8000 songs/files? How?

Hello all.  I was trying to figure out what I’m doing ‘wrong’ that I don’t think I’ll ever come close to reaching the limit on the number of files the Fuze can have.  I thought maybe I was using the wrong format and found threads stating the same things I found myself that mp3 and wma have negligable size differences.  One thread even said that switching to 64bit would still only allow for X amount of files.  So here’s where I’m at:

4GB Fuze (empty)

16GB SDHC (15185MB Available, 9217MB Used, 1544 songs)

Using what I have above, I guestimate that with 20GB of space I’ll only be able to store 3800 songs at 128bit.  Does this sound right? And if I switched to 64bit, that would approximately double thus bringing me closer to max with 7200 songs?

Not a terribly important question/situation, but one that’s got me thinking more as I just bought an 8GB player for someone that has filled their old school 200+ disc CD changer and I’m trying to get them to save a little space in their audio closet :slight_smile:

Thanks people :slight_smile:

T

well for one your math is a little off 3800 x 2 = 7600 but yes to get close to the 8000 song limit you will need to use 64kbps wma files. 

You would also need to update your player (if you currently have an older firmware) to reach the 8000 file limit. The older firmware had a 4000 file limit on the database. You could still have more than 4000 files, but only the first 4000 would be accessible.

Yeah my bad, 7600, thanks.  It’s been one of those days and I had my Fuze nuke on me all of a sudden, first time.  Had to reset it, but all is good :slight_smile:  Thanks for confirming.

Message Edited by WhyNotV2 on 12-09-2009 06:34 PM

@gwk1967 wrote:
You would also need to update your player (if you currently have an older firmware) to reach the 8000 file limit. The older firmware had a 4000 file limit on the database. You could still have more than 4000 files, but only the first 4000 would be accessible.

I have the newest firmware and so far no problem with that either so I’ve not yet rolled back to 26.

 

@drlucky wrote:
64kbps wma files. 

*Gags*

d_headshot wrote:


@drlucky wrote:
64kbps wma files. 


 

*Gags*

Depending on the audio that might be too big. Think about AM radio, or classic radio shows, home made non-musical recordings, and even podcasts. With things like that why go much bigger, the quality wont really change. 

Why would you recommend a crappy codec like WMA?  If he needs to use a 64kbps bitrate he should use Vorbis.  It is far superior to WMA and MP3 at that bitrate.

@drlucky wrote:
well for one your math is a little off 3800 x 2 = 7600 but yes to get close to the 8000 song limit you will need to use 64kbps wma files. 

rookcifer wrote:
Why would you recommend a crappy codec like WMA?  If he needs to use a 64kbps bitrate he should use Vorbis.  It is far superior to WMA and MP3 at that bitrate.


Far superior to MP3 at low bitrates, yes. But WMA, like Vorbis, (and AAC)  is quite good in the quality-to-size department, especially if done with VBR. Sure you’re not just a Microsoft hater? :stuck_out_tongue:

@marvin_martian wrote:


@rookcifer wrote:
Why would you recommend a crappy codec like WMA?  If he needs to use a 64kbps bitrate he should use Vorbis.  It is far superior to WMA and MP3 at that bitrate.



Far superior to MP3 at low bitrates, yes. But WMA, like Vorbis, (and AAC)  is quite good in the quality-to-size department, especially if done with VBR. Sure you’re not just a Microsoft hater? :stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah I am an M$ hater and a hater of any other company that puts out closed-source, closed standard software in an attempt to monopolize the market and shut every other technology out.  I like open standards, especially as it relates to common things like video and audio codecs.  Look at the mess we have now with video codecs because M$, Apple, Adobe, and others want to control the market.  It’s impossible to surf the web and feel confident you have all needed codecs because different sites use different ones and there are a ton of them.  And, besides, when it comes to lossy audio, Vorbis has shown in numerous blind tests to fare better in quality than the ubiquitous MP3, especially at bitrates below 128.

rookcifer wrote:


@marvin_martian wrote:


@rookcifer wrote:
Why would you recommend a crappy codec like WMA?  If he needs to use a 64kbps bitrate he should use Vorbis.  It is far superior to WMA and MP3 at that bitrate.



Far superior to MP3 at low bitrates, yes. But WMA, like Vorbis, (and AAC)  is quite good in the quality-to-size department, especially if done with VBR. Sure you’re not just a Microsoft hater? :stuck_out_tongue:


Yeah I am an M$ hater and a hater of any other company that puts out closed-source, closed standard software in an attempt to monopolize the market and shut every other technology out.  I like open standards, especially as it relates to common things like video and audio codecs.  Look at the mess we have now with video codecs because M$, Apple, Adobe, and others want to control the market.  It’s impossible to surf the web and feel confident you have all needed codecs because different sites use different ones and there are a ton of them.  And, besides, when it comes to lossy audio, Vorbis has shown in numerous blind tests to fare better in quality than the ubiquitous MP3, especially at bitrates below 128.

That’s what I said…_ superior to MP3 at low bitrates. _ I consider 128 a low bitrate. I played around with Vorbis for a little while (Q6 worked nicely) , and I completely agree that it works very well. Problem is, on the majority of DAP’s on the market, it won’t work (same with .flac).  My two players, one supports MP3, WMA, AAC, and WAV…the other supports MP3, WMA, Vorbis, and FLAC… (and I think lossless on a DAP is silly) . So the only common denominators are MP3 and WMA.

Most of my files, right now (on my players anyways) , are LAME MP3 (which is open source too) , with about 20% WMA. The FLACs I do have, I convert to LAME for use on my DAP’s. I’ll grant you that below 200kbps, Vorbis is better than LAME…but since so many players won’t play it, I choose LAME, which plays on everything. :wink:

The point of my original question (which I marked as solved) wasn’t about what codec or software to use, it was merely if I was missing something with regards to the 8000 file ceiling.  Was I doing something wrong, storing improperly etc. which turned out that I wasn’t and it essentially comes down to bit rate. 

Am I going to switch to 64bit, probably more than likely not.  Am I going to mess around with it and see if through a set of crappy speakers and receiver if there’s a noticeable difference so I can pass that information along to the person I gifted a Fuze to?  Yes because they are very stubborn when it comes to media type changes (they are in their early 50’s and have enough vinyl and 8-tracks to make John Cusak in High Fidelity look like a novice collector!!!) and if they can fit what they do have in CD format onto one device and have access to everything at once, then all the better :slight_smile:

Thanks again folk, I appreciate it :slight_smile:

I would break that collection down a wee bit, and use µSDHC cards.  Certainly, there are groups of music that can be separated, allowing a reasonable bit rate for decent fidelity.

Compare the accessibility of loading those vinyl LPs onto the platter, or waiting for the 8-track to cycle through.  A few cards in a case / card wallet is quite convenient.

Who remembers classical LP box sets with odd / even sides designed to play on the LP changer?  Ah, good times.

Bob  :smileyvery-happy:

@neutron_bob wrote:

I would break that collection down a wee bit, and use µSDHC cards.  Certainly, there are groups of music that can be separated, allowing a reasonable bit rate for decent fidelity.

 

Compare the accessibility of loading those vinyl LPs onto the platter, or waiting for the 8-track to cycle through.  A few cards in a case / card wallet is quite convenient.

 

Who remembers classical LP box sets with odd / even sides designed to play on the LP changer?  Ah, good times.

 

Bob  :smileyvery-happy:

I’m one of the oldy moldies that remembers those!  Also, at least the first pressing of the “Original Soundtrack” (one with Ian Gillan of Deep Purple) of 'Jesus Christ Superstar" was pressed that way as well…That goes back a few years; release date: October of 1970!

fuze_owner-GB wrote:


@neutron_bob wrote:

I would break that collection down a wee bit, and use µSDHC cards.  Certainly, there are groups of music that can be separated, allowing a reasonable bit rate for decent fidelity.

 

Compare the accessibility of loading those vinyl LPs onto the platter, or waiting for the 8-track to cycle through.  A few cards in a case / card wallet is quite convenient.

 

Who remembers classical LP box sets with odd / even sides designed to play on the LP changer?  Ah, good times.

 

Bob  :smileyvery-happy:


 

I’m one of the oldy moldies that remembers those!  Also, at least the first pressing of the “Original Soundtrack” (one with Ian Gillan of Deep Purple) of 'Jesus Christ Superstar" was pressed that way as well…That goes back a few years; release date: October of 1970!

Yikes…Oct.1970 even predates me! (by less than a year):stuck_out_tongue:

The question should be which format gives the best battery life at a given quality, rather than taking up the least space. 20 GB of 128 kbps songs averaging 4 minutes each is roughly 5400 songs. This is 360 hours of music. The battery life is only around 20 hours though, so one can only play less than 6% of the misic on the player per charge. The percentage would be even less if one uses Ogg or WMA which consumes more processor power to decode, and results in shorter play times. Remember the olden days when battery life was longer than the play time of the music on the player, and people chose more complex formats to squeeze more music on the player? Now battery life is what is shortest, so using a format that is easier to decode and gives more batterylife (MP3, and probably especially MP3 CBR), even if it takes up more space for a given quality. I see no great benefit in carrying around more than 5x the amount of music I can play on a charge, especially since I might want to play my favorite songs more than once per charge. For years mp3 player users were starving for more storage capacity, and now we are starving for more battery life. Sandisk put a memory card slot on their players. When will they add a battery slot?

JK98 wrote:
The question should be which format gives the best battery life at a given quality, rather than taking up the least space. 20 GB of 128 kbps songs averaging 4 minutes each is roughly 5400 songs. This is 360 hours of music. The battery life is only around 20 hours though, so one can only play less than 6% of the misic on the player per charge. The percentage would be even less if one uses Ogg or WMA which consumes more processor power to decode, and results in shorter play times. Remember the olden days when battery life was longer than the play time of the music on the player, and people chose more complex formats to squeeze more music on the player? Now battery life is what is shortest, so using a format that is easier to decode and gives more batterylife (MP3, and probably especially MP3 CBR), even if it takes up more space for a given quality. I see no great benefit in carrying around more than 5x the amount of music I can play on a charge, especially since I might want to play my favorite songs more than once per charge. For years mp3 player users were starving for more storage capacity, and now we are starving for more battery life. Sandisk put a memory card slot on their players. When will they add a battery slot?

JK98 No Offense but I am tired of reading your posts about battery life. You make an awful lot of assumptions some times. There are a lot of users who are concerned about battery life sure, but there are just as many who couldnt care less. Myself being one that doesnt care about battery life. I am FAR more concerned with the number of files I can fit on my player. I can charge my player when ever I want, if I do it with my laptop or a wall charger, i can get it done (I usually charge at home at night because I can use my stereo to play my music). Instead I am more concerned with getting a larger % of my songs to go with me in the player because even though I dont like charging, I hate hearing the same song twice in an hour.

So the real question is HOW do you want to use your player? And what is your main concern # of songs you can play or Battery life? 

I don’t think you really can separate the two…Storage size and Battery Life are equally important; at least to me…:wink:

Disclaimer:  I am not in any way suggesting that the way I use my player, is the way you use yours.  Feature set is a sensitive, personal issue and not all people will have the same opinion on the subject.

Count me in on battery life too.  JK98 is our resident agent provocateur on the issue.  The e200 series battery module, and others, was a nice feature, despite the increased complexity and cost.

As the capacity of these devices increases, longer battery life becomes more important.

I like the sleep timer, as my own “personal batteries” are often surpassed by the Fuze’s.

µsansa

fuze_owner-GB wrote:

I don’t think you really can separate the two…Storage size and Battery Life are equally important; at least to me…:wink:

 

 

 

Disclaimer:  I am not in any way suggesting that the way I use my player, is the way you use yours.  Feature set is a sensitive, personal issue and not all people will have the same opinion on the subject.

Exactly what I was trying to say, to you they go hand in hand, to me they dont. I find it interesting to see what people feel is most important in terms of operation.