

 

what program do you use to make 320kbps mp3 from your flac files ?

 

I just downloaded flac squisher...not sure if it converts to 320 kbps mp3....I will check it out tonight.


Edited by whirlwind - 7/21/15 at 3:32am
post #263 of 269

Why would playing an mp3 file consume less energy than playing a flac file? I haven't heard that before & I'm genuinely curious. I always use FLAC with my Clip+ but the battery life isn't great so this might just make me downsize to 320 mp3.

post #264 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solrighal View Post
 

Why would playing an mp3 file consume less energy than playing a flac file? I haven't heard that before & I'm genuinely curious. I always use FLAC with my Clip+ but the battery life isn't great so this might just make me downsize to 320 mp3.

 

Because the microprocessor has to process less data. This seems to also apply compared to Ogg Vorbis, AAC and other lossy formats, since MP3 is known to consume the least battery power. As far as I know it's due to the simplest decoding algorithm.

post #265 of 269

That's good to know. I'll try it out later today & report my findings. I can see it makes sense though. Luckily I already tend to have lossy versions of my music for use in the car so there's no need to go converting anything.

 

Thanks for the input.

post #266 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
 

 

Because the microprocessor has to process less data. This seems to also apply compared to Ogg Vorbis, AAC and other lossy formats, since MP3 is known to consume the least battery power. As far as I know it's due to the simplest decoding algorithm.

 

Probably more hardware support for MP3 also. Which would be more efficient, than if it has to do it software. I'm guessing though. 

post #267 of 269

"what program do you use to make 320kbps mp3 from your flac files ?"

 

I don't make FLAC files, although many others do. I keep backups of the mp3 files. I also have the original CDs as a backup.

post #268 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
 

 

Because the microprocessor has to process less data. This seems to also apply compared to Ogg Vorbis, AAC and other lossy formats, since MP3 is known to consume the least battery power. As far as I know it's due to the simplest decoding algorithm.

It is also the most common format, so software developers devote the most effort to refining it, to get it as efficient as possible to give the longest battery life.

post #269 of 269

OK....flac squisher works great......I can convert my flac files to 320 kbps mp3's   :D

 

This is pretty awesome, now knowing that I will get better battery life out of my clip sport.......thanks guys.....much appreciated......I may go back to the 1.22 firmware now

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Sansa Clip+ Impressions