Highest FLAC quality playable on the clip+?

@hyperscorpic wrote:

Seems like the common concensus is to forgo rockbox. Oh well, at least I still have my computer and mediamonkey =)

???

You get that impression?  Ha…to each their own, I guess.  Rockbox sounds equally to good to me on all my Sansas as the stock firmware.  I personally wouldn’t run a Sansa on it’s own firmware, if there was a Rockbox alternative.

I would probably have tossed my Clips and Fuzes long ago if it weren’t for Rockbox.

Well, you did say rockbox most likely converted the 24kbit to 16kbit, which defeats the purpose of using the 24kbit as source file. So no point going rockbox to have it read a 24kbit file as 16kbit, in which the sotck firmware does that already =)

@hyperscorpic wrote:

Seems like the common concensus is to forgo rockbox. Oh well, at least I still have my computer and mediamonkey =)

I would say “try it for yourself and see if you can hear a difference”.  Some people (including myself) say they do hear a difference, others say they don’t.  (Again, this might be related to headphones used as much as anything else.)  Fortunately, RB has dual-boot functionality built-in, so comparing RB with OF is pretty easy to do, although it is not a true blind ABX comparison.

There are also other good reasons to use RB, aside from sound quality considerations.  But ultimately, I seek the highest-quality/fidelity audio, even if it means tolerating moderate deficiencies in other aspects of a system, and my ears discern that OF is better quality audio (notwithstanding output frequency accuracy) than RB on Clip+, so I choose OF for now.  YMMV.

Looks like I need to do more reading up on rockbox. I just realised I have a clip and a clip+. Perhaps I should rockbox my clip for starters.

@hyperscorpic wrote:

Well, you did say rockbox most likely converted the 24kbit to 16kbit, which defeats the purpose of using the 24kbit as source file. So no point going rockbox to have it read a 24kbit file as 16kbit, in which the sotck firmware does that already =)

The stock firmware will not play a 24bit file at all…you’d have to convert it to 16 bit beforehand. Rockbox at least will do it on the fly. But most people wii not hear any difference between 24 bit and 16 bit anyways. These 24 bit/96khz files you see people raving about…sometimes one album will take up an entire GB of space! So screw that, I say.

A lot of the 24/96 files people are raving about are from remastered  sources; then they try to compare them to the original masters in 16 bit.  That is not a fair comparison.


I have yet to read or experience any human being being able to distinguish between 24/96 and a normal 16 bit Flac (or wav, PCM) in clinical trials, providing the original source material was identical in both instances.


Basically, the 24/96 is a marketing ploy to get people to re-purchase material they already have.  It’s the oldest marketing gimmick on earth.  Trying to convince people that it has to be better because there are more “bits” there.  Again, I have yet to see any data to support their claim.


But, if you want to shell out your hard earned money on something that “makes you feel better”; go right ahead…it’s your money, not mine.

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

A lot of the 24/96 files people are raving about are from remastered  sources; then they try to compare them to the original masters in 16 bit.  That is not a fair comparison.


I have yet to read or experience any human being being able to distinguish between 24/96 and a normal 16 bit Flac (or wav, PCM) in clinical trials, providing the original source material was identical in both instances.


Basically, the 24/96 is a marketing ploy to get people to re-purchase material they already have.  It’s the oldest marketing gimmick on earth.  Trying to convince people that it has to be better because there are more “bits” there.  Again, I have yet to see any data to support their claim.


But, if you want to shell out your hard earned money on something that “makes you feel better”; go right ahead…it’s your money, not mine.

Some 24bit material out there is free:  Some of the sfuff on archive.org (live music recordings).  That 24bit material is typically recorded at higher 24bit/192kHz, and so the 24bit FLACs are not just remastered from lower bitrate recordings.

I’ve heard some 24bit remastered commercially released stuff that maybe sounded better than 16bit PCM/WAV versions, but that could have been due to the remastering itself.

All else being equal, 24bit/192kHz stuff has potential to sound better than 16bit/44.1kHz stuff.  But also we all know that some folks cannot hear bitrate-based sound quality differences other folks can, and things like headphones/speakers/etc. also have a big influence on discerning quality differences.

Few digital audio players can handle 24bit, so I always produce FLACs at 16bit anyway.  The sound of 16bit FLACs, of material with inherently high quality on hi-fi player & headphones, is astounding enough for me.  :slight_smile:

@sandclip wrote:

 

But also we all know that some folks cannot hear bitrate-based sound quality differences other folks can, and things like headphones/speakers/etc. also have a big influence on discerning quality differences.

 

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles#High_quality:_HiFi.2C_home_or_quiet_listening.

Proof is in the pudding as they say.  If anyone can show proof; not just " I think they sound better", concerning 24 bit FLAC files…e.g. actual clinical trials, I’m all ears.  Until then, the 24bit vs. 16bit debate is nothing more than talk.

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

Proof is in the pudding as they say.  If anyone can show proof; not just " I think they sound better", concerning 24 bit FLAC files…e.g. actual clinical trials, I’m all ears.  Until then, the 24bit vs. 16bit debate is nothing more than talk.

fuze_owner-GB, I am with you on this one.

 

Sandclip, please read http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1 and http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf.

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

Proof is in the pudding as they say.  If anyone can show proof; not just " I think they sound better", concerning 24 bit FLAC files…e.g. actual clinical trials, I’m all ears.  Until then, the 24bit vs. 16bit debate is nothing more than talk.

Maybe the proof exists by ABX or similar trials, maybe not.  But the lack of someone “showing proof” to a doubter does not mean the difference is not real.

The classical fallacy is along the lines of:  “There is no scientific evidence of ____, therefore it does not exist.”  Actualy, lack of scientific evidence may simply mean that the scientific evidence has not been produced, irrespective of whether the phenomenon in question is real or not.  (Lack of scientific evidence does not DISPROVE the phenomenon.)

:wink:

Mumbo jumbo as far as I’m concerned.  As the old saying goes, if it  looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish…it’s probably a fish.


Same goes with audio.  I have yet to find anyone who can consistently tell that 24 bit files are superior to 16 bit ones.  And even if there were the slightest bit of difference, using said files  on a portable media player is like using Rocket fuel to power a mo-ped.


But hey, if it really matters that much to a person, knock yourself out.


Being a musician and audio restorationist by profession, I’m more about the performance than the “bits”.  But, that’s me.

Smiley

@sandclip wrote:

 


@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

Proof is in the pudding as they say.  If anyone can show proof; not just " I think they sound better", concerning 24 bit FLAC files…e.g. actual clinical trials, I’m all ears.  Until then, the 24bit vs. 16bit debate is nothing more than talk.


 

Maybe the proof exists by ABX or similar trials, maybe not.  But the lack of someone “showing proof” to a doubter does not mean the difference is not real.

 

The classical fallacy is along the lines of:  “There is no scientific evidence of ____, therefore it does not exist.”  Actualy, lack of scientific evidence may simply mean that the scientific evidence has not been produced, irrespective of whether the phenomenon in question is real or not.  (Lack of scientific evidence does not DISPROVE the phenomenon.)

 

:wink:

With respect to audio, “I won’t provide proof”  universally means “I cannot provide proof but do not want to admit it”.  

@saratoga wrote:

 


@sandclip wrote:

 


@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

Proof is in the pudding as they say.  If anyone can show proof; not just " I think they sound better", concerning 24 bit FLAC files…e.g. actual clinical trials, I’m all ears.  Until then, the 24bit vs. 16bit debate is nothing more than talk.


 

Maybe the proof exists by ABX or similar trials, maybe not.  But the lack of someone “showing proof” to a doubter does not mean the difference is not real.

 

The classical fallacy is along the lines of:  “There is no scientific evidence of ____, therefore it does not exist.”  Actualy, lack of scientific evidence may simply mean that the scientific evidence has not been produced, irrespective of whether the phenomenon in question is real or not.  (Lack of scientific evidence does not DISPROVE the phenomenon.)

 

:wink:


With respect to audio, “I won’t provide proof”  universally means “I cannot provide proof but do not want to admit it”.  

 

 

 

Someone ring the bell…I think this argument was just won!  :wink:

I think someone should stick a fork in it, this thread’s done.

Smiley

@tapeworm wrote:

I think someone should stick a fork in it, this thread’s done.

 

Smiley

It’s no worse than 99.9% of the rest of the threads here.  People asking the same old tired questions that could easily be looked up in the documentation or by performing a simple search.  So, by comparison, this thread is much more entertaining than most.

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

 


@tapeworm wrote:

I think someone should stick a fork in it, this thread’s done.

 

Smiley


It’s no worse than 99.9% of the rest of the threads here.  People asking the same old tired questions that could easily be looked up in the documentation or by performing a simple search.  So, by comparison, this thread is much more entertaining than most.

 

That is an excellent point!

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

 

It’s no worse than 99.9% of the rest of the threads here.  People asking the same old tired questions that could easily be looked up in the documentation or by performing a simple search.  So, by comparison, this thread is much more entertaining than most.

 

Agreed, it is moderately entertaining . . . although everything that has been said here has already been said in other similar ‘discussions’.

But it isn’t nearly as entertaining as this:

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:

 

It’s no worse than 99.9% of the rest of the threads here.  People asking the same old tired questions that could easily be looked up in the documentation or by performing a simple search.  So, by comparison, this thread is much more entertaining than most.

 

Well it might be moderately entertaining . . . although everything that has been said here has already been said in many other similar ‘discussions’. There has been no new ground covered here.

It isn’t nearly as entertaining as this:

Bush shoe throw-three stooges