Highest FLAC quality playable on the clip+?

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

@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.

 

Entertainement value? I give it maybe a 3. Everything that has been said here has already been said in many other similar ‘discussions’. There has been no new ground covered here.

Now this?

Bush shoe throw-three stooges

That’s entertainment!

@tapeworm wrote:


@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.

 


Entertainement value? I give it maybe a 3.  Everything that has been said here has already been said in many other similar ‘discussions’. There has been no new ground covered here.

 

Now this?

 

 

 

That’s entertainment!

 

^^^^NOT

If that’s what it takes to be be a worthwhile thread…new ground being covered…a fork needs to be stuck in 99.9% of the threads here.  But to each there own…

Wonder where the  24 bit FLAC lovers have been hiding?  Haven’t seen any of them for a little bit…


@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”.  

 

 

 

Did someone in this thread say “I won’t provide proof”?  If so, I missed that one.

Doing scientifically rigorous experimentation is time-and-resource-intensive.  I think it would be interesting to do ABX listening tests with different listeners, various technical measurements with lots of highly-accurate/precise (expensive) lab equipment in a bona fide lab, etc., but personally don’t have the time or money.  If someone does, great.

Again:  Lack of scientific evidence does NOT prove or disprove anything.  All it means is that there is a lack of evidence, which could simply be because no one expended the necessary resources to produce such evidence.  The fallacy “there is no evidence, therefore ____ does not exist” is a common deceptive device exploited by many people in promoting falsehoods for ulterior motives - or sometimes, simply out of ignorance.

What if, for example, the various creators of the finest handmade musical instruments way back in history (Stradivarius, Stenway, etc.) had decided to not even try making fine instruments because they could not obtain rigorous ABX and scientific test results proving that instrument A really did sound better than instrument B?  Or, similarly, say builders and outfitters of concert halls.  That’s the sort of ridiculous outcome that results from completely dismissing the ability of a discerning listener to hear better vs. worse audio quality and to be honest in identifying better vs. worse.  Same thing goes for many many people who have built or selected high quality audio equipment - sure, some people are lying for ulterior reasons, but many people in the field simply know better-sounding results and work to produce them, whether ABX is done or not.

I’m not trying to sell $30k speaker cables or any such pixie dust, based on psuedo-science and BS.  I’d also like to see whatever solid objective evidence exists for Clip+ audio quality with various firmware, codecs, bitrates, etc.  But whether I see any evidence or not, I can usually trust my own ears/perception, for discerning significant audio quality differences - for myself.  On the 24/96 stuff - I can’t say for sure the audio quality is significantly better than 16/44.1 stuff.  At least, it is not “better” enough for me to seek it out preferentially over 16/44.1.

Back to transducers:  I recently had to use headphones that were “good” but nonetheless inferior to my usual gear (ATH-CK7), and once again am reminded that with better headphones, a listener can discern musical detail and quality differences that are not discernable with headphones that are even just “slightly” inferior, aka “good” headphones.  I’d wager that many of the users vehemently denying audio quality differences between _____ and ______ are actually simply unable to hear subtle quality differences because they are handicapped with headphones that are merely “good” rather than “excellent”.  (The number of people who apparently think Shure, Etymotic, UE etc are great headphones despite roll-off at 15kHz, supports not only the “sub-par headphones mass subversion theory”, but also the “many people have wooden ears theory”.)

There - does that kickstart the thread up again? :slight_smile: