Does the Clip support...

WMA Pro and WMA Lossless? I want to rip the songs from my CD in a better quality than mp3 for once… I know OGG is supported but there is no option in WMP11 to rip in OGG format.

WMA Lossless is supported by Toshiba, Zune and Meizu only. I don’t think that any player supports WMA Pro files.

I would advise you to install dbPoweramp. It’s free (well, in fact it’s not, but you can use it for free with some options locked), easy to use, has OGG encoder with SSE optimisation (running on my P4 Northwood: SSE2 runs twice as fast as the normal encoder), has accurateRip (works with most popular artists and albums) and does a great job tagging your files.

You won’t be able to hear a difference between mp3 and windows lossless,at least this is what 99% of people think including me.Your better off just going with mp3 128kps maybe 160kps using lame and the program the guy said above which works a treat.Unless ou have $400 headphones your not going to be able to appreciate anything over mp3 128kps or 160kps.

Well, I don’t have 400$ headphones. In fact, i don’t even have 100$ headphones, but when I plugged a pair of Koss PortaPros into my Clip I was able to hear a significant difference between mp3@vbr ~140 and ~190kbps (encodec with Lame 3.97) and a very slight difference between ~190 and ~245 (the Lame v0 preset).

I did’t test it now, but i think i would hear the difference between ~245 and 320kbps, because currently I own a pair of Grado sr60 and Creative Aurvana Live! (don’t look at the manufacturer!!! They are made by Foster Japan and are the same as the Denon d1000 - very good value) and a headamp.

You don’t have to spend much money to hear the difference, just try it out :wink:

Well stated! Some people can’t hear differences, or have not trained there ears to hear differences and won’t even know what artifacts are. Hook up a $15 set of Koss KSC75 earclips to your Clip and you will be amazed at how terrible 128k MP3 or WMA sounds in comparison to the CD quality WAV source.

Not trying to start a flame war here! Everyone hears a bit different and everyone has there own acceptance of the quality they want.

Just agreeing that far from $400 headphones are all that is needed to hear major differences.

@kilarezan wrote:

Well, I don’t have 400$ headphones. In fact, i don’t even have 100$ headphones, but when I plugged a pair of Koss PortaPros into my Clip I was able to hear a significant difference between mp3@vbr ~140 and ~190kbps (encodec with Lame 3.97) and a very slight difference between ~190 and ~245 (the Lame v0 preset).

I did’t test it now, but i think i would hear the difference between ~245 and 320kbps, because currently I own a pair of Grado sr60 and Creative Aurvana Live! (don’t look at the manufacturer!!! They are made by Foster Japan and are the same as the Denon d1000 - very good value) and a headamp.

You don’t have to spend much money to hear the difference, just try it out :wink:

Well i own a $40 pair of sennheiser cx 500 noise isolating earbuds and i dont even notice the difference between 65kps and 128kps lol and i use mp3 lame 3.97,maybe i just don’t have a trained ear lol.I think the mono 54kps youtube audio quality is great.I think you people are too picky lol 

Can I just also make a note that you know the reason why company’s when rating amount of songs and battery life thy refer to mp3 128kps?It’s because the vast majority can’t recognize the sound differences above that.Lossless is a total waste of space,unless maybe for 5.1/7.1 audio setups.I believe it’s impossible for your ear to pick up all audio sounds in lossless,128kps via research is what most people can appreciate and anything above that the ear just can’t detect it.Ok it varys between people and different songs ect but I’m just saying what is common knowledge.

Audiophiles feel free to bash me if you wish lol,although i’m willing to bet audiophiles wouldnt buy the sansa clip though,not that it isn’t an amazing product by sansa but lets be fair it doesn’t offer the highest audio quality out there.

Lossless is a great idea if you are going to rip a bunch of CDs.  Once you have lossless files, you can always transcode to some other compressed format for portable use.  However, I would strongly suggest FLAC over WMA Lossless for two reasons.  First, FLAC is the most widely supported lossless codec.  You’ll have a lot more options for tools, utilities and devices with FLAC.  Second, Sandisk has announced that support for FLAC is coming to both the Clip and Fuze in the near future.

I’ve ripped about 3000 CDs to FLAC and use Winamp to automatically transcode to MP3 for my Clip and Fuze.  Although I may switch to Ogg when it’s supported on the Fuze.

The forums at hydrogenaudio are a great place to learn about lossless and ripping.

@zero wrote:

Can I just also make a note that you know the reason why company’s when rating amount of songs and battery life thy refer to mp3 128kps?It’s because the vast majority can’t recognize the sound differences above that.Lossless is a total waste of space,unless maybe for 5.1/7.1 audio setups.I believe it’s impossible for your ear to pick up all audio sounds in lossless,128kps via research is what most people can appreciate and anything above that the ear just can’t detect it.Ok it varys between people and different songs ect but I’m just saying what is common knowledge.

 

Audiophiles feel free to bash me if you wish lol,although i’m willing to bet audiophiles wouldnt buy the sansa clip though,not that it isn’t an amazing product by sansa but lets be fair it doesn’t offer the highest audio quality out there.

Mp3@128 is used to show the battery life and capacity of players for the simple reason, that for normal conditions (outdoor in a loud environment, using stock or cheap replacement earphones) it is “good enough” to suit 99% of the population, but it doesn’t mean that 99% of the population won’t feel the difference in a better environment, using some better headphones.

Although I’m quite surprised you can’t tell the difference using senns cx500… Do you rip your music from audio-cd’s/lossless files or you transcode mp3 -> mp3?

Most people would probably hear the difference between 128kps and lossless, if had a decent pair of earphones and in a quiet enviroment. It’s most likely that most people don’t care about sound quality using portables.

A lot of players have good enough Digital/Analog Converters that used with a line-out (that the Fuze has) through an external amp + a good set of earphones/headphones to get a very decent sound out of them. (not audiophile, but the price is not even a fragment of an audiophile gear).

This justifies the lossless imo.

Lossless is CD quality, which is still the standard in audio these days (not 128kps mp3).

Message Edited by szat on 08-05-2008 09:15 AM

@zero wrote:

Can I just also make a note that you know the reason why company’s when rating amount of songs and battery life thy refer to mp3 128kps?It’s because the vast majority can’t recognize the sound differences above that.Lossless is a total waste of space,unless maybe for 5.1/7.1 audio setups.I believe it’s impossible for your ear to pick up all audio sounds in lossless,128kps via research is what most people can appreciate and anything above that the ear just can’t detect it.Ok it varys between people and different songs ect but I’m just saying what is common knowledge.

 

Audiophiles feel free to bash me if you wish lol,although i’m willing to bet audiophiles wouldnt buy the sansa clip though,not that it isn’t an amazing product by sansa but lets be fair it doesn’t offer the highest audio quality out there.

Virtually anybody can hear the difference between lossless and 128kbs on half-way decent equipment.  The issue is really that most people don’t care about the difference or don’t have equipment that allows them to hear the difference.  Which is fine, it’s certainly not my place to tell someone they should care about the difference.  But saying it’s not possible to hear the difference is crazy.

And I beg to differ on the Clip’s sound quality.  It can stand toe to toe with any player on the market at any price.  Given, the included phones suck, but the player itself has amazing sound quality.  And yes, many audiophiles buy the Clip and even pair it with exotic headphones and amps because of it’s sound quality.

When I got my first DAP (good quality; an iRiver iHP-140) 4-5 years ago, I experimented quite a bit with rip rates, to try to set up an optimum system/trade-off for me, sound quality as vs. file size.  I was surprised by my inability to discern differences between files, down to a 128 kbps rip rate (and I studied music in earlier years).  Nonetheless, I still decided on a higher quality (lossey) rip rate, as I’m never sure what my brain may be hearing that I don’t quite realize. 

With the equipment I am accustomed to, I stayed away from any form of portable DAP for years.  I have heard and seen equipment over the years that makes me cry every time I see the latest and greatest “home theater” fare (The state of the art has fallen considerably, like the “chocolate rations” in “1984”)

That was, until I happened to listen to this teeny SanDisk device.  If you want to do some serious listening, it is definitely up to the task.

Bob :smileyvery-happy:

Heh, forgot I even made this thread… anyway, I’ve since re-ripped one of my favourite albums ever (Feeder - The Singles ;)) from 128kbps MP3 to 320kbps MP3 and I can hear the difference! It sounds a lot more clearer now and is close to the quality of the originals on the CD.

I experimented with other formats as well such as OGG, and to be honest, it sounds exactly the same to me as 320kbps MP3 but uses a few less mb’s. I also tried FLAC but that changed a 7mb MP3 file into 20mb’s and I heard no difference so I didn’t bother with that anymore! I also tried WMA but that sounded no different to MP3…

For ripping tools, I recommend Express Rip CD Ripper it lets you rip your music in almost every format available (you have to pay to unlock formats such as OGG and FLAC).

@ackers wrote:

Heh, forgot I even made this thread… anyway, I’ve since re-ripped one of my favourite albums ever (Feeder - The Singles ;)) from 128kbps MP3 to 320kbps MP3 and I can hear the difference! It sounds a lot more clearer now and is close to the quality of the originals on the CD.

 

I experimented with other formats as well such as OGG, and to be honest, it sounds exactly the same to me as 320kbps MP3 but uses a few less mb’s. I also tried FLAC but that changed a 7mb MP3 file into 20mb’s and I heard no difference so I didn’t bother with that anymore! I also tried WMA but that sounded no different to MP3…

 

For ripping tools, I recommend Express Rip CD Ripper it lets you rip your music in almost every format available (you have to pay to unlock formats such as OGG and FLAC).

 

That’s my experience as well.  The difference between 128kbps and a high bitrate VBR is quite obvious, even on pretty modest equipment.   The difference between high bitrate VBR and lossless is much harder to detect (need pretty good equipment and really good ears).

However, aside from sound quality there’s a couple reasons to consider lossless for your main library.  First, you will have a true archive of your CD collection.  You can burn CDs from the lossless files that are identical to the originals (assuming a perfect rip).  Second, you can transcode to as many different lossless or lossy formats as you want without additional quality loss.  For example my library is 100% FLAC and I transcode to 160kbps VBR for my Clip and 190kbps for my Fuze.  I sync with Winamp and it handles the transcoding automatically.  If your main library is already in a lossy format, trancoding to another bitrate or codec will incur additional (probably unacceptable) loss.  You pretty much have to re-rip the CDs if you want to change formats.

But If you’re absolutely sure you don’t want to go lossless, 320kbps is a good compromise.