[Ruben123]

Hi there,
 
Been searching for a while for a Sansa Clip+ replacement for cheap but I could not find a good one that ticks all of my boxes.
 
I want: low impedance output (like Clip+) <2 Ohms
Small size (of the Clip, maybe bit larger but it has to fit in small pockets)
Ape support - thats where it gets interesting, because APE is FLAC, but most FLAC compatible players dont play APE. but i might switch to 320kbps mp3 sometimes so.....
Cheap !! <$25 if possible, and I think were looking at Aliexpress now which is not a problem. Those Ruizu and Onn players are just fine but I could not find anything about their output impedance.
Last but not least: micro SD card possibility.
 
Thanks for reading.

 

[madnanny1]

hello a cheap alternative to a clip i would recommend a xduoo x2.have just bought one.all metal machine.check out this website

 

[Ruben123]

Thanks, I've seen it already! Unfortunately it hisses I understood and is double the price I'd like to spend. I've been thinking about it for some time though so maybe I bite sometime.

 

[cel4145]

There is no comparable replacement that I have heard of for the Clip+ or Clip Zip in that $25 range other than another finding a Clip+ or Zip on sale.

 

[Ruben123]

They cost here $50 so unfortunately they will never meet the $25 price point.

 

[kimvictor]

  Hi there,
 
Been searching for a while for a Sansa Clip+ replacement for cheap but I could not find a good one that ticks all of my boxes.
 
I want: low impedance output (like Clip+) <2 Ohms
Small size (of the Clip, maybe bit larger but it has to fit in small pockets)
Ape support - thats where it gets interesting, because APE is FLAC, but most FLAC compatible players dont play APE. but i might switch to 320kbps mp3 sometimes so.....
Cheap !! <$25 if possible, and I think were looking at Aliexpress now which is not a problem. Those Ruizu and Onn players are just fine but I could not find anything about their output impedance.
Last but not least: micro SD card possibility.
 
Thanks for reading.

Hmm honestly, clip is the only thing I can think of. Buy it used or something. Clip sounds amazing for it's price.

 

[madnanny1]

am using mine with sennheiser px100/2 dont hear any hiss.

 

[Ruben123]

Might look for a used clip then. $50, even though it might not hiss, is a bit too expensive (I hear you all laughing). Maybe someone with a Ruizu or Onn player could give some advice?

 

[JK1]

Get a refurbished 4GB Clip Zip on Ebay for $30, and put Rockbox on it. Rockbox is a free alternative firmware(operating system) for the player.
With Rockbox installed, the Clip Zip supports .APE files.

 

http://download.rockbox.org/daily/manual/rockbox-sansaclipzip.pdf

 

[Ruben123]

I already have RB on my clip+ - thanks best thing seems to be used zips and clips then. Pity.

 

[Sleep Mode zZ]

Ape support - thats where it gets interesting, because APE is FLAC, but most FLAC compatible players dont play APE. but i might switch to 320kbps mp3 sometimes so.....
 

 
Both APE and FLAC are lossless codecs but they are not the same. APE can compress files slightly more than FLAC but FLAC is much more widely supported. If you were you, I would transcode your APE files to FLAC files.
 
320kbps mp3 files waste space (~25%). They are never better in quality than the best quality LAME encoded vbr files (-V0, ~245kbps). 

 

[JK1]

   
Both APE and FLAC are lossless codecs but they are not the same. APE can compress files slightly more than FLAC but FLAC is much more widely supported. If you were you, I would transcode your APE files to FLAC files.
 
320kbps mp3 files waste space (~25%). They are never better in quality than the best quality LAME encoded vbr files (-V0, ~245kbps). 

320kbps wastes space? Compared to what, variable bitrate averaging 225 or so kbps? FLAC and APE waste space when compared to 320 kbps for most people, as they can not hear the difference. That is especially true using a portable player and portable headphones or earphones in a noisy situation while doing other things and not completely focused on the music.
 
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/09/412271433/audio-quality-quiz-results-you-did-slightly-better-than-guessing-randomly

 

[Sleep Mode zZ]

  320kbps wastes space? Compared to what, variable bitrate averaging 225 or so kbps? 

 
Yes, the difference in size between 320kbps files and the highest variable bitrate files is wasted in the very objective sense that extra bits do not influence the sound output in any way. They are there just as padding so that decoders that don't accept variable bit rates - if there still are any like that - will be happy with the files. There is a tool that can strip those extra bits away from the file without any effect on the sound information.
 
The situation is quite different between mp3 files and lossless files. Most people probably do not hear the difference between a lossless file and a properly encoded (LAME -V4 or higher) MP3 file, but there is an objective difference. Ripping CDs to lossless files can make sense even if you do not hear any difference between FLAC files and MP3 files.  If one day you would like to move on from MP3 to another format, or to a different MP3 encoder or use different quality settings, transcoding from MP3 files is not recommended. Transcoding from FLAC files, on the other hand, gives exactly the same quality as re-ripping the CDs. So ripping to FLAC makes sense from the standpoint of archiving and reuse.
 
There also is the small, but real, possibility that, with some tracks, FLAC files would be distinguishable from properly encoded MP3 files. MP3 encoders might have bugs that leaves some obvious artifacts, or some people might be very sensitive to some artifacts while the majority of people are not. Using lossless files just to be sure to have the best possible reproduction of CDs is reasonable if you the storage space to allow that.
 
So use the highest variable bit rate MP3, or go the whole hog with lossless codecs. Using 320kbps MP3 files does not make any sense these days.

 

[JK1]

"Ripping CDs to lossless files can make sense even if you do not hear any difference between FLAC files and MP3 files.  If one day you would like to move on from MP3 to another format, or to a different MP3 encoder or use different quality settings, transcoding from MP3 files is not recommended. Transcoding from FLAC files, on the other hand, gives exactly the same quality as re-ripping the CDs. So ripping to FLAC makes sense from the standpoint of archiving and reuse."
 
FLAC files are okay for archiving music, however many who archive their CDs to FLAC convert the FLAc files to mp3 before putting them on a portable player. They do this not just to save space, but also to get longer battery life. Have you done any battery tests comparing mp3 variable bitrate to fixed bitrate? Imo using variable bitrate likely results in shorter battery life. How much shorter though is the question. I ripped my CDs years ago to 256 kbps mp3. If I was ripping them today though, I would probably use 320kbps mp3. I am too lazy to rerip them though. I have trouble distinguishing mp3 files at 320 kbps from those at 256 kbps.

 

[Sleep Mode zZ]

 
FLAC files are okay for archiving music, however many who archive their CDs to FLAC convert the FLAc files to mp3 before putting them on a portable player. They do this not just to save space, but also to get longer battery life. Have you done any battery tests comparing mp3 variable bitrate to fixed bitrate? Imo using variable bitrate like results in shorter battery life. How much shorter though is the question. I ripped my CDs years ago to 256 kbps mp3. If I was ripping them today though, I would probably use 320kbps mp3. I am too lazy to rerip them though. I have trouble distinguishing mp3 files at 320 kbps from those at 256 kbps.

 
I have not made any comparisons. Saratoga seems to think that VBR files should take less juice because of the reduced bitrate: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=91555. I would trust him.
 
I would have trouble distinguishing between LAME encoded ~128kbps VBR files and original CDs, but I have done that in listening tests long time ago so I will use higher bitrates. LAME is supposed to be the best encoder for medium and high bitrates, and -V 0 (preset extreme) is their recommended setting for the best quality. Though, it seems that I have been wrong in claiming that -V 0 gives the same quality as 320kbps files:
 

 This CBR mode will maximize the MP3's bitrate and overall file size. The extra space may allow for some parts of the audio to be compressed with fewer sacrifices, but to date, no one has produced ABX test results demonstrating that perceived quality is ever better than the highest VBR profiles described above.

 
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lame
 
So there is some actual added information in 320kbps files that is not present in -V 0 files (~245kbps), although no one has demonstrated that it makes any difference for the listener. That means that my claim of almost 25% of padding in those files can't be accurate. I had in mind a program called mp3packer, but it seems that it only can remove about 10% of the files. So only about 10% of the size of a 320kbps mp3 file is wasted for certain.