New Firmware! Battery life is fantastic!

I ran my Fuze form about 8:00pm last night to a bout 8:30am this morning… Messing with the EQ scrolling through songs and really never left it alone…  I have a bad back and was in a great deal of pain so that’s why I was up playing… I’ll tell you it gave me a great deal of relief…  I install MP3’s in 192 bit rate and in 256 bit rate on one of my Fuzes that was completely formed after the firmware install…I’m going to be dropping the Mp3’s in 128 kbps format…  Battery life is great, it barely moved at all… Sound quality was way better then it ever has been…   Going to try a number of things with ogg Flac and other formats…  I think I would like to have one unit with the higest SQ and less music… I’m having myself a ball…  George

@george_w wrote:
I ran my Fuze form about 8:00pm last night to a bout 8:30am this morning… Messing with the EQ scrolling through songs and really never left it alone…  I have a bad back and was in a great deal of pain so that’s why I was up playing… I’ll tell you it gave me a great deal of relief…  I install MP3’s in 192 bit rate and in 256 bit rate on one of my Fuzes that was completely formed after the firmware install…I’m going to be dropping the Mp3’s in 128 kbps format…  Battery life is great, it barely moved at all… Sound quality was way better then it ever has been…   Going to try a number of things with ogg Flac and other formats…  I think I would like to have one unit with the higest SQ and less music… I’m having myself a ball…  George

Great to hear George! 256 or even 320 is far better than 128. And their still being in MP3 format means they’ll play on any player too. I personally don’t think FLAC is necessary for a Fuze unless you get some really awesome headphones, plus it really ■■■■■ up battery power. The Ogg Vorbis format can sound great, and still save space, but it can still be a little temperamental with the Fuze sometimes. If you’re just in it for the enjoyment factor,and ease of use matters, (like it does for me…I’m no expert like fuze-owner-GB ) then sticking to higher-kbps MP3 is a good way to go(in my humble opinion of course! ) :smiley:

@marvin_martian wrote:


@george_w wrote:
I ran my Fuze form about 8:00pm last night to a bout 8:30am this morning… Messing with the EQ scrolling through songs and really never left it alone…  I have a bad back and was in a great deal of pain so that’s why I was up playing… I’ll tell you it gave me a great deal of relief…  I install MP3’s in 192 bit rate and in 256 bit rate on one of my Fuzes that was completely formed after the firmware install…I’m going to be dropping the Mp3’s in 128 kbps format…  Battery life is great, it barely moved at all… Sound quality was way better then it ever has been…   Going to try a number of things with ogg Flac and other formats…  I think I would like to have one unit with the higest SQ and less music… I’m having myself a ball…  George


Great to hear George! 256 or even 320 is far better than 128. And their still being in MP3 format means they’ll play on any player too. I personally don’t think FLAC is necessary for a Fuze unless you get some really awesome headphones, plus it really ■■■■■ up battery power. The Ogg Vorbis format can sound great, and still save space, but it can still be a little temperamental with the Fuze sometimes. If you’re just in it for the enjoyment factor,and ease of use matters, (like it does for me…I’m no expert like fuze-owner-GB ) then sticking to higher-kbps MP3 is a good way to go(in my humble opinion of course! ) :smiley:

Ha Ha… I’m no expert, just very opinionated!!!:smileyvery-happy:

I agree, Marvin.  Unless you have some really good headphones or are connecting the fuze to a very good outboard sound system, FLAC is not necessary for most people.  MP3 is great for compatibility, if you are putting music on various different players and the sound quality has vastly improved over the years.  Ogg is good for a great balance of sound quality and file size.

Nobody is right or wrong on this issue; it’s just what Y-O-U like and what you think sounds good…

I agree about the battery life. I upgraded the firmware, full-charged it, and let it played for 6 hours straight, still 100%! I thought it was a new bug :smiley:

I think now that I’m using a better bit rate and less compression I  found I’m in love with this player all over again!!  George

@george_w wrote:
I think now that I’m using a better bit rate and less compression I  found I’m in love with this player all over again!!  George

Also Goerge, using 256 or 320, You always have the option of an 8GB microsdhc card like the one listed in your sig in your wife’s Fuze. On Amazon they are less than $15 usually now.

I also realized that it charges a lot faster. Could this really be a bug after all?

@yelped wrote:
I also realized that it charges a lot faster. Could this really be a bug after all?

If it’s good then it can’t be a bug, can it? :wink:

Most people won’t hear a difference over 128 kb/s (with a good encoder).  Few (I’m certainly not saying “nobody”) can tell at 192 kb/s, with the notable exception if their hearing is still good over 16 kHz and the encoding is lowpass filtered. 

People who CAN identify mp3 files over 192 kb (I never got past that point, but I concur as far as that goes) say that expensive headphones or sound systems are no advantage over merely “decent” gear WRT hearing compression artifacts.  The things that good gear does well (ex: extended and flat frequency response, low harmonic distortion) aren’t the things that compression messes up (largely temporal distortions and tonal errors)

Message Edited by donp on 04-12-2009 01:37 PM

@donp wrote:

Most people won’t hear a difference over 128 kb/s (with a good encoder).  Few (I’m certainly not saying “nobody”) can tell at 192 kb/s, with the notable exception if their hearing is still good over 16 kHz and the encoding is lowpass filtered. 

 

People who CAN identify mp3 files over 192 kb (I never got past that point, but I concur as far as that goes) say that expensive headphones or sound systems are no advantage over merely “decent” gear WRT hearing compression artifacts.  The things that good gear does well (ex: extended and flat frequency response, low harmonic distortion) aren’t the things that compression messes up (largely temporal distortions and tonal errors)

Message Edited by donp on 04-12-2009 01:37 PM

what then would be an example of a ‘good encoder’? Just asking.

@oobergeek wrote:


@donp wrote:

Most people won’t hear a difference over 128 kb/s (with a good encoder).  Few (I’m certainly not saying “nobody”) can tell at 192 kb/s, with the notable exception if their hearing is still good over 16 kHz and the encoding is lowpass filtered. 

 

People who CAN identify mp3 files over 192 kb (I never got past that point, but I concur as far as that goes) say that expensive headphones or sound systems are no advantage over merely “decent” gear WRT hearing compression artifacts.  The things that good gear does well (ex: extended and flat frequency response, low harmonic distortion) aren’t the things that compression messes up (largely temporal distortions and tonal errors)

Message Edited by donp on 04-12-2009 01:37 PM


what then would be an example of a ‘good encoder’? Just asking.

Oh, no…Not this again…:smileyvery-happy:

@donp wrote:

Most people won’t hear a difference over 128 kb/s (with a good encoder).  Few (I’m certainly not saying “nobody”) can tell at 192 kb/s, with the notable exception if their hearing is still good over 16 kHz and the encoding is lowpass filtered. 

 

People who CAN identify mp3 files over 192 kb (I never got past that point, but I concur as far as that goes) say that expensive headphones or sound systems are no advantage over merely “decent” gear WRT hearing compression artifacts.  The things that good gear does well (ex: extended and flat frequency response, low harmonic distortion) aren’t the things that compression messes up (largely temporal distortions and tonal errors)

Message Edited by donp on 04-12-2009 01:37 PM

Have to politely disagree there.  As the bitrate goes up, so does the quality and quantity of the high end.  At 128 kbps, the waveform is essentially “flat topped” at about 14.5kHz.  The extention of audible information increases with the increase of the bit rate.  At 320kpbs, the waveform looks more normal and more audible information is available and is perceived by many people (that is if their hearing is good enough) to sound better.  That’s why there is a benefit in using good headphones and good outboard equipment with better encoded files.

Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 04-12-2009 11:24 AM

@oobergeek wrote:

what then would be an example of a ‘good encoder’? Just asking.

For mp3 encoders, try Lame, Helix, Itunes.  Avoid ones that haven’t had much development work this decade: Blade, Ienc, WMP.

 Lame would be my first choice because: 1) free, 2) lots of ripping programs are set up to use it, 3) it has “preset” VBR settings (-V0 through -V5) that are pretty well tuned, though not as colorful as the old preset names (phone, tape, FM, standard, insane)

fuze_owner-GB wrote: 

  At 320kpbs, the waveform looks more normal and more audible information is available and is perceived by many people (that is if their hearing is good enough) to sound better.  That’s why there is a benefit in using good headphones and good outboard equipment with better encoded files.

Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 04-12-2009 11:24 AM

 How the waveform “looks” is really pretty irrelevent in assessing compression done with psychoacoustic models.  The proof of the pudding is in double blind testing of how it SOUNDS, not now it looks. 

True, lots of mp3, especially at low bitrates, are low-pass filtered.   With good hearing you can distinguish that difference, but it does not take expensive headphones to reveal it.   If you can hear 20 kHz you can hear it on a $20 set of Sony’s. 

  

@donp wrote:


fuze_owner-GB wrote: 

  At 320kpbs, the waveform looks more normal and more audible information is available and is perceived by many people (that is if their hearing is good enough) to sound better.  That’s why there is a benefit in using good headphones and good outboard equipment with better encoded files.

Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 04-12-2009 11:24 AM


 How the waveform “looks” is really pretty irrelevent in assessing compression done with psychoacoustic models.  The proof of the pudding is in double blind testing of how it SOUNDS, not now it looks. 

True, lots of mp3, especially at low bitrates, are low-pass filtered.   With good hearing you can distinguish that difference, but it does not take expensive headphones to reveal it.   If you can hear 20 kHz you can hear it on a $20 set of Sony’s. 

  

 

We could go 'round and 'round ad nauseum.  I completely disagree with you about the waveform and the value of double blind testing.  I am very confident in my analysis methods and the general flaws of most encoders.

Most people here are probably not too interested in either.  They just want music to sound reasonably good and don’t want to spend all day in obtaining the music of their choice.

@george_w wrote:
I ran my Fuze form about 8:00pm last night to a bout 8:30am this morning… Messing with the EQ scrolling through songs and really never left it alone…  I have a bad back and was in a great deal of pain so that’s why I was up playing… I’ll tell you it gave me a great deal of relief…  I install MP3’s in 192 bit rate and in 256 bit rate on one of my Fuzes that was completely formed after the firmware install…I’m going to be dropping the Mp3’s in 128 kbps format…  Battery life is great, it barely moved at all… Sound quality was way better then it ever has been…   Going to try a number of things with ogg Flac and other formats…  I think I would like to have one unit with the higest SQ and less music… I’m having myself a ball…  George

I haven’t noticed that yet, but that’s extremtly good to hear! My fuze used to have bad battery life, and now it shall rock for long study periods!

I’ve tried to not play around with the Fuze so it’s power hungry screen doesn’t turn on for a long time, but I think I can put the screen saver to 15 seconds or more without the worry of it dying hours early.

Rock on Sansa users!

fuze_owner-GB wrote: 

We could go 'round and 'round ad nauseum.  I completely disagree with you about the waveform and the value of double blind testing.  I am very confident in my analysis methods and the general flaws of most encoders.

 

Most people here are probably not too interested in either.  They just want music to sound reasonably good and don’t want to spend all day in obtaining the music of their choice.

 

 

 

Well, I will just reiterate that people who CAN tell high rate mp3 from original in a double blind test (and I take it from your statements that you either can’t or have never tried) DO say that high end phones aren’t needed.

I won’t swear that my ears are still that good, but I HAVE been double blind tested to hear to 20.5 kHz (in the context of music, not just single tones)  with $20 Sony earphones.  Loudspeakers are a different matter, but it isn’t expensive to get there with phones. 

  Double blind ABX testing (in the context of audio encoding) is simple to set up and simple to understand.  You only know that sample X is identical to either A or B and can only tell which by listening.  You click on which you think it is.  Repeat enough times to statistically eliminate random guesses.  WHen done, you find out whether you can really discern the difference.  WIth the programs I’ve used, you can compare little bits of the sample or the whole thing as many times as you want.  Even if the difference is so subtle it seems like you are going on hunch, if you get it right repeatedly with good correlation, it indicates you are at least subconsciously able to tell the difference.

Double blind is used for audio testing for the same reason it is used in pharmaceutical  testing.  Anything else introduces factors other than the test variable (what it sounds like)  to the outcome of the test.  I would certainly allow here that your personal results could vary one way or the other from some aggregate of other people taking the test.   That doesn’t discount the validity of the blind testing concept.

@marvin_martian wrote:

Great to hear George! 256 or even 320 is far better than 128. And their still being in MP3 format means they’ll play on any player too. I personally don’t think FLAC is necessary for a Fuze unless you get some really awesome headphones, plus it really ■■■■■ up battery power. The Ogg Vorbis format can sound great, and still save space, but it can still be a little temperamental with the Fuze sometimes. If you’re just in it for the enjoyment factor,and ease of use matters, (like it does for me…I’m no expert like fuze-owner-GB ) then sticking to higher-kbps MP3 is a good way to go(in my humble opinion of course! ) :smiley:

I agree with Marvin, 256 or 320 is much better than 128. 

I think, however, that the Fuze does better with 320mp3 than flac and although the Fuze can play flac, 320mp3 sounds better.

axon

YMMV

@donp wrote:

fuze_owner-GB wrote: 

We could go 'round and 'round ad nauseum.  I completely disagree with you about the waveform and the value of double blind testing.  I am very confident in my analysis methods and the general flaws of most encoders.

 

Most people here are probably not too interested in either.  They just want music to sound reasonably good and don’t want to spend all day in obtaining the music of their choice.

 

 

 


Well, I will just reiterate that people who CAN tell high rate mp3 from original in a double blind test (and I take it from your statements that you either can’t or have never tried) DO say that high end phones aren’t needed.

I won’t swear that my ears are still that good, but I HAVE been double blind tested to hear to 20.5 kHz (in the context of music, not just single tones)  with $20 Sony earphones.  Loudspeakers are a different matter, but it isn’t expensive to get there with phones. 

  Double blind ABX testing (in the context of audio encoding) is simple to set up and simple to understand.  You only know that sample X is identical to either A or B and can only tell which by listening.  You click on which you think it is.  Repeat enough times to statistically eliminate random guesses.  WHen done, you find out whether you can really discern the difference.  WIth the programs I’ve used, you can compare little bits of the sample or the whole thing as many times as you want.  Even if the difference is so subtle it seems like you are going on hunch, if you get it right repeatedly with good correlation, it indicates you are at least subconsciously able to tell the difference.

Double blind is used for audio testing for the same reason it is used in pharmaceutical  testing.  Anything else introduces factors other than the test variable (what it sounds like)  to the outcome of the test.  I would certainly allow here that your personal results could vary one way or the other from some aggregate of other people taking the test.   That doesn’t discount the validity of the blind testing concept.

Ha Ha Ha… You must work for some testing agency, because you really put alot of faith in somebody else’s findings…:smileyvery-happy:  Knock yourself out…I rather do it myself…

While we’re talking about audio encoders…  Does anyone have an opinion on FreeRip3  (download.com or freerip.com)  Especially vs. Helix or Lame?

Thanks