[Lavalamp]

I've had a 20gb Creative Zen for a couple of years now, and it has served me well.

My problem is that I can't take the SQ degradation using MP3 files, and all my music is stored as 16 bit 44.1khz WAV files. As a result, I can only get about 35 CD's on the hard drive. This is not enough choice for me.

I've been out of circulation regarding the new range of players.

I'm looking for something that is going to store more music at a high resolution.

Is it possible to utilise flac files instead of WAV files? Is there much SQ difference between flac and WAV?

Thanks for all opinions and advice.

 

[3X0]

Cowon iAudio X5 + FLAC.

Alternatively, choose from the above and the Apple iPod, iRiver H100, and iRiver H300 with Rockbox to play any lossless format. Bear in mind that the X5 and H300 usually sound better than either the iPod or H100 when compared through the headphone-outs of the players.

 

[noblsheep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3X0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cowon iAudio X5 + FLAC.

seconded.

 

[Fallingwater]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavalamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif My problem is that I can't take the SQ degradation using MP3 files, and all my music is stored as 16 bit 44.1khz WAV files

Have you conducted proper blind testing to see if you really notice the difference between wavs and 320kbps mp3s, or you just think you do?

 

[pds6]

Lavalamp says:
Quote:

My problem is that I can't take the SQ degradation using MP3 files, and all my music is stored as 16 bit 44.1khz WAV files.

I don't want to fight, but for the life of me, I don''t understand this statement.

Your hearing is so sensitive that MP3 files hurt your ears, but Zen amped WAV files are o.k.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't get it.

 

[Packgrog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavalamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif My problem is that I can't take the SQ degradation using MP3 files, and all my music is stored as 16 bit 44.1khz WAV files. As a result, I can only get about 35 CD's on the hard drive. This is not enough choice for me.

Use better MP3 compression. LAME v3.92, VBR New, Quality 0, Stereo, 32kbps minimum bitrate, 320kbps maximum bitrate. I'm not sure if I'd be able to tell the difference between this compression and a lossless file, but I do know that I no longer notice any artifacting or weird jitter in cymbals (which is what always seems to suffer first as encoding quality is reduced). Besides, my current crop of hardware wouldn't reveal any more details. Maybe once I get an amp and Micro DAC for my H120...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lavalamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it possible to utilise flac files instead of WAV files? Is there much SQ difference between flac and WAV?

There is no quality difference between FLAC and WAV. FLAC is a lossless compression. Again, though, a properly-encoded high-max-bitrate VBR LAME MP3 is indistinguishable from the original. You have to be anal about the settings, but if you get it right, it's basically perfect, and quite a bit smaller than even FLAC 8.

If you're determined to use FLAC, though, get a player that can be Rockboxed. You get gapless, FLAC/MP3/Ogg/limited M4A/etc. support, ReplayGain, plugins, customizable interface, etc. It's invaluable. I tried living without it yesterday and I couldn't. Check out Rockbox.org for info about which players it works on for a starting point, then search from there.

 

[pds6]

Packgrog says:
Quote:

LAME ... 320kbps

2X

 

[Lavalamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't want to fight, but for the life of me, I don''t understand this statement. Your hearing is so sensitive that MP3 files hurt your ears, but Zen amped WAV files are o.k. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't get it.

As an experiment, I stored the same track at 160kbps, 320kbps and WAV.

Moving up the resolution, differences appeared slight. However, moving down in resolution, differences were obvious to the extent that undoubtedly, you are missing out on musical detail using MP3 compressed files. It is things such as attack and decay of single notes on acoustic guitars and the high end sparkle of cymbals.

I guess I see the audio hobby as a challenge to present the most musical detail possible from a good recording.

 

[pds6]

Lavalamp says:
Quote:

However, moving down in resolution, differences were obvious to the extent that undoubtedly, you are missing out on musical detail using MP3 compressed files.

I probably did not make my point as clear as a should have.

In the area of music fidelity, the amp inside of your Zen is more of a liability than going from WAV to MP3 rips.

As to claims of being able to hear the difference between a WAV verses a high quality MP3 rip (320 bit MP3 cbr lame), I do not believe these claims. Particularly when listening on such low quality equipment.

 

[Lavalamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pds6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the area of music fidelity, the amp inside of your Zen is more of a liability than going from WAV to MP3 rips.

Are you saying that the internal amp in my Zen is not good enough for me to be able to tell any significant difference from WAV to MP3?

If so, I can only repeat that I noticed a difference in SQ moving from WAV to 360kbps. It was not enormous, but there was more musical detail listening to WAV.

 

[pds6]

Lavalamp says:
Quote:

Are you saying that the internal amp in my Zen is not good enough for me to be able to tell any significant difference from WAV to MP3?

I'm saying two things:
(1) Yes, a good rip is a good rip and claims of hearing difference are more likely a question of volume rather than SQ.; and,
(2) A line-out to a good amp would provide more impact on the music than WAV vs. MP3.

Quote:

I can only repeat that I noticed a difference in SQ moving from WAV to 360kbps.

I believe you believe. It is more likely a question of a higher volume in the WAV rip.

 

[Packgrog]

I think it's more a question of how the 320kbps MP3 was made. Small changes in the settings I mentioned can make a huge difference. Also, encoding from a full WAV file rather than a CD also seems to help too. Also, use VBR New quality 0 Stereo, NOT CBR 320, and DEFINITELY not joint-stereo.

Also, make certain you're using LAME 3.92 to encode it.

 

[Lavalamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packgrog /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it's more a question of how the 320kbps MP3 was made. Small changes in the settings I mentioned can make a huge difference. Also, encoding from a full WAV file rather than a CD also seems to help too. Also, use VBR New quality 0 Stereo, NOT CBR 320, and DEFINITELY not joint-stereo. Also, make certain you're using LAME 3.92 to encode it.

So far, my capabilities don't stretch any further than using the Creative Media Organiser software that came with my Zen.

Would anyone have a handy link to any tutorials setting out how to make better MP3 rips?

Thanks.

 

[Packgrog]

http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=14081

Personally, I use CDex v1.51 with the LAME Encoder (v3.92). I do *NOT* use on-the-fly encoding, as the resulting file seems to have slightly better compression and less risk of artifacting when encoded from a full WAV file. My settings are:

Quality: Very High Quality ( q=0 )
VBR Method: VBR-New
VBR Quality: VBR 0
Mode: Stereo (VERY important, *DO NOT* use J-stereo)
Version: MPEG I
Bitrate Min: 32 kbps (good for extended sections of silence)
Bitrate Max: 320 kbps

I can't tell the difference with my new rips using this method (all from CDs my wife and I own, thank you). I've gone through many different settings, but this seems to be the sweet spot. Give this a shot. It takes longer to encode this way than through something like iTunes, but the resulting files are FAR superior in sound quality.

 

[Lavalamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Packgrog /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=14081 Personally, I use CDex v1.51 with the LAME Encoder (v3.92). I do *NOT* use on-the-fly encoding, as the resulting file seems to have slightly better compression and less risk of artifacting when encoded from a full WAV file. My settings are: Quality: Very High Quality ( q=0 ) VBR Method: VBR-New VBR Quality: VBR 0 Mode: Stereo (VERY important, *DO NOT* use J-stereo) Version: MPEG I Bitrate Min: 32 kbps (good for extended sections of silence) Bitrate Max: 320 kbps I can't tell the difference with my new rips using this method (all from CDs my wife and I own, thank you). I've gone through many different settings, but this seems to be the sweet spot. Give this a shot. It takes longer to encode this way than through something like iTunes, but the resulting files are FAR superior in sound quality.

That's cool!!

Thanks.