Nowhere in that chart though is a mention of over 4,000 songs. While 64 kbps wma sounds a bit better than 64 kbps mp3, it does not sound as good as 128 kbps mp3. WMA, OGG, and other more complex formats also take more processing power to decode, yielding shorter battery life. My guess is that with 64 kbps OGG, battery life will be less and sound quality will be lower than 128 kbps mp3. Sandisk is encouraging people to use higher bitrates rather than cramming huge numbers of lower quality low bitrate songs into the player. I don’t understand the use of less than 128 kbps on the Clip+, as with 4 GB of storage battery life is less than enough to play 20% of the music on the player(and even less than that if some songs are played more than once per charge). With 24 GB of storage and 128 kbps, one can only play less than 3% of the songs on the player per charge. Why use 64 kbps, have lower sound quality, and be only able to play around 1% of the songs on the player? It is your choice though. I just don’t understand it.
Cheers, could you give some stats for the 64kb/s files you already use please (although if you see something different and want to test with q6 then great). I have two of these now (although one will shortly be heading back to Amazon), both show the same battery life. And, it’s not unique to Sandisk Sansa, Nokia have suffered too (although pre-release hardware).
Trying on a different card is definitely a good plan.
Using 192kb/s Vorbis files should only drop battery life by 10-15% tops. At least according to other hardware I’ve looked at. An interesting study done on a Linux based smart phone showed a 50% drop in life using libvorbis to decode, and a couple% (negligable) increase when using ffmpeg’s vorbis decoder. So, the decoding of Vorbis files should not reduce battery life much, although it can in badly implemented algorithms.
Also, I’m talking about a 75% drop in life. There is no chance in hell (well, the UK) they can quote 15hr life (subnote 128kb/s MP3), and claim to support Vorbis. The diference is too great to not be false advertising. I’m sure it’s a mistake and will be remedied in the next month or so. Else, it goes back and I find a new brand.
“Also, I’m talking about a 75% drop in life. There is no chance in hell (well, the UK) they can quote 15hr life (subnote 128kb/s MP3), and claim to support Vorbis. The diference is too great to not be false advertising. I’m sure it’s a mistake and will be remedied in the next month or so. Else, it goes back and I find a new brand.”
The 15 hour battery life is for 128 kbps mp3 files being played using play all on the player, the lowest settings for screen time and screen brightness, and then no buttons being pressed on the player and having the player play continuously. It is also when using efficient earphones at moderate volume, and not using the equilizer. It is for the best case scenario, not for typical usage. It is like the mpg rating for a car, which is measured at 45 mpg, never accelerating once that is reached, and never using the brakes, with the windows closed and the AC off. It is with the car have just a light weight driver and no pasengers or luggage or other things in the car.
Message Edited by JK98 on 12-12-2009 09:37 AM
"Using 192kb/s Vorbis files should only drop battery life by 10-15% tops. "
So that means something like almost 2 hours less play time. In real world usage, the Clip+ normally gets around 12 hours of play time, and that is with the equilizer off and the screen brightness and screen time at a minimum, and using very efficient earphones or headphones at a moderate volume. Having almost 2 hours less play time, and reducing the play time down to around 10 hours does not seem desirable.
I see a common thread running through a bunch of these Clip+ topics…battery life. I would hope that Sandisk addresses this, IMO, weakness of the player…even if a person gets the rated 15hrs of usage per charge, it’s nothing to jump for joy about.
"…even if a person gets the rated 15hrs of usage per charge, it’s nothing to jump for joy about. "
I guess the desihners of the Clip+ want people to charge the player every day. In the real world though, many people don’t want to charge a player every day. There are some players from other makers that get 40-60 hours of battery life. Of course they aren’t as small as the Clip+ though. If they could come out with a version of the Clip+ that is slightly thicker but has double or triple the battery life, imo it would probably be extremely popular. The two main complaints about the Clip+ is the very short battery life, and poor implementation of the equilizer.
@jk98 wrote:
"…even if a person gets the rated 15hrs of usage per charge, it’s nothing to jump for joy about. "
I guess the desihners of the Clip+ want people to charge the player every day. In the real world though, many people don’t want to charge a player every day. There are some players from other makers that get 40-60 hours of battery life. Of course they aren’t as small as the Clip+ though. If they could come out with a version of the Clip+ that is slightly thicker but has double or triple the battery life, imo it would probably be extremely popular. The two main complaints about the Clip+ is the very short battery life, and poor implementation of the equilizer.
Yup… I know Sandisk can’t make a player that is geared to each individual; but the Battery life of the Clip+ isn’t suited too well with the way I use it. I’m a very light sleeper and my player usually ends up being on for most, if not all of the night. If I’m using the Clip+ and I’ve used it during the day for any length of time, it’s running on fumes by morning.
I know the bugger is cute, but wouldn’t it be a bit more practical for more users if the battery lasted a bit longer?
So that means something like almost 2 hours less play time. In real world usage, the Clip+ normally gets around 12 hours of play time, and that is with the equalizer off and the screen brightness and screen time at a minimum, and using very efficient earphones or headphones at a moderate volume. Having almost 2 hours less play time, and reducing the play time down to around 10 hours does not seem desirable.
Using efficient earphones? They are only allowed to quote against the supplied ones. Which I have been very unreliable informed should be somewhere between 16 -> 32 ohm impedance. But people are guessing, either way there is no noticeable difference between my 64 ohm Sennheisers and the supplied WRT life. Although, I’d agree they can potentially make a difference.
Just before I go much further, the following is not disagreeing with you 
I apologise if some people believe I’m a bit blunt with writing, but I’m somewhat more used to body language for comms.
The 12 hours realistic play time I assume is based on people starting, stopping etc during a normal day - I suppose they settled for this kind of battery life as people could sneak in a quick charge at work, or whenever whilst not using it and keep it topped up. Contrary to popular belief, this is the best way to maintain Li-Ions anyway. Keep between 40-60%, with the occasional deep cycle (I’ve not seen compelling evidence to do the cycle, but it hasn’t harmed my 4 year old phone battery, still has >>80% capacity).
A review of it found a very happy 14 hour playback when going by Sandisk’s spec, which does actually annoy me. They should quote based on a real (albeit not typical) use, these specs seem to be theory based and probably assumes the user magically starts the device without using the interface. I played with the equalizer once, El’Reg (when reviewing) said it wasn’t the best, but not bad for such a tiny simple device. Not sure what glue they were sniffing, I thought the equalizer just butchered the music. Lucky me - it’s always off. I have both hands still, so I can shield the device from bright light - that means I’m more than happy to have the brightness down. So, I do actually meet most of the playtime’s spec requirements.
If we were to go for the example you gave, which I think was a good one we’d have 10 hours life as a Vorbis user? Seriously, I’d love that. I ain’t getting 5. I agree it’s not desirable, and I’d also say that they 10+% drop should not exist. People have proven the decoders can be made more efficient. Oh well, I shall keep my faith that Sandisk will look into fixing this, Sony sure as hell wouldn’t. At least not in my experience. Barring this issue, and to get back on topic - the file count limit I have to say this little player is great. I’m happy to suffer a 12 hour battery life for the sake of such a conveniently small beast.
BTW, a couple dual AA battery holders (electronics, not cases) or a four way one, four AA_rechargeable_ cells - not alkaline, they can get to 6V (although I’m sure the simple act of plugging the player in should be enough to discharge them below 5V25) a USB socket (stripped from a dead mobo or from Maplin) and you can charge on the go. There are many safe options for the alkaline route for when abroad (if that’s what you can get), but this forum’s a bit short for going down that avenue. And, it’s probably belt and braces.
Yes, longer battery life would be great. But my guess is that physics gets in the way.
At home, what you could do is simply use an AC adapter while you sleep. That would both recharge and prevent further battery drain. Or, of course, just use a different, bigger player with bigger battery. (Or, have a separate player for home use–I’m sure SanDisk would love that!)
@miikerman wrote:
Yes, longer battery life would be great. But my guess is that physics gets in the way.
At home, what you could do is simply use an AC adapter while you sleep. That would both recharge and prevent further battery drain. Or, of course, just use a different, bigger player with bigger battery. (Or, have a separate player for home use–I’m sure SanDisk would love that!)
The people that I know that own Clip+s (including myself) think that the player is on the small side of being convenient. I think it’s a case where they wanted to produce a player of a given size, and they were going to produce said unit at all costs, even if it meant less than stellar battery performance.
Call me stubborn, but I’m not going out of my way to find a stop-gap solution to a problem that stems from it’s design…That’s why the Clip+ isn’t and won’t be my primary player. I’m just throwing out my opinion on the battery issue in hopes that at some point the present design be completely overhauled to get decent battery life.
"I use a mixture of 190 - 320 kbps MP3 at home or FLAC. However, I transcode to ogg for use on portable devices "
Transcoding is not a good idea. If you want files at a lower bitrate, then go back to the original CDs and rip them again at a lower bitrate. This will yield better quality than converting already compressed files to a lower bitrate. Formats more complex than mp3 do perform better at lower bitrates, but result in less battery life for a portable player. Since on the Clip+ the thing in shortest supply is battery life, I generally use mp3 files.
Some reviews of wma for example showed that 128 kbps or higher there isn’t really any advantage to using wma. At 64 kbps and to a much greater degree for lower bitrates wma is superior. I have some wma speech recordings at 12 kbps and they sound better than mp3 files at 16 kbps. I only use low bitrates for speech files, where only frequencies from around 300-3000 hz are needed.
@jk98 wrote:
"I use a mixture of 190 - 320 kbps MP3 at home or FLAC. However, I transcode to ogg for use on portable devices "
Transcoding is not a good idea. If you want files at a lower bitrate, then go back to the original CDs and rip them again at a lower bitrate. This will yield better quality than converting already compressed files to a lower bitrate. Formats more complex than mp3 do perform better at lower bitrates, but result in less battery life for a portable player. Since on the Clip+ the thing in shortest supply is battery life, I generally use mp3 files.
Some reviews of wma for example showed that 128 kbps or higher there isn’t really any advantage to using wma. At 64 kbps and to a much greater degree for lower bitrates wma is superior. I have some wma speech recordings at 12 kbps and they sound better than mp3 files at 16 kbps. I only use low bitrates for speech files, where only frequencies from around 300-3000 hz are needed.
Everybody’s ears are different, and not all encoders are created equal. I’m a big fan of wma; and get very musical results at the 75 VBR setting (similar to 128kpbs)… while the equivilent mp3 setting is almost unlistenable to my ears. But, unlike some, I don’t use a portable to get the ultimate in sound reproduction. I use it for music on the go, not to extract every single nuance out of the music.
As soon as I get a CD, I encode it to FLAC, then whatever flavor of compressed codec I’m in the mood for, I can convert it easily. When you have as much music as I do, dealing with CDs is not too convenient; so I only use them as a backup to my computer-based files.
“When you have as much music as I do, dealing with CDs is not too convenient; so I only use them as a backup to my computer-based files.”
I keep the original CDs, but also back up the compressed music files on DVD-R disks. While I could rerip all the CDs if something happened to the music on my pc. ripping hundreds of CDs again would be very time consuming and a major nuisance.
fuze_owner-GB wrote:
@miikerman wrote:
Yes, longer battery life would be great. But my guess is that physics gets in the way.
At home, what you could do is simply use an AC adapter while you sleep. That would both recharge and prevent further battery drain. Or, of course, just use a different, bigger player with bigger battery. (Or, have a separate player for home use–I’m sure SanDisk would love that!)
The people that I know that own Clip+s (including myself) think that the player is on the small side of being convenient. I think it’s a case where they wanted to produce a player of a given size, and they were going to produce said unit at all costs, even if it meant less than stellar battery performance.
Call me stubborn, but I’m not going out of my way to find a stop-gap solution to a problem that stems from it’s design…That’s why the Clip+ isn’t and won’t be my primary player. I’m just throwing out my opinion on the battery issue in hopes that at some point the present design be completely overhauled to get decent battery life.
Yep, different people have different views, including when it comes to trade-offs such as size and battery duration. I certainly can understand yours, given your use of the Clip.
But I personally wouldn’t consider the battery/size trade-off decision with the Clips as “a problem that stems from it’s design” (at least for many/most people)–it’s simply a trade-off. For many or perhaps even most people, the battery life is very decent for their needs. It’s just not an all day and all night battery. I actually think that using AC at night when you’re sleeping is a good trade-off solution. But I can understand seeing that as less convenient and that one might want to increase the size a bit to get more battery duration.
Things will continue to change in the future, as battery technology continues to improve.
fuze_owner-GB wrote:
@miikerman wrote:
Yes, longer battery life would be great. But my guess is that physics gets in the way.
At home, what you could do is simply use an AC adapter while you sleep. That would both recharge and prevent further battery drain. Or, of course, just use a different, bigger player with bigger battery. (Or, have a separate player for home use–I’m sure SanDisk would love that!)
The people that I know that own Clip+s (including myself) think that the player is on the small side of being convenient. I think it’s a case where they wanted to produce a player of a given size, and they were going to produce said unit at all costs, even if it meant less than stellar battery performance.
Call me stubborn, but I’m not going out of my way to find a stop-gap solution to a problem that stems from it’s design…That’s why the Clip+ isn’t and won’t be my primary player. I’m just throwing out my opinion on the battery issue in hopes that at some point the present design be completely overhauled to get decent battery life.
This just brings to my mind again the concept of a player sized in between the Clip and Fuze…imagine a CLip+ sized big enough to hold a Fuze-sized battery. That would be better than either Clip+ or Fuze IMO.
@marvin_martian wrote:
@fuze_owner_gb wrote:
@miikerman wrote:
Yes, longer battery life would be great. But my guess is that physics gets in the way.
At home, what you could do is simply use an AC adapter while you sleep. That would both recharge and prevent further battery drain. Or, of course, just use a different, bigger player with bigger battery. (Or, have a separate player for home use–I’m sure SanDisk would love that!)
The people that I know that own Clip+s (including myself) think that the player is on the small side of being convenient. I think it’s a case where they wanted to produce a player of a given size, and they were going to produce said unit at all costs, even if it meant less than stellar battery performance.
Call me stubborn, but I’m not going out of my way to find a stop-gap solution to a problem that stems from it’s design…That’s why the Clip+ isn’t and won’t be my primary player. I’m just throwing out my opinion on the battery issue in hopes that at some point the present design be completely overhauled to get decent battery life.
This just brings to my mind again the concept of a player sized in between the Clip and Fuze…imagine a CLip+ sized big enough to hold a Fuze-sized battery. That would be better than either Clip+ or Fuze IMO.
Yup…completely agreed. I base that opinion not only on my preference, but others I know that have either a Clip or Clip+. The thing looks so cute in the store, but after using it for awhile, it’s almost too small to be easy to use. A larger physical size and a higher capacity battery would fit the bill for many.
@jk98 wrote:
Nowhere in that chart though is a mention of over 4,000 songs. While 64 kbps wma sounds a bit better than 64 kbps mp3, it does not sound as good as 128 kbps mp3. WMA, OGG, and other more complex formats also take more processing power to decode, yielding shorter battery life. My guess is that with 64 kbps OGG, battery life will be less and sound quality will be lower than 128 kbps mp3. Sandisk is encouraging people to use higher bitrates rather than cramming huge numbers of lower quality low bitrate songs into the player. I don’t understand the use of less than 128 kbps on the Clip+, as with 4 GB of storage battery life is less than enough to play 20% of the music on the player(and even less than that if some songs are played more than once per charge). With 24 GB of storage and 128 kbps, one can only play less than 3% of the songs on the player per charge. Why use 64 kbps, have lower sound quality, and be only able to play around 1% of the songs on the player? It is your choice though. I just don’t understand it.
No. Sorry to have to keep labouring the point, and this is starting to get a bit irritating…
The WMA files they refer to in the table are 64 kbps, right. You can work that out from the number of files they suggest that you can have in the same memory space. You can have twice as many WMA’s as MP3’s. The mp3 are defined as 128kbps. It therefore follows that the WMA’s are 64 kbps.
I am not suggesting that they say explicitly, file numbers greater than 4000 in the table. What I am saying is that if the SD expansion is offered and that can’t even cope with the same capacity of the same rate files again then this is a massive failure and should dhave been caught in testing.
Using 64kbps is not wrong. SanDisk are not “encouraging” the use of anything by creating a player that can’t cope with the number of files that would be on the player should the end user fill the player with 64 kbps WMA’s then add an SD card and do the same. In fact maybe they are encouraging something… a return to vendor for a refund!
The fact there is an SD slot DOES suggest they want to “encourage” people to expand the player. The fact they use WMA in their tables at 64 kbps suggests additional cards should be able to cope with more WMA’s at the same rate.
No offense, I don’t really care what quality music you think I should be listening to 
I am inteligent enough to ascertain the bit rate that sounds acceptable enough to me to allow the range of songs that I want to carry around with me. It’s my prerogative if I want to fill the player with small ogg’s or unnecessarily massive mp3’s. I am not goign to waste more time arguing this point.
I have done what I feel appropriate for my own personal requirements.
I know you could only play 3% of the songs on one charge. However I can choose what I feel like listening to from a larger selection, which is the point of using small ogg files. I am not going to justify my choice of files / encoding / bitrate again as it is completely irrelevant to the matter in hand.
The player simply cannot handle this number of files (with tags). I have tested my 8GB card. Same thing happens. The player cannot cope with the SD expansion and the number of files that go with it. This is a massive failing from SanDisk and I imagine that they will have a succession of other unsatisfied customers.
In fact the problem is worse. Before it would read so far through the card and stop so the files were just missing. Now it simply never completed the “refreshing your media” session. I believe this to be due to the fact that I only created the ~ 90 MB of free space the player tells you to create on the internal flash and the database became unable to grow. When there is more space, it seems that it just gets stuck going through the files and having left it over night (and thus running the battery flat) it now shows no files from the SD card either in the filesystem view nor in the Tags.
If an 8GB card of tagged oggs fails in a similar fashion to the 16GB one (which it does) then this player cannot be considered to be a finished product. I hate to say it but this is why so many people keep telling me to go for some bulky apple product, i.e. they are finished products, and to be honest I have seen a *lot* of other manufacturers MP3 players which are far from finished when they go to market.
Big disappointment here.
I spent a long time looking into which player to buy. The tech specs said to me this player would be fit for my requirements and it isn’t even close. Massive let down. There isn’t a firmware update yet so I guess i will have to wait for one and pray that it fixes these problems… de ja vu…
Other brands of mp3 players also have limits on the number of songs they can support. One I know has a limit of 4,000 songs for internal memory and 4,000 songs for card memory. That is even worse than Sandisks 8,000 combined song limit. Other players have limits on the number of folders(I think one has a 500 folder limit) and limts on the level of folder nesting the players will recognize. While such limits are necessary, they should at least be sufficiently publicized.
You haven’t gotten the number of songs recognized by the player up to around 8,000 by simplifying the file structure and folder, filename, and tag lengths? There is a thread similar to this one on the Fuze board.
@jk98 wrote:
Other brands of mp3 players also have limits on the number of songs they can support. One I know has a limit of 4,000 songs for internal memory and 4,000 songs for card memory. That is even worse than Sandisks 8,000 combined song limit. Other players have limits on the number of folders(I think one has a 500 folder limit) and limts on the level of folder nesting the players will recognize. While such limits are necessary, they should at least be sufficiently publicized.
You haven’t gotten the number of songs recognized by the player up to around 8,000 by simplifying the file structure and folder, filename, and tag lengths? There is a thread similar to this one on the Fuze board.
It’s irrelevent if other brands have limits or not. What I’m talking about here is the fact that I have bought something, that according to the technical literature available prior to purchase, should be working and is not!
You must be able to see what a shambles this is. If the player cannot cope with the fact that someone might want to actually use the SD card and they might actually want to use one of the formats that SanDisk say can be used then the player is significantly flawed. It doesn’t make this practise right if any other companies are doing it.
It’s simply unacceptable that any end user should have to spend hours trying to get the player to work in the configuration that they want because they were told they could do it… later to find out that they cannot.
I tried to change the file system organisation and this made no difference. I am still in the process of incrementally adding tracks at the moment to find the point where it breaks.
This isn’t a quick process and moving gigs of data back and forth is a time consuming business.
Anyway…
Looking at the Internal Flash fat32 filesystem I can see the config files…
rjfrost@wagon-wheel:/media/disk-1$ find . -type f ! -name ‘*.ogg’ -exec ls -lh {} ;
-rwx------ 1 rjfrost root 320 1980-01-01 00:00 ./SYS_CONF.SYS
-rwx------ 1 rjfrost root 51K 1980-01-01 00:00 ./RES_INFO.SYS
-rwx------ 1 rjfrost root 84 1980-01-01 00:00 ./version.sdk
-rwx------ 1 rjfrost root 1.8M 1980-01-01 00:00 ./MTABLE.SYS
I know MTABLE.SYS is the file (out of the ones found) which stores information about the songs because it’s the only file large enough (see above).
A quick strings of the file shows up the locations it’s storing…
rjfrost@wagon-wheel:/media/disk-1$ strings ./MTABLE.SYS | head -100
mmc:0:\
VORC0000.WAV
mmc:0:\
FMRC0000.WAV
mmc:0:\MUSIC\0\17 Hippies\Heimlich\
10_-_Just_Like_You.ogg
00000010
mmc:0:\MUSIC\0\17 Hippies\Heimlich\
07_-_The_Moving_Song.ogg
00000007
mmc:0:\MUSIC\0\17 Hippies\Heimlich\
04_-_Deine_Tranen.ogg
00000004
mmc:0:\MUSIC\0\17 Hippies\Heimlich\
06_-_Tick_Tack.ogg
00000006
mmc:0:\MUSIC\0\17 Hippies\Heimlich\
09_-_Heimlich.ogg
00000009
mmc:0:\MUSIC\0\17 Hippies\Heimlich\
02_-_Son_Mystere.ogg
00000002
<snip>
So this is definitely the file which the whole music structure is stored in. The thing is, regardless of what I do with the player, the file is always 1.8 MB in size. This makes me think that the problem could be that after a certain number of files is reached, the 1.8MB of this file is not large enough to cope with any more info (ie. when the player freezes on the “refreshing your media” search).
Thing is… unless some funky compression is going on, I can’t see the OGG tag information in this file. They player itself tells me something like I need to keep 90 MB free for the database if I fill the Internal Memory up… so where the heck is this DB being stored…
Now the weird thing is, when I unboxed this player there was a selection of music pre-installed. I mounted the player as FAT32 on my system. I searched the file system for files but there was nothing there (apart from the files I have listed above). This makes me think that the player isn’t actually presenting all of the internal memory as the FAT32 fs (which is very odd)…
rjfrost@wagon-wheel:/media/disk-1$ df -k /dev/sdd
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdd 7729280 7599648 129632 99% /media/disk-1
which is similar to the 8GB SD card also now mounted…
rjfrost@wagon-wheel:/media/disk-1$ df -k /dev/sde1
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sde1 7774208 7035040 739168 91% /media/disk
So why were the MP3 files stored on the Internal Flash not presented to the Operating System? I ended up having to select the player’s “format” option to remove these pesky MP3’s. I am wondering if this DB file (which keeps the tags) is similarly hidden from presentation in the file system!!??
oh hang on…
Ok, so I got it back to the point where it would complete a “refreshing media” stage and the filesystem view would be missing files which *are* on the file system again. Interestingl, adding extra files to the Internal Memory makes it “see” less of the external file system (when in “folder” view).
Firstly, I had changed one of the OGG tages on the Internal Memory to have album ARSE
rjfrost@wagon-wheel:/media/disk-1$ strings MTABLE.SYS | grep ARSE
it’s definitely not in that file so again, this *isn’t* where the OGG tag info is stored, ie. the database that the clip+ must have 90 MB for doesn’t get presented as a part of the FAT32 filesystem…
rjfrost@wagon-wheel:/media/disk-1$ ls -lh MTABLE.SYS
-rwx------ 1 rjfrost root 1.8M 1980-01-01 00:00 MTABLE.SYS
The MTABLE.SYS (as seem above is still at 1.8M) it’s not changes whatso ever despite adding a load more files to the External SD card.
The MTABLE.SYS file now stops reporting files at exactly the point the file system view stops displaying the file system…
<snip>
mmc:1:\o\Oysterband\Here I Stand\
03_-_In_Your_Eyes.ogg
00000003
mmc:1:\o\Oysterband\Here I Stand\
04_-_Street_Of_Dreams.ogg
00000004
mmc:1:\o\Oysterband\Here I Stand\
02_-_This_Is_The_Voice.ogg
00000002
mmc:1:\o\Oysterband\Here I Stand\
09_-_Someone_You_Might_Have_Been.ogg
00000009
mmc:1:\o\Oysterband\Here I Stand\
15_-_This_Town.ogg
00000015
mmc:1:\o\Oysterband\Here I Stand\
13_-_Cello_Drop.ogg
00000013
h4`
<end of file list>
The end of the file list before I added some extra MP3’s to the Internal Memory was much further down (in to the P folder).
So in a nutshell I think I might have found the problem… it’s the filecount as opposed to the TAG’s that are causing the problem…
Ruddy hell!
