Highest FLAC quality playable on the clip+?

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:

I for one, certain hope not.

@sandclip wrote:

  

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

 

I for one, certainly hope not. :cry:

@sandclip wrote:

Doing scientifically rigorous experimentation is time-and-resource-intensive. 

Yes.  But it has been done, and it is on the Web.

 

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.

 

Did you know that you could do ABX tests?

 

If someone does, great.

 

How about you? Some of us here have, including me.

 

Lack of scientific evidence does NOT prove or disprove anything.

 

Yes.  But as I have already shown, evidence is available.

 

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?

 

I do not think you understand why ABX tests are done.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test.


ABX tests are done for things like wires, amplifiers, CD players, and lossy files—not musical instruments.  But if one was evaluating musical instruments objectively, blind listening will be done.

 

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.

 

If only you have done some ABXing, you might know how wrong you are.  Many individuals have claimed to be able to hear a difference.  Many of these same individuals have, after an ABX test, shown that they were unable to hear a difference.


http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf,

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm,

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf,

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf.

 

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.

 

Examples?  Who are designing better-sounding audio devices even when the evidence suggests that it cannot be done.  Start naming names and start providing links to the evidence.  I am calling your bluff.

 

I’d also like to see whatever solid objective evidence exists for Clip+ audio quality with various firmware, codecs, bitrates, etc.

 

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showpost.php?s=57449e6dc32c862b15ac3ed810e94641&p=469501&postcount=34.

 

But whether I see any evidence or not, I can usually trust my own ears/perception, for discerning significant audio quality differences - for myself.

 

Do you believe me when I say that ABXing is about trusting your own ears and perception?

 

On the 24/96 stuff - I can’t say for sure the audio quality is significantly better than 16/44.1 stuff.

 

But what does the evidence say?

 

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.

 

Did you know that ABXing allows the subject to choose the transducers?  Yes, it is true.

 

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”.

 

Before you make that wager, I recommend that you ABX some files at –V0 against their uncompressed WAVs using LAME 3.98.4 and ABXing software such as foobar2000, Amarok, or the ABXing software available at http://web.archive.org/web/20070813001013/http://www.pcabx.com/.


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

 

(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”.)

 

ABXing allows you to use your headphones and your ears.

I see I spoke too soon . . . I was afraid of that. :stuck_out_tongue:

@tapeworm wrote:

I see I spoke too soon . . . I was afraid of that. :stuck_out_tongue:

I find the interplay here between the intelligent and the willfully ignorant  quite fascinating.:wink:

I downloaded a 24/96 file from HDtracks and converted it to 16 bits, then to FLAC.  I also converted it to 16/48, then to FLAC.  When I play them on my Clip+ with original firmware, the 16/96 file sounds obviously flat compared with the 16/48 (which is at the same pitch as the original file played on my computer, as far as I can tell).  The pitch difference disappears with Rockbox.

I took a track from a CD and resampled it to 96kHz (i.e., 16/96), and then converted it to FLAC. When I played it on my Clip+, using the original firmware, it was flat (compared with a FLAC created from the original 16/44.1 file). Again, the difference disappears with Rockbox.

Anybody know why?  Thanks!

Mark DeBellis

@mdeb wrote:

 

I took a track from a CD and resampled it to 96kHz (i.e., 16/96), and then converted it to FLAC. When I played it on my Clip+, using the original firmware, it was flat (compared with a FLAC created from the original 16/44.1 file). Again, the difference disappears with Rockbox.

 

Anybody know why?  Thanks!

 

 

 

These players don’t actually support 96k, so everything is being (badly) resampled down.  Furthermore, since 96k tracks are so uncommon, the sandisk firmware seems to have some trouble with them.  

You should stick to 44.1k for the best quality on portable deivces, particulary when running Rockbox.  

@saratoga wrote:

These players don’t actually support 96k, so everything is being (badly) resampled down.  Furthermore, since 96k tracks are so uncommon, the sandisk firmware seems to have some trouble with them.  

 

You should stick to 44.1k for the best quality on portable deivces, particulary when running Rockbox.  

 

 

Good to know, thanks!

Mark