Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › My letter to Sandisk Sansa - Praising them for 3 years of 99% stress free listening. I HOPE SANSA READS THIS!!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My letter to Sandisk Sansa - Praising them for 3 years of 99% stress free listening. I HOPE... - Page 3

post #31 of 69

I've always wondered if there was much difference between different compression levels. If only I could figure out how to get a different compression level to compare.

post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post

I've always wondered if there was much difference between different compression levels. If only I could figure out how to get a different compression level to compare.


For lossless there shouldn't be.  Uncompressed out of a decoder they would have the same checksum value meaning all the data is there.  The concern would be whether or not the players decoder is doing its job efficiently enough not whether one Flac file is better than another Flac file.  It's all about the decoder.

post #33 of 69



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post

I've always wondered if there was much difference between different compression levels. If only I could figure out how to get a different compression level to compare.


 

These are a bit older but nothing much has changed:

 

http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm

 

http://flac.sourceforge.net/comparison.html

 

The general idea is that the compression ratio doesn't matter much except during the encoding process, and our computers keep getting faster so even that is less of an issue. Some people can't help but get the warm fuzzies when they see a super high bit-rate on a FLAC, but it all sounds the same.


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




For lossless there shouldn't be.  Uncompressed out of a decoder they would have the same checksum value meaning all the data is there.  The concern would be whether or not the players decoder is doing its job efficiently enough not whether one Flac file is better than another Flac file.  It's all about the decoder.


True, but we could say the same thing about MP3, WMA, etc. I know you dislike the Fuze/Clip and that's a matter of personal choice, but let's not overstate things based on one report of errors.

 

I don't want to seem like a Sansa Cheerleader though.... there are many other excellent players out there, many of which do things that the Sansas can't. Find one you like and stick with it.
 

post #34 of 69

Just asking the question, didn't make a claim of certainty about the Sansas.  The question applies to all codecs and players involved in the same process.

post #35 of 69

I'll look into those links when I get home. I'd probably have to use a different ripper to get to a different compression level since the one I use is pretty simple and doesn't give you an option to rip to another compression level. It's probably not worth the added time for the other ripper I can use since it takes longer since it checks it and does it twice I believe so it's similar to EAC.

post #36 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyFi View Post




 Pretty much every single review or comparison I've ever read says they're identical, with a small number of people divided between saying one or the other is superior. Did a quick "Clip+ vs Fuze" search and grabbed the first one. Early on in the thread someone says the Clip+ is superior.

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/477510/sansa-fuze-vs-clip-vs-clip

 

 

 

 

I think he was confused by the term, since it seems to suggest something can be less than fully lossless. I would think this impossible, heh. Then again, what do I know..

Im going to have to go ahead and say we shouldn't believe first impressions by users with less than few hundred posts and a nothing inventory ;[  Sure thats a bit bias, but seriously, I think people who say its "warmer" are kind of full of it 

 

I've not come across a single thread or review stating the Clip+ and original are anything different internally.  Internal components are identical so saying its warmer or any different sounding is nonsense 
 

post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post



Im going to have to go ahead and say we shouldn't believe first impressions by users with less than few hundred posts and a nothing inventory ;[  Sure thats a bit bias, but seriously, I think people who say its "warmer" are kind of full of it 

 

I've not come across a single thread or review stating the Clip+ and original are anything different internally.  Internal components are identical so saying its warmer or any different sounding is nonsense 
 

 

Understandable (and I also don't agree that it's warmer). I was using that as an example of how not only do most reviews hold them as equals, some people take it to the other extreme. I haven't come across any threads stating Clip+ is different than the original Clip either. The issue was reviews stating the Clip+ is as good SQ as the Fuze, though, which is pretty much all of the reviews.

 

Anyhoo we agree, here. Just saying most people don't agree with us. I'm just gonna buy a blue fuze and quit thinking about it.
 

post #38 of 69

Just to chime in on FLAC compression. 

 

I use 8.  I'm ripping as I'm compressing.  My computer compresses faster than it takes to rip the next song.  So there really isn't any point to not using the highest compression setting.  Think of the disc space saved over say 10,000 songs.

post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max F View Post

Just to chime in on FLAC compression. 

 

I use 8.  I'm ripping as I'm compressing.  My computer compresses faster than it takes to rip the next song.  So there really isn't any point to not using the highest compression setting.  Think of the disc space saved over say 10,000 songs.


+1

post #40 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyFi View Post

Anyhoo we agree, here. Just saying most people don't agree with us. I'm just gonna buy a blue fuze and quit thinking about it.

 


I just bought one :D  Got it two days ago, its awesome.  Got a clear blue case with it to, to match my blue wintergreen cmoy 2.02 ftwwwww

post #41 of 69



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max F View Post

Just to chime in on FLAC compression. 

 

I use 8.  I'm ripping as I'm compressing.  My computer compresses faster than it takes to rip the next song.  So there really isn't any point to not using the highest compression setting.  Think of the disc space saved over say 10,000 songs.


Let's assume ~35MB for an average song (FLAC level 1), and about a 1% disk space savings by going from level 1 to level 8 (the link I cited above shows a 0.2% size savings by going from level 5 to level 8, so 1% might be too generous, but let's use it anyway). ~35MB times 10k songs equals ~350GB. 1% savings from that is 3.5GB. So realistically you are not saving much.

 

On the other hand, you have a good point about FLAC encoding times on a fast computer; it really isn't much of a barrier any longer now that  4-6 core processors and 4-8GB RAM is pretty common.

 

Off topic, I'm finally going to try Rockbox on my Fuze V2. I've just been too lazy to try until now as the stock UI doesn't bother me at all. But I was looking at the skins today and some look very nice. What are other people using?
 

post #42 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post




I just bought one :D  Got it two days ago, its awesome.  Got a clear blue case with it to, to match my blue wintergreen cmoy 2.02 ftwwwww

 

I heard that the blue color is darker than it appears in most photos online. T/F? course I could just go to best buy and look. im so lazy.

 

Slightly more on topic: I think the only thing I'd like to see change with the Fuze is a better EQ or even individual Treble/Bass etc controls like Rockbox. I kinda dislike touch screens. The wheel and hard buttons are part of the Fuze's beauty imo.


Edited by HappyFi - 7/14/10 at 5:29pm
post #43 of 69
Thread Starter 

yes it is darker.  it is highly reflective so the flash on a camera will make it look lighter.  It's for sure darker.  I tried to get minimal flash going so you can see the difference, its much darker than the photos.  The stock pictures are photoshopped without a dout.  Even with my flash on my camera I couldnt get the blue cuze to be THAT BLUE.  Thats a totally different shade of blue...

 

im colorblind, ( not totally ) but even i can see the difference :\ 

 

P7140061.JPG

 

SansaFuzeStraightBlue.jpg

post #44 of 69


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by swbf2cheater View Post

I'd have to re-disagree with you :)

 

The fuze has a 60mw output

 

Ipods including touch and g5 = 30mw

zune original = 30mw

creative zen = 30mw

sony x1060 = 10mw

p3 = 9mw

Cowon S9 = 12mw ( rumored, not much of an improvement over the p3 so its accurate )

Cowon J3 = 29mw

 

the fuze is 2x as powerful, tested to be accurate and true with all of the above, as it drives much high ohm needy headphones better than any of these ;

 

 

 

 

 

late to the thread, but just for clarification, we are talking all these players power output at 16ohms correct? The Creative Zen had 55MW per channel at 16ohms not 30MW.


Edited by callanish - 7/15/10 at 12:34am
post #45 of 69
Thread Starter 

heres a guy who said the zen had a 40mw

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35708

 

dapreview estimates the zen at 30mw

http://www.dapreview.net/zune_vs_ipod_vs_zvm.html

 

but creative zens forums says 44mw

http://forums.creative.com/t5/MP3-Players/Creative-Zen-Output-Power/m-p/508606/highlight/true;jsessionid=7DE826D529E76D1EE0981A8B986D9376

 

we were both wrong, i was too low, you were too high but the fuze still bests it ;)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › My letter to Sandisk Sansa - Praising them for 3 years of 99% stress free listening. I HOPE SANSA READS THIS!!!!