I just downloaded the latest (1.01.22A) version of the Firmware. It won’t play 24-bit FLAC. It reads the titles, but skips to the next track without playing any of the music. 16-bit FLAC seems to be fine. I downloaded several different 24-bit FLAC samples from difference sources and none of them would play. The 24-bit samples play fine on my PC with WinAmp.
Anyone else experiencing this? I’m hoping this can be resolved in the next firmware upgrade so I can finally start archiving my vinyl collection on 24-bit FLAC. It sounds so much better than 16-bit.
@databass wrote:
… 24-bit FLAC. It sounds so much better than 16-bit.
I’m confused. If ‘lossless’ means lossless – which means true and full reproduction exactly like the original – then how does one type of lossless sound “so much better” than another type of lossless?
Edit…I googled the answer, though I’m still a bit dubious about the “so much better.”
Makes me wonder what my FLAC rips I did with MediaMonkey are…16, 24??? I guess it doesn’t matter, they sound great the way they are, but I’d still like to know
While 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC are both lossless, 24-bit can sound better because there’s more information.
Since CDs are equivalent in sound-quality to 16-bit FLAC, there would be no difference between 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC taken from a CD.
However, the 24-bit FLAC files I’m trying to play are ripped directly from the analog studio master, so the sound-quality of the 24-bit FLAC is closer to the original analog sound than the 16-bit version.
@databass wrote:
… 24-bit FLAC. It sounds so much better than 16-bit.
I’m confused. If ‘lossless’ means lossless – which means true and full reproduction exactly like the original – then how does one type of lossless sound “so much better” than another type of lossless?
While 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC are both lossless, 24-bit can sound better because there’s more information.
Since CDs are equivalent in sound-quality to 16-bit FLAC, there would be no difference between 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC taken from a CD.
However, the 24-bit FLAC files I’m trying to play are ripped directly from the analog studio master, so the sound-quality of the 24-bit FLAC is closer to the original analog sound than the 16-bit version.
In theory, you are correct…however in the real world most people will not be able to determine any difference between a 24 bit file and a 16 bit one. I restore old recordings for a living and work exclusively with 24 bit/96K files…because our filtering algorithms are more precise with such files.
But, even with pristine originals, a very small percentage of people will be able to tell an audible difference. If you do, that is great, but to expect a $60 playback device to be able to reproduce such file is asking a lot from the product.
Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 12-19-2008 02:21 PM
I realize that a lot of people can’t tell the difference. But I definitely can. There is a lot more texture to the music. There’s an emotional layer that exists in music, which 16-bit strips a lot out of. I’m also in the camp that believes vinyl sounds way better than CDs.
Anyway, it seems like if Sandisk figured out 16-bit Flac, it should be able to handle 24-bit.
Also, it’s in Sandisk’s best interest to get it to work with 24 bit, and to promote HD-audio, because 24 bit consumes far more space and that means they can sell more and bigger memory cards, and larger-size portable audio players. This will ultimately help the company keep from bleeding red-ink and restore their profitability.
While 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC are both lossless, 24-bit can sound better because there’s more information.
Since CDs are equivalent in sound-quality to 16-bit FLAC, there would be no difference between 16-bit and 24-bit FLAC taken from a CD.
However, the 24-bit FLAC files I’m trying to play are ripped directly from the analog studio master, so the sound-quality of the 24-bit FLAC is closer to the original analog sound than the 16-bit version.
In theory, you are correct…however in the real world most people will not be able to determine any difference between a 24 bit file and a 16 bit one. I restore old recordings for a living and work exclusively with 24 bit/96K files…because our filtering algorithms are more precise with such files.
But, even with pristine originals, a very small percentage of people will be able to tell an audible difference. If you do, that is great, but to expect a $60 playback device to be able to reproduce such file is asking a lot from the product.
Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 12-19-2008 02:21 PM
I realize that a lot of people can’t tell the difference. But I definitely can. There is a lot more texture to the music. There’s an emotional layer that exists in music, which 16-bit strips a lot out of. I’m also in the camp that believes vinyl sounds way better than CDs.
Anyway, it seems like if Sandisk figured out 16-bit Flac, it should be able to handle 24-bit.
Also, it’s in Sandisk’s best interest to get it to work with 24 bit, and to promote HD-audio, because 24 bit consumes far more space and that means they can sell more and bigger memory cards, and larger-size portable audio players. This will ultimately help the company keep from bleeding red-ink and restore their profitability.
Like I said, that is fine if you can tell a difference. But I have conducted clinical double blind listening tests and most people cannot tell a difference between a 24 bit file and 16 bit one…and that is with state of the art, studio quality equipment. Asking a portable device to handle such files, when most people could not pinpoint the higher quality file in a clinical test, may be too much to ask.
Like all companies, Sandisk will determine which features most people want and desire and add them to the “to do” list.
For most people, myself included, there are a host of other features that are more important than 24 bit capability: such as gapless playback, increased song capability and so on.
I expect the DACs (digital-to-audio convertors) in portable players like the Fuze only have 16-bit hardware. Even if they could be made to support 24-bit FLACs in the firmware, they would have to be downgraded to 16-bit on the fly.
DAC in Fuze probably has 18 bits. The system chip (with CPU) is Sandisk 20-99-00112-2 which is based on AMS AS3525. The AMS chip contains 18 bit DAC but anyway it has signal to noise ratio 94 dB which is lower than theoretical 96 dB of 16 bits quantization noise. I think that such small players hardly could have audio output of quality required to distinguish more than 16 bits.
