To really appreciate FLAC, connecting the Fuze to a stereo system or quality headphones is a must. Of course, I would love to have a listen using something like the Shure E4 IEMs.
There are some outstanding monitors out there.
The Sansa Fuze and Clip have made portable high quality quite simple. In the home, one can enjoy a listen without having to be tethered to the home stereo system.
The beauty of these machines is that you can load either format. I really like the Rhapsody service, and being able to load a favorite album so easily, especially since the originals in my vinyl collection aren’t nearly as conveniently accessed. This is in 160kb/s wma format; I find it comparable to 192kb/s MP3, which I use for my CDs.
FLAC experiments are going to be fun. The file particulars are going to be interesting, as I’ve seen that Ogg files need Vorbis Comments only- ID3 data messes up the works on those files.
Bob :smileyvery-happy:
Everybody wants something different from the devices they own. For me, FLAC is still overkill for my use. I have a pair of GS 1000 Grado headphones (winner of many best headphones ever produced awards), but I don’t often use them with my fuzes. If I want to listen to pristine, exacting musical reproduction, I go into my studio, I doln’t turn to the fuze. I’m not saying that the fuze isn’t capable of great musical reproduction, it’s just not how I use the device.
No problem fuze_owner-GB. Wish I was doing something wrong so program would work. Some questions?
Have FLAC frontend. What is it for? Would it rip cd to FLAC on its own? Didn’t play with it because the FreeRip looked more promising last night.
Running FreeRip thru FLAC frontend works with Fuze? May just go that route then. Just want a few albums for now to get a feel of Fuze sound quality at max. Guessing the album/artist tags won’t be there?
Any other easy programs to try for FLAC or other lossless codecs? Would like the tags to work.
Says your fav codec is Ogg Vorbis V2. Is that lossless with tags?
Sorry for all the questions. Still trying to get a handle on computer music. MP3s are easy. Just don’t like the sound of lossy compression (even at 320).
thanks
barondla
I still think that EAC (link posted earlier in the thread) is a good way to go, knowing now that freerip is problematic with flacs and the fuze. There is a great wizard that walks you through the steps during set-up and has FLAC preconfigured as an encoder option. As Bob pointed out, the fuze doesn’t like ID3 tags with FLAC or ogg vorbis files, so whatever way you arrive at the FLACs, they should only contain vorbis comments.
If your ears demand lossless playback, you wouldn’t be happy with ogg vorbis. It is another lossy codec. While, IMHO, it is superior to mp3, it still is a lossy codec.
Bought the Fuze as an experiment. Use it many different ways. Wanted to see if using it as a home music server could give my home cd player a run for the money. It sure can’t using 320 MP3. Big difference between that and the original cd. If it is closer to home rig would consider setting up server system with computer to hold cds. So far it looks like I am more likely to replace the aging cd transport/jitter reducer/dac system with new cd player. Just wanted to test this option out before spending $3500- $ 6000 for new player.
I do have some nice cans. Have Koss Porta Pro, Grado 60, AKG 240, Audio Technica electrostatics (requires home power amp to drive), and Senheisser 600 (my favorite). Considering adding AKG 701. Also need a small pair for traveling. This is why I love the uSD card system. Can use compressed fcards or travel, and non compressed for home.
In the bedroom system run Fuze into Nakamichi receiver & Senheissers. Would rather have a few hundred perfectly reproduced albums than 1000s of so so. No way to get all my albums on Fuze anyway. Have friends with Ipod & Wadia dock (only dock that lets you get the true digital out signal - bypasses $.40 onboard dac). Will try that next. Have two dacs to try.
To use FLAC front end I just take wav and use “encode” to turn it into FLAC? Anyway to get tags then?
thanks
Some day may have to figure out how to put some LPs on the Fuze.
I don’t use FLAC too often with the fuze, but it is my perferred format when my musician friends and I send our work back and forth to each other. Yesterday during my experients, after converting using the FLAC front end, I used mp3tag to create vorbis comments (tags). It worked fine for me.
Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 02-16-2009 06:06 AM
Thanks guy’s for the replies! I think I’ll download one of the free programs for ripping so I can hear how VBR’s sound as well as other file formats… It will be 192 bit rate form now on if I stick with mp3’s… I don’t mind re ripping some music if I can decide the ultimate format to use… I like the universal standard of mp3’s but if there’s another format that looks to be going in the same direction with better sound I’ll go with that… George
If you have any significant number of CDs, you should definitley rip to FLAC. Then you can transcode to as many lossy formats/bitrates you want without ever having to rerip. Tools like Winamp make transcoding (either batch or on-the-flywhile syncing) a piece of cake. Or if you’re willing to tackle the learning curve, EAC+REACT can rip to multiple formats in one shot.
Ripping is such a PITA you really only want to do it once. Ripping to a lossless format like FLAC gives you the most flexibility and makes your library future-proof. Ripping straight to a lossy format severly limits your future options.
Thanks Skinjob! I’ll have to look into FLAC! Ya the wife and I have a lot of cd’s. I have 400 in my player now of just my stuff… I’m guessing 800+ and that still don’t touch the record collection that I still have to convert… Yes from what you say FLAC is the way to go if it’s as easy as you say… You make transcoding them sound easy… What kind of file size would I be looking at per CD in FLAC format to store our collections? I’m Just trying to decide on storage and what size… I have a 500GB external drive and a 40 GB external drive to use for this at hand… Also have a few DVD burners and a few computer on hand… George
I use EAC to rip my tracks at 192kbps VBR, and they sound terrific. However, some of my old 128kbps CBR songs (ripped with an old version of CDex and Eusing’s Free CD to MP3 Converter) still sound pretty awesome, too. I guess it’s just a matter of what sounds good to you. Enjoy them all – and remember how far we’ve come from the days of CDs, cassettes, and 8-tracks!
I my be wrong but I think the point Skinjob was trying to make for me was if I was going to re rip all my music do it in FLAC to a storage device and then convert anything I want from that to the format I want to use on the fuze. He said FLAC was the way to go as quality would be great and be useful in the future! George
I my be wrong but I think the point Skinjob was trying to make for me was if I was going to re rip all my music do it in FLAC to a storage device and then convert anything I want from that to the format I want to use on the fuze. He said FLAC was the way to go as quality would be great and be useful in the future! George
I think you’re right , George. By saving it all as FLAC, then you can experiment with transcoding to different MP3 bitrates for your Fuze use.
Thanks guy’s for the replies! I think I’ll download one of the free programs for ripping so I can hear how VBR’s sound as well as other file formats… It will be 192 bit rate form now on if I stick with mp3’s… I don’t mind re ripping some music if I can decide the ultimate format to use… I like the universal standard of mp3’s but if there’s another format that looks to be going in the same direction with better sound I’ll go with that… George
If you have any significant number of CDs, you should definitley rip to FLAC. Then you can transcode to as many lossy formats/bitrates you want without ever having to rerip. Tools like Winamp make transcoding (either batch or on-the-flywhile syncing) a piece of cake. Or if you’re willing to tackle the learning curve, EAC+REACT can rip to multiple formats in one shot.
Ripping is such a PITA you really only want to do it once. Ripping to a lossless format like FLAC gives you the most flexibility and makes your library future-proof. Ripping straight to a lossy format severly limits your future options.
I can see this being beneficial for some, but personally I tend to stay away from any codec that isn’t a defacto standard for LONG-TERM or archival purposes. What happens 20 or more years from now when there is no more FLAC? Will the future generation of software be backward compatible enough to be able to decode said files? Since music preservation and restoration is my occupation, I tend to err on the side of caution. I try to keep all my original digital files in their native resolutions and any restoration pieces recovered from an old medium (diamond discs, shellac, vinyl, magnetic tape, etc) I save at 24 / 96.
Since archival storage devices are so cheap, I see no reason (again, for me personally) to save a couple of pennies and compress my music. I must say the decision is also selfish on my part because if I ever have to revisit a restoration that was previously archived, the restoration algorithms work much more precisely at 24/96 resolution.
Learned years ago in digital photography that it doesn’t pay to throw data away! Always shoot raw at max resolution. Friends didn’t and many are sorry today. Same with music. Advantage with music is I own physical originals (cds, lps,etc). Not sure what the native resolution of cd is in computer terms. Is it wav or something else?
Got FLAC onto the Fuze! Had to use fuze_owner-GB’s work around of CD>wav>FLAC frontend>FLAC. Still don’t have tags yet, but not important at the moment. On first listen FLAC is amazing on the Fuze! So much more focused, with better ambiance, and high frequencies. WOW. Ran the Fuze battery down past half listening over and over. Amzing sound quailty from this little player. Tonight it will go into Nak receiver with the 600 headphones. Totally amazed.
thanks
everyone, especially fuze_owner-GB
barondla
p.s fuze_owner-GB archiving music sounds like a very interesting job. Give us some tips when possible.
Glad you got some FLACs successfully loaded on your fuze. At some point you may want to investigate Exact Audio Copy. With that program in hand you will be able to rip and encode to FLAC in one operation. While not as immediately simple as other programs, it may ultimately be more “user friendly” in the long run.
The subject of music archival and restoration is pretty massive… Anything in particular you want to know?
If you have any significant number of CDs, you should definitley rip to FLAC. Then you can transcode to as many lossy formats/bitrates you want without ever having to rerip. Tools like Winamp make transcoding (either batch or on-the-flywhile syncing) a piece of cake. Or if you’re willing to tackle the learning curve, EAC+REACT can rip to multiple formats in one shot.
Ripping is such a PITA you really only want to do it once. Ripping to a lossless format like FLAC gives you the most flexibility and makes your library future-proof. Ripping straight to a lossy format severly limits your future options.
that’s really all you ever have to say and understand about the FLAC format.
Thanks guy’s for the replies! I think I’ll download one of the free programs for ripping so I can hear how VBR’s sound as well as other file formats… It will be 192 bit rate form now on if I stick with mp3’s… I don’t mind re ripping some music if I can decide the ultimate format to use… I like the universal standard of mp3’s but if there’s another format that looks to be going in the same direction with better sound I’ll go with that… George
If you have any significant number of CDs, you should definitley rip to FLAC. Then you can transcode to as many lossy formats/bitrates you want without ever having to rerip. Tools like Winamp make transcoding (either batch or on-the-flywhile syncing) a piece of cake. Or if you’re willing to tackle the learning curve, EAC+REACT can rip to multiple formats in one shot.
Ripping is such a PITA you really only want to do it once. Ripping to a lossless format like FLAC gives you the most flexibility and makes your library future-proof. Ripping straight to a lossy format severly limits your future options.
I can see this being beneficial for some, but personally I tend to stay away from any codec that isn’t a defacto standard for LONG-TERM or archival purposes. What happens 20 or more years from now when there is no more FLAC? Will the future generation of software be backward compatible enough to be able to decode said files? Since music preservation and restoration is my occupation, I tend to err on the side of caution. I try to keep all my original digital files in their native resolutions and any restoration pieces recovered from an old medium (diamond discs, shellac, vinyl, magnetic tape, etc) I save at 24 / 96.
Since archival storage devices are so cheap, I see no reason (again, for me personally) to save a couple of pennies and compress my music. I must say the decision is also selfish on my part because if I ever have to revisit a restoration that was previously archived, the restoration algorithms work much more precisely at 24/96 resolution.
I don’t really agree with this argument. For one, I’d say that FLAC already is the defacto standard for archiving personal music collections. And unless some radical new type of lossless compression is developed, it’s not likely to be supplanted anytime soon. Also, being an extremely widely supported open source project, the likelyhood of FLAC persisting for many future software generations is very high. And finally, even if FLAC were to somehow disapear, it’s lossless. So you could always use a supported platform to decode it back to the original WAVs, transfer them to the new platform and reencode in some new format.
And space saving aside, the main advantage of using FLAC over raw WAVs is that you can tag them. There is no common standard for tagging WAVs, so transcoding becomes a real PITA as you somehow have to populate the tag info in the transcoded files (yes there are tools than can tag from file names, but it’s defintely not ideal). With properly tagged FLAC files, the tag info comes along for the ride when transcoding.
Also, for what it’s worth, FLAC supports up to 32-bit depth, 655350Hz (!) sample rates and 8 channels of audio. It really is an extremely robust and stable codec.
Thanks guy’s for the replies! I think I’ll download one of the free programs for ripping so I can hear how VBR’s sound as well as other file formats… It will be 192 bit rate form now on if I stick with mp3’s… I don’t mind re ripping some music if I can decide the ultimate format to use… I like the universal standard of mp3’s but if there’s another format that looks to be going in the same direction with better sound I’ll go with that… George
If you have any significant number of CDs, you should definitley rip to FLAC. Then you can transcode to as many lossy formats/bitrates you want without ever having to rerip. Tools like Winamp make transcoding (either batch or on-the-flywhile syncing) a piece of cake. Or if you’re willing to tackle the learning curve, EAC+REACT can rip to multiple formats in one shot.
Ripping is such a PITA you really only want to do it once. Ripping to a lossless format like FLAC gives you the most flexibility and makes your library future-proof. Ripping straight to a lossy format severly limits your future options.
I can see this being beneficial for some, but personally I tend to stay away from any codec that isn’t a defacto standard for LONG-TERM or archival purposes. What happens 20 or more years from now when there is no more FLAC? Will the future generation of software be backward compatible enough to be able to decode said files? Since music preservation and restoration is my occupation, I tend to err on the side of caution. I try to keep all my original digital files in their native resolutions and any restoration pieces recovered from an old medium (diamond discs, shellac, vinyl, magnetic tape, etc) I save at 24 / 96.
Since archival storage devices are so cheap, I see no reason (again, for me personally) to save a couple of pennies and compress my music. I must say the decision is also selfish on my part because if I ever have to revisit a restoration that was previously archived, the restoration algorithms work much more precisely at 24/96 resolution.
I don’t really agree with this argument. For one, I’d say that FLAC already is the defacto standard for archiving personal music collections. And unless some radical new type of lossless compression is developed, it’s not likely to be supplanted anytime soon. Also, being an extremely widely supported open source project, the likelyhood of FLAC persisting for many future software generations is very high. And finally, even if FLAC were to somehow disapear, it’s lossless. So you could always use a supported platform to decode it back to the original WAVs, transfer them to the new platform and reencode in some new format.
And space saving aside, the main advantage of using FLAC over raw WAVs is that you can tag them. There is no common standard for tagging WAVs, so transcoding becomes a real PITA as you somehow have to populate the tag info in the transcoded files (yes there are tools than can tag from file names, but it’s defintely not ideal). With properly tagged FLAC files, the tag info comes along for the ride when transcoding.
Also, for what it’s worth, FLAC supports up to 32-bit depth, 655350Hz (!) sample rates and 8 channels of audio. It really is an extremely robust and stable codec.
I guess we’ll just have to disagree. FLAC certainly isn’t the defacto standard with the Library of Congress or any of the archival societies I work for. Don’t get me wrong, for personal use, it is probably fine. But, No one in the archival community that is concerned with LONG-TERM storage and preservation uses FLAC.
Tags are of no use, historically speaking, so they aren’t a concern (for me) one way or another.
I’m not here to point fault with anybody’s methodology or uses of codecs. If FLAC, MP3, OGG etc, etc., suit your needs, by all means go for it and have fun. It’s just for MY purposes, FLAC is unacceptable.
You can search for the wiki about configuring Exact Audio Copy at hydrogenaudio.org.
I utterly agree that FLAC is the standard, that it is lossless, and that it is wonderful for transcoding (to Ogg Vorbis on my Fuze, to Nero HE-AAC for my Nokia E71) using foobar2000.
@sansafix wrote:
I have had no problems using Media Monkey to rip to FLAC format at highest compression setting.
Agreed, I have also ripped with MediaMonkey to FLAC and it worked fine. The FreeRip program mentioned earlier is useful to me because MM won’t do MP3 after the first 30 days…either to rip it or convert it. FreeRip does.
Will keep Media Monkey, it could have uses (especially if I figure out how to use FLAC). If archiving music won’t use FLAC. Learned to heed pros and experts. Archiving is very complicated and precise. Brought home by a wonderful TV show called
Digital Renaissance: Imaging the Illiad. It was on Kentucky PBS station. Project was done by Kentucky & Harvard universities.
The photo team photographs the oldest surviving copy in Venice. They can’t touch the book! Only the conservators can. Knew about light, heat, and humidity concerns. Amazed at all the other things they worry about. They actaully had rules for how many degrees the book could be opened. No glass could be layed on pages to hold them flat for pictures. When they did UV photography the room wall were blacked out so no extra light exposed the pages. They used a laser arm to record the “ripples” in every page so manuscript looks correct! This had to be computer assembled with the photo to 3D map it. They couldn’t use the scanning camera because exposures take 5 min and the library is built in wobbly floors. They were worried if a Hasselblad digital camera with 40 megapixel was high enough resolution to stand in. Talking over $20K camera. Took approx 20 people to do this project. You can see the results on line. The whole book is reproduced there. Incredible show.
fuze_owner-GB, at one time Library of Congress didn’t consider CDs as archival. DVDs are considered worse. Has this changed with improvements like gold CDs and stuff? Do you archive recorded music or the actual written music? Fascinating subject.
audio enthuiasists played a big part in developing this lossless codec. Prior to FLAC folks were using SHN as a lossless codec. but SHN had limitations and that’s when FLAC was developed. they built FLAC on open source and worked in as many features as technology allowed at the time.
so when you say-
“I can see this being beneficial for some, but personally I tend to stay away from any codec that isn’t a defacto standard for LONG-TERM or archival purposes. What happens 20 or more years from now when there is no more FLAC? Will the future generation of software be backward compatible enough to be able to decode said files?”
i say - if we keep using it now and support it and keep developing it - it can become the defacto standard. there isn’t anything better out there now. the ability to tag data in Flac files is a HUGE benefit for archival purposes.
