Don't shoot me!

Thanks for the google keywords.  I’ve spent a good bit of time looking thru both google and MS and hadn’t found the ‘lossless’ reference.  That method (lossless) comes with too big an overhead price (space) for me. 

Who shoots digital pictures in .tiff format?  Audiophiles, maybe. :wink:

That a player expecting to be much of anything but worthless would NOT support gapless playback amazes me.  My question came from the standpoint of, ‘SURELY this is a common situation, WHY does it seem so inscrutable!’

‘Lossless’ answers the WMA encoding part, ‘No way’ answers the playback (Fuze) part.

Thank you for time.

Message Edited by canyncarvr on 01-24-2010 10:29 AM

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 06:15 PM

All good points.

Granted, my use of the Fuze has nothing to do with audiophile expectations.  Mostly I listen to it while riding my motorcycle…an environment where such expectations could never be realized.

MY expectations are what need tempering. 

Again, thank you.

@tomjensen wrote:

 

Re: gapless - Judging from the handful of players that has the feature, and the lack of hue & cry about it, my guess is that most people listen in track mode rather than album mode. It kinda make sense for portable players, i.e. music on the go. My beef is Unicode support. I thought it’d be more common as well, but guess not, at least for Sansa players.

The handful of players that have it, does include the dreaded fruit players (assuming they are synced with fruitTunes), so in actuality, as far as percentage of players sold, more than a handful.  For me, I have no problem doing the album as one track workaround, or leaving the gapless stuff on the computer…but only a small part of my collection is gapless…someone with a lot of it most likely would feel differently than I.:wink:

Re: ‘The fuze doesn’t support gapless playback in any format, unless rockboxed.’

Took me a bit to get back to this.  I had little space left in my 4GB fuze…wanted to verify it with an added card to know it wasn’t something to do with limited space.

My fuze is V02.02.26A.  Indeed, it does NOT play WMA lossless encoded music.

After loading it onto my Fuze, selection of the lossless encoded album resulted in the Fuze seemingly trying to ‘load’ each track successively ( looked like what you would expect if it was moving data from flash to a ‘buffer’ or something).  It just looped…‘read’ each track, got the last track…started all over again. 

Never played a thing.

I went back to VBR.

[quote]Re: ‘The fuze doesn’t support gapless playback in any format, unless rockboxed.’

Took me a bit to get back to this.  I had little space left in my 4GB fuze…wanted to verify it with an added card to know it wasn’t something to do with limited space.

My fuze is V02.02.26A.  Indeed, it does NOT play WMA lossless encoded music.

After loading it onto my Fuze, selection of the lossless encoded album resulted in the Fuze seemingly trying to ‘load’ each track successively ( looked like what you would expect if it was moving data from flash to a ‘buffer’ or something).  It just looped…‘read’ each track, got the last track…started all over again. 

Never played a thing.

I went back to VBR. [/quote]

Are you sure it was a regular 16-bit FLAC you were trying to play?  Because the Fuze should play these fine (it’s all I ever use on my Fuze) but the player cannot handle 24-bit FLACs and so just skips through them in the manner you described.  Either way, it sounds like an issue with the particular files you were using.  In fact, you didn’t say they were FLAC - you just called them ‘lossless’ - so just to add, there’s no support for APE or WV files (in case you were trying these).

Anyhoo, lack of gapless is one of my biggest disappointments with this player (that, and the so-so sound quality - which to be fair is not bad for the cheap price).

I’ll be looking to spend more next time and get a nice gapless player with good sound quality.

Message Edited by FLACtastic on 02-28-2010 06:22 PM

Message Edited by FLACtastic on 02-28-2010 06:24 PM

Thanks for the input!

Fact is, I don’t know.  It was here I got the connection between WMP ‘Audio Lossless’ and FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec).  I don’t know that to be correct, personally.

The ‘lossless’ IS from WMP 9.00.00.3364, with no DSPs running/loaded.  I presume WMP to be using the ‘Windows Media Audio Codec’ it came with.

I don’t see a choice between 16/24-bit in WMP.

If a 24-bit length codec behaves as you describe, does that mean WMP-9 lossless files are 24-bit?

I looked briefly on the web for an answer…didn’t find an answer to that.

Is 24-bit depth something that even comes on CDs?  CD format is 44,100b/s, with each sample being 16 bits long…I thought.  Guess you could still make 24-bit words out of it if you wanted to.  Have NO idea why you would do that. 

If you have a link that references bit length (not bit RATE for anyone sped-redding this post) and different codecs, including WMP-9, I’d sure appreciate it. 

Thanks!

Message Edited by canyncarvr on 02-28-2010 01:25 PM

Though there are those who would argue, “more is better”, there was very good logic in deciding upon the 44.1kHz sample rate with 16 bit data, when the classic music CD format was envisioned.  The resolution is quite acceptable, holding its own against audiophile analog recordings.  As digital decoding devices improved in successive generations, the net result is very nice indeed.

Somehow, something is being lost in translation, I guess.  Today, we have a portable device capable of incredible resolution and sound quality, and we can even play the lossless wav format audio files on them.  As SanDisk has (as well as other manufacturers of course) brought the price of flash memory storage down to Earth, we can now work with those huge data files.

The need to work with 24 bit audio files both puzzles and amuses me.  Yes, we have more bit depth, meaning more steps between zero and maximum (the direction of which varies between layman’s terms and the engineer), but using that much more data is of dubious advantage.  Ten years ago, it was unthinkable that we could have the entire digital image of a compact disc, never mind a collection of discs, stored in a device a few millimeters across, much less in a complete machine the size of a Sansa, capable of a whole day’s playback.

16 bit PCM is a very practical, quiet, and capable digital medium.  I have heard it in its entire capability, as well as directly from the console in the studio, walking from the microphones themselves, then to session playback.  Some of you understand this quest, it’s a very tough one indeed, getting the master to sound just right, never mind matching the musician’s ear.

I am in awe of the early machines, the Soundstream and dbx two track mastering machines.  The dbx used sigma-delta single bit encoding at a sample rate over 450kHz.  Successive multi-track machines are amazing, yet as we see, they so often misused. 

I digress, sorry about that.  Just don’t sell 16 bit short, as we are taking about uncompressed digital samples here.  Mathematically, that equates to some tasty bandwidth.  Just don’t lose sight of the fact that the intended output is a pair of wee earbuds, even a larger pair of Grados, for some of you lucky guys.  (Talking about my favorite wooden beasties.)

Bob  :smileyvery-happy:

neutron_bob wrote:

Though there are those who would argue, “more is better”, there was very good logic in deciding upon the 44.1kHz sample rate with 16 bit data, when the classic music CD format was envisioned.  The resolution is quite acceptable, holding its own against audiophile analog recordings.  As digital decoding devices improved in successive generations, the net result is very nice indeed.

 

Somehow, something is being lost in translation, I guess.  Today, we have a portable device capable of incredible resolution and sound quality, and we can even play the lossless wav format audio files on them.  As SanDisk has (as well as other manufacturers of course) brought the price of flash memory storage down to Earth, we can now work with those huge data files.

 

The need to work with 24 bit audio files both puzzles and amuses me.  Yes, we have more bit depth, meaning more steps between zero and maximum (the direction of which varies between layman’s terms and the engineer), but using that much more data is of dubious advantage.  Ten years ago, it was unthinkable that we could have the entire digital image of a compact disc, never mind a collection of discs, stored in a device a few millimeters across, much less in a complete machine the size of a Sansa, capable of a whole day’s playback.

 

16 bit PCM is a very practical, quiet, and capable digital medium.  I have heard it in its entire capability, as well as directly from the console in the studio, walking from the microphones themselves, then to session playback.  Some of you understand this quest, it’s a very tough one indeed, getting the master to sound just right, never mind matching the musician’s ear.

 

I am in awe of the early machines, the Soundstream and dbx two track mastering machines.  The dbx used sigma-delta single bit encoding at a sample rate over 450kHz.  Successive multi-track machines are amazing, yet as we see, they so often misused. 

 

I digress, sorry about that.  Just don’t sell 16 bit short, as we are taking about uncompressed digital samples here.  Mathematically, that equates to some tasty bandwidth.  Just don’t lose sight of the fact that the intended output is a pair of wee earbuds, even a larger pair of Grados, for some of you lucky guys.  (Talking about my favorite wooden beasties.)

 

Bob  :smileyvery-happy:

Even the plastic Grados sound pretty darned impressive, as I’m sure you know,  Bob.:wink:

Indeed, I miss the resolution of the Stax, but not their size.  The old yellow Sennheiser 414s were a favorite for many years.

For relaxing with a cup of coffee, a good book, and the Fuze, I’d love a pair of Grados.  The more basic ones will do just fine, especially since my wife knows how much cheaper they are than my favorite reference ones.  If you’re making a living with them as a tool, it’s easier to understand.

Bob  :stuck_out_tongue:

I have wondered just how the electrostats would sound…I understand they are very power-hungry.

That they are indeed.  The ones I had were large (but surprisingly light) rectangular boxes, with a very cool tubed power supply / driver box that sat on the tabletop.

The sound of those phones is unlike any other, a very different experience, since you have two electrostatic panels floating between grids, and Coulomb’s Law does all the work.  No magnetic driver can approach it.

At the time, I routinely listened to the big SoundLab electrostatics, very nice.

Today, Stax have a wee portable version, with a hoop type headband, and far smaller drivers.  I haven’t heard them in use, but I’d love to.  I haven’t been to the CES in years.

Bob :smileyvery-happy:

No one was bashing 16-bit depth encoding, or promulgating 24-bit.  Well, if they were, I missed it.

My question was in regard to gapless playback (therefore ‘lossless encoding’, evidently) and then to 'The Fuze won’t play WMP ‘Audio Lossless’ tracks (that latter part I have yet to see explained except for the 24-bit comment).

Whether 16-bit, 24-bit, MP3s, or FLACs:  They all lose something.  The best you can hope for is an end result (your listening) that you enjoy.  If you must have Valhalla interconnects (at $4000+/meter per pair) and a $20,000 amplifier to attain such a result…you are missing the whole point, which is, the source you listen to is a loss format from the git-go! 

I don’t care what your source is.

Don’t get me wrong…good stuff makes a difference.  At some point you can hopefully reach an acceptable level of enjoyment without having to be a Goldman-Sachs board member to afford it.  There must be some reason I don’t use my Sansui G-5700 any more (only 75 watts…but 57v/us slew rate…that sounded much better with an additional 40,000uf filter piggyback).

Regardless of what it sounds like, of how advanced the tool is, what you play it through…if it cannot simply get from one song to the next without a s-n-i-p in between, that is simply an unacceptable loss.

Most likely the original performance had nothing of the sort going on, which makes the original question nothing but a matter of persnickity perception.  I’ll get over it. :wink:

Message Edited by TomJensen on 05-03-2010 06:14 PM

Mr. Jensen:

Given that…then I don’t understand this from an earlier post (this thread):

WMA Lossless == ALAC == FLAC.

I took that to mean that ALAC, FLAC, and WMA Lossless were equal.  If not, then what does that mean?

Certainly it makes sense that ANYthing from MS is going to have MS hooks in it.  MicroSoft didn’t get to where they are today by writing open source ‘stuff’.

canyncarvr wrote:

Mr. Jensen:

 

Given that…then I don’t understand this from an earlier post (this thread):

 

WMA Lossless == ALAC == FLAC.

 

I took that to mean that ALAC, FLAC, and WMA Lossless were equal.   If not, then what does that mean?

 

Certainly it makes sense that ANYthing from MS is going to have MS hooks in it.  MicroSoft didn’t get to where they are today by writing open source ‘stuff’.

He meant equal as in they are all lossless codecs. But as far as a Sansa is concerned of the three, they will only play FLAC(16-bit). WMA Lossless only plays on Zune players, and ALAC only plays on iPods…unless you have Rockbox. WMA Lossless, andWMA Pro will not playon a Sansa, and the Fuze does not do gapless of any sort without Rockbox.

Thank you!

While I DO very much enjoy learning ‘stuff’…I tire of sorting through tons of extraneous (and sometime just plain wrong) ‘facts’ while in search of.

I appreciate the input of those to this thread that helped me learn sumthin’.

@canyncarvr wrote:

Re: ‘The fuze doesn’t support gapless playback in any format, unless rockboxed.’

 

Took me a bit to get back to this.  I had little space left in my 4GB fuze…wanted to verify it with an added card to know it wasn’t something to do with limited space.

 

My fuze is V02.02.26A.  Indeed, it does NOT play WMA lossless encoded music.

 

After loading it onto my Fuze, selection of the lossless encoded album resulted in the Fuze seemingly trying to ‘load’ each track successively ( looked like what you would expect if it was moving data from flash to a ‘buffer’ or something).  It just looped…‘read’ each track, got the last track…started all over again. 

 

Never played a thing.

 

I went back to VBR.

I just have to add, since you quoted me, gapless and lossless are 2 different things, although they can go hand in hand.

As summerlove said, gapless and lossless are two very different things.

Lossless preserves everything in the source recording and makes it slightly smaller. There’s no loss of fidelity. It’s about hi-fi sound. 

Gapless allows successive songs to play without gaps. There are lossy codecs that support gapless with the proper firmware, as well as lossless ones. 

This is getting a bit off into the weeds.

Yes.  Gapless (playback) and lossless (encode process) are two different things.  Understood.

The first response in this thread provides links that DO connect the two…in some cases.  A MicroSoft ‘engineer’ said:

 _________________________________

Windows Media Player will allow you to rip Cd’s without gaps by selecting the RIP menu in Windows Media Player then FORMAT and  select " Windows Media Audio Lossless".

Lossless is a format that is gapless. 

_______________________________________

That from a social answers microsoft website (this board wouldn’t allow the link)

The intent of quoting what summerlove said was to confirm that encoding in a lossless format (WMP codec in this case) did NOT result in a gapless playback on the Sansa Fuze.

Reading the Microsoft forum comment could lead you to consider trying it on the Fuze…I did (try it)…it didn’t (work).