[knowhatimean]

I'm sorry , but I think the title of this thread is absolutely hilarious. I don't listen to any lossy codecs on my iPods (& I don't use ALAC.: I'll leave it to you guys to "read between the lines") I'm doing pretty good w/ battery time., but I also don't use more than about 45 to 60% of the storage capacities on my iPod Classic 160g & 64g Touch. I have several hours of 'true CD quality' that I can carry around & listen to through a "real" dac(my HP P1). Explain to me , once more why it is necessary to carry around a huge music library with you , when you can create several different libraries that you could sync to if you want more selections available to play. (Be creative, take a chance you'll have enough choices to pick from)(You really have that much time to peruse your iPod library each day?). So, is there any validity to the OPs claims. How could this be ? I thought FLAC was the perfect codec ? He,he he,he.............. (FLAC ? I don't need no steeking FLAC) (I'll probably hear some "flac" about this posting ! ) (So maybe Rockbox is actually a brick)

 

[Veemo]

the ****? I'll use my iPod the way I want, you use yours the way you want.

 

[Veemo]

Explain to me, once more, why it is necessary to create and sync several different libraries when I could carry said libraries on one device, all at once, and not bother with syncing? Regardless, it doesn't matter how much i have or what it is when all I get is seconds of menu-browsing before the thing dies.
 
Anyway, to those of you who actually bothered to post something helpful rather than... whatever Knowhatimean did, I went ahead and bought a battery kit on ebay. This unit is several years old, and the most likely explanation for my problems seems to be battery failure. I'll post a follow-up when I receive and install it.
 
Thanks!

 

[doublea71]

I agree - that had nothing to do with OP's thread - the title of the thread isn't  "Please, pat yourself on the back."

 

[knowhatimean]

Quote:

I agree - that had nothing to do with OP's thread - the title of the thread isn't  "Please, pat yourself on the back."

I suppose my posting was a bit insensitive. I was'nt aware the OPs Pod was several years old . If you'll notice close to the end of my post I did ask if there was "any validity to the OPs claims". The OP cleared that up for me with his admission that the nature of his problem is due more to the age of the player than the OS it is using. Using flac would involve an extra step for me, as I rip 99% of the music I put on my PDPs from CDs(the hybrid layer of SACDs most of the time). If you search this forum at any given time , you'll find numerous accounts of Flac users "patting themselves on the back'' by assuming they need to "educate" anyone who states they are using uncompressed lossless, even if they state they are aware they know about compressed lossless. I'll admit to "thread crapping" to poke jabs at all these posters , but I apologize only to the OP for using his thread to do so. (Now, I'll pat myself on the back!) (I'm seriously not that concerned about my image, I'm too old for that) (Oops, I patted myself anyway)
 
 

 

[doublea71]

I'm actually quite interested in your method - ripping the hybrid layer from SACDs (I've never heard of this). That sounds pretty damned interesting to me, being a new guy on this forum and all. There's always something new to learn in this place...which is awesome imo.

 

[knowhatimean]

Quote:

I'm actually quite interested in your method - ripping the hybrid layer from SACDs (I've never heard of this). That sounds pretty damned interesting to me, being a new guy on this forum and all. There's always something new to learn in this place...which is awesome imo.

He,he,he.... I wish I could claim I'm doing something more than ripping the 16/44 layer,but the Hi Rez layer is copy protected so you can't make a digital rip of it. Hybrid SACDs are called that because they contain a CD layer along with whatever Hi Rez content (be it multi-channel & stereo or just stereo DSD). The funny thing is if a CD of the release was available years before the SACD made it's appearance, the CD layer on the SACD many times is more carefully mastered than it was the first time around(chances are another company may have gotten hold of the masters this time). I remember posing the rhetorical question "Why are they forcing us to pay for the CD layer also!". I don't ask that anymore, it turned out to be a good thing for people w/ PDPs.(I still don't get the "Digital Copy" inclusion with Blurays. Include it on the DVD. They always get us for something!)
 
 

 

[doublea71]

So do they tend to have better sound quality than flac files because the cd layer from a sacd is remastered better than the original? Just think, someday it'll be standard for DAPs to support 24/192 files...hopefully in my lifetime. Have you visited the hdtracks website? They have a ton of great high bitrate music, but it's quite expensive. Is there such thing as compressionless music in a digital format? I need to take a crash course on this stuff asap.

 

[knowhatimean]

There' s a new discussion on flac files in the new issue of "The Absolute Sound" as with any discussion of how well audio codecs work it is subjective. I believe the 2 formats commonly used by the recording industry to master recordings are Wav & Dsd. Recording directly to Flac may be a new development that I'm not aware of , but I would venture to say most recordings are not. So what that means is that most Flac files that are available were originally another format. I like to use photograhy analogies here . The master recording is the negative, however many changes you make to the original format you will be a generation further from what was originally captured in the recording(as some elements of the actual music playing event have already been  lost in the recording process, as minimal as that might be, it is unavoidable ). So do I trust the Hi Rez offerings from places like HDtracks & Linn Records, For the most part I do, as they have both been in or had affiliations with high quality audio reproduction for a long time. I would be very wary of the majority of the downloads of most other vendors offering better than MP3 , lossless downloads(Flac most commonly) as the flac conversions may be hit or miss as to how well they are executed. I listen to SACDs at home & I rip this music to my PDPs for my not at home listening. Supposedly all lossless is lossless, I don't know if I particularly agree with that . It's almost like the famous audio writer who made the statement "all amplifiers sound alike". It led me to believe he was reading the measurements & not bothering to listen. Sorry if I did'nt answer your question. About the only "absolute" I can pass on is that we all hear things a bit differently. Go with your impressions, discovering what sounds good to you is what this hobby is all about. As a "half" answer I would guess sound of my SACDs is on par w/ the sound of the Hi Rez files (they were sourced from by an engineer by the name of Bruce Brown I believe). For use on an iPod once again it's a wash as you will have to downconvert the Hi Rez files to play them (Half an answer is better than none,right) (I have to ask . Is that Rick Flair you are using as your "Avatar"? Old picture or is he still around ? he,he,he ... you guys keep me laughing,thanks)

 

[Jaywalk3r]

I like to use photograhy analogies here . The master recording is the negative, however many changes you make to the original format you will be a generation further from what was originally captured in the recording(as some elements of the actual music playing event have already been  lost in the recording process, as minimal as that might be, it is unavoidable ).

Your analogy does not apply in the digital world. Lossless copies can be made perfectly for as many generations as desired. While it is inevitable that, at some point, a copy will be corrupted, such errors can be easily detected and often corrected in the digital world. Any sound difference you hear between ALAC, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, WMA lossless, etc. files that come directly or indirectly from the same original file, is purely due to placebo effect (provided every "generation" was lossless).

 

[knowhatimean]

Quote:

Your analogy does not apply in the digital world. Lossless copies can be made perfectly for as many generations as desired. While it is inevitable that, at some point, a copy will be corrupted, such errors can be easily detected and often corrected in the digital world. Any sound difference you hear between ALAC, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, WMA lossless, etc. files that come directly or indirectly from the same original file, is purely due to placebo effect (provided every "generation" was lossless).

Regardless of what the measurements may say, compressed lossless & uncompressed lossless (just as Flac & Wav files) do not sound "absolutely, exactly" the same to me! Maybe everyone else's PCs are more able than mine is at error correction. It could be my hearing is'nt "digitally sufficient" enough to make these corrections. One more thing please refrain from talking about "placebo" effects! There is no possible way you can honestly tell how someone perceives what they hear. I could be the only person on the planet who hears things differently. Are you the most knowledgeable audiologist on Earth? I may have a rare condition that causes me to hear things differently. Do you have any idea how arrogant it is tell someone how they react is due to a "placebo" effect? So, do all amplifiers sound the same to you ? Don't answer that ! How could I be sure your response was'nt due to a mere "placebo effect" ?(One more thing, I don't think I would care to borrow anything from your digital library, thanks anyway)
 
 

 

[andrewberge]

True, you might be a unique human with some special hearing, however, all humans are subject to placebo. When we enter a situation, our knowledge, experience and expectation will affect our judgement and our perception. You can't say that you're not affected by it.
 
The odds that you're being affected by placebo are higher than those that you have a rare gift.

 

[Jaywalk3r]

Your analogy does not apply in the digital world. Lossless copies can be made perfectly for as many generations as desired. While it is inevitable that, at some point, a copy will be corrupted, such errors can be easily detected and often corrected in the digital world. Any sound difference you hear between ALAC, FLAC, WAV, AIFF, WMA lossless, etc. files that come directly or indirectly from the same original file, is purely due to placebo effect (provided every "generation" was lossless).

Regardless of what the measurements may say, compressed lossless & uncompressed lossless (just as Flac & Wav files) do not sound "absolutely, exactly" the same to me! Maybe everyone else's PCs are more able than mine is at error correction. It could be my hearing is'nt "digitally sufficient" enough to make these corrections. One more thing please refrain from talking about "placebo" effects! There is no possible way you can honestly tell how someone perceives what they hear. I could be the only person on the planet who hears things differently. Are you the most knowledgeable audiologist on Earth? I may have a rare condition that causes me to hear things differently. Do you have any idea how arrogant it is tell someone how they react is due to a "placebo" effect? So, do all amplifiers sound the same to you ? Don't answer that ! How could I be sure your response was'nt due to a mere "placebo effect" ?(One more thing, I don't think I would care to borrow anything from your digital library, thanks anyway)

Do you have any idea how arrogant it is to tell someone that 2 + 2 = 7 simply because you don't understand algebra? Claiming that there is a difference between two lossless codecs is just as arrogant (though the underlying math is significantly more complex). Nevertheless, it's just math. If a song is ripped from a CD and encoded into two different lossless files, when played back on the same equipment they will sound identical. If you hear a difference, it is the placebo effect. They both retain, and provide upon playback, 100% of the information of the original file (metadata notwithstanding).

 

[knowhatimean]

 
Quote:

Do you have any idea how arrogant it is to tell someone that 2 + 2 = 7 simply because you don't understand algebra? Claiming that there is a difference between two lossless codecs is just as arrogant (though the underlying math is significantly more complex). Nevertheless, it's just math. If a song is ripped from a CD and encoded into two different lossless files, when played back on the same equipment they will sound identical. If you hear a difference, it is the placebo effect. They both retain, and provide upon playback, 100% of the information of the original file (metadata notwithstanding).

My " friend" (& I use that term very loosely) "me thinks" you need to find yourself a dictionary & look up the definition of the word arrogant ! I would'nt be being arrogant maybe incorrect or ignorant perhaps. I would only be arrogant if I claimed that  "you" had to be hearing the same as "I" did. Arrogance only comes into play when you make assumptions as to how some else came to their conclusion,be it by faulty math or logic they  are guilty of nothing more than misinformation. The claims I make are for how I find things . It is beyond my control whether someone chooses to agree with me or not. Is it really necessary to preface everything you say with " in my opinion " or  "in my experience " ? It's part of developing an intellect. I don't mind being scientifically incorrect nearly as much as being socially incorrect. 
 
 
 

 

[Jaywalk3r]

I would only be arrogant if I claimed that  "you" had to be hearing the same as "I" did. Arrogance only comes into play when you make assumptions as to how some else came to their conclusion,be it by faulty math or logic they  are guilty of nothing more than misinformation. The claims I make are for how I find things . It is beyond my control whether someone chooses to agree with me or not. Is it really necessary to preface everything you say with " in my opinion " or  "in my experience " ? It's part of developing an intellect. I don't mind being scientifically incorrect nearly as much as being socially incorrect. 

A lossless file, by definition, retains 100% of the information from the original file, metadata notwithstanding. It is not arrogance to point out that there is exactly zero difference in the sound of two files of the same song encoded in different lossless files. That isn't opinion; that is fact. You are indeed entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.