Size limitation on SD card?

Okay so I just got a 4GB Sansa Fuze for Christmas and I stopped by the local Best Buy today to pick up an action jacket and a Micro SD card to expand the memory. (I like my audiobooks :wink:) Anyway, I couldn’t find them in the store so I ended up asking a clerk.  When I told him what I was getting it for, he said the 4GB will only recognize 2GB more memory, so I would be wasting my money to buy anything bigger than that.  Yet in reading the messages on this board about SD cards, I get the impression that everyone is using any size card they want regardless of the initial size of their player.  So what’s up?  Have I been duped by an ignorant Best Buy employee again? (It wouldn’t be the first time.)  Or should I not go bigger than 2GB?  Any input would helpful.  Thanks in advance for any help.

The Fuze will accept any capacity micro SD or micro SDHC card. I guess he was thinking about older model Sandisk player which wouldn’t take a micro SDHC card, just a regular micro SD card. Be aware though that for now there is around a 4,000 song total limit that the Fuze will recognize. The next firmware update(due within 3 months) is expected to raise this limit to around 8,000 songs. So if you use a bitrate under 192 kbps it would not be a good idea to get a 16 gig card for it now. An 8 gig card would be a good idea as those are cheap now(perhaps under $20 on the net)?

Yes, I’m afraid you’re a victim of Best Buy Employee Syndrome.

Thanks for the confirmation re no current automatic size limitations for the expansion MicroHCSD, as I have ambitions to place a goodly number of FLAC files of classical symphonies and concertos on the unit for when I am away from home…

I have not yet found any confirmation of which speed rating (Class 2, 4, or 6) would be regarded as an acceptable choice for these high-capacity cards when used in the Fuze… Are you or anyone else able to shed any light on this question?.. 

@pipeman wrote:

Thanks for the confirmation re no current automatic size limitations for the expansion MicroHCSD, as I have ambitions to place a goodly number of FLAC files of classical symphonies and concertos on the unit for when I am away from home…

 

I have not yet found any confirmation of which speed rating (Class 2, 4, or 6) would be regarded as an acceptable choice for these high-capacity cards when used in the Fuze… Are you or anyone else able to shed any light on this question?.. 

If you’re planning to use FLAC files on them, and just music, then class 2 will play back just fine(I have one),it might just take a little longer to put the files onto it initially. You can even buy a 16GB microsdhc if you have the money. The current 4,120 file limit will not be in play for a FLAC user. So by all means, go for it :smiley:

@pipeman wrote:

 

I have not yet found any confirmation of which speed rating (Class 2, 4, or 6) would be regarded as an acceptable choice for these high-capacity cards when used in the Fuze… Are you or anyone else able to shed any light on this question?.. 

Of the lower GB ones, 4 and 2, they do have classes.  From what others have said the 8 gb now is a Class 4 speed but says Class 2.  That’s the new trend, all up to a class 4.

The only difference in the Classes is suppose to be the refreshing database time.  Higher classes are suppose to be faster.  I only do movies so I haven’t noticed a difference.  There is a discussion somewhere on here about it.


If you’re planning to use FLAC files on them, and just music, then class 2 will play back just fine(I have one),it might just take a little longer to put the files onto it initially. You can even buy a 16GB microsdhc if you have the money. The current 4,120 file limit will not be in play for a FLAC user. So by all means, go for it :smiley:


Thanks for the confirmation and comment, guys… Yes, I think it fair to conclude that FLAC files of symphonies etc. may not exceed the current “number of files” limit… :o)

And yes, my interests are purely in obtaining the best quality (most “realistic”) music possible when away from home, with nil interest in video, etc…

FLAC was chosen as although the higher grades of MP3 can indeed present vaguely pleasant versions of an original recording, I am not - despite my mature years - yet sufficiently cloth-eared not to be able to very clearly distinguish between any individual performance played at MP3 compression and it’s counterpart at CD level… even through Koss PortaPro or PX100 'phones… :o)

Thanks, fellas… Your advice will allow duplicates to be purchased… :o)

Bill.   

As a newbie I’m not quite sure how and why so many Smileys and additional text got included, but as I’m happy with the confirmation I suppose that a :smiley: or two may be rather appropriate…

Bill.

This site’s posting engine seems to think any adjacent punctuation and parentheses is a smiley.

Thanks, gwk… I will have to bear that in mind… :smiley:

Bill.

@pipeman wrote:


If you’re planning to use FLAC files on them, and just music, then class 2 will play back just fine(I have one),it might just take a little longer to put the files onto it initially. You can even buy a 16GB microsdhc if you have the money. The current 4,120 file limit will not be in play for a FLAC user. So by all means, go for it :smiley:


 

Thanks for the confirmation and comment, guys… Yes, I think it fair to conclude that FLAC files of symphonies etc. may not exceed the current “number of files” limit… :o)

 

And yes, my interests are purely in obtaining the best quality (most “realistic”) music possible when away from home, with nil interest in video, etc…

 

FLAC was chosen as although the higher grades of MP3 can indeed present vaguely pleasant versions of an original recording, I am not - despite my mature years - yet sufficiently cloth-eared not to be able to very clearly distinguish between any individual performance played at MP3 compression and it’s counterpart at CD level… even through Koss PortaPro or PX100 'phones… :o)

 

Thanks, fellas… Your advice will allow duplicates to be purchased… :o)

 

 

Bill.   

If quality AND space conservation is an issue; you may want to play around with the ogg vorbis format.  I’ve been an audiophile for more years than I care to admit, and the sonics of a given piece of equipment has been much more important than how many albums I can cram into it.  I lived with mp3 for a time, but was never really overly impressed with it.  So, when I got my fuze with ogg support, I did some critical listening tests with FLAC, Mp3 and ogg vorbis.

Everyone’s ears are different, but to me, the ogg vorbis format sounds vastly superior to Mp3.  Although version 2 of the ogg vorbis codec has the capability of utilizing up to 500kbps sampling rates, I find that if I encode my music at 350kbps VBR using ogg, that the music files are indistinguishable from the original…with the added benefit of taking less storage space than FLAC.

I’m not saying that you will like ogg vorbis, but I find it my codec of choice.  The only way you will know if it suits your needs, is to experiment a bit with it…

fuze_owner-GB wrote:-

"If quality AND space conservation is an issue; you may want to play around with the ogg vorbis format.  I’ve been an audiophile for more years than I care to admit, and the sonics of a given piece of equipment has been much more important than how many albums I can cram into it.  I lived with mp3 for a time, but was never really overly impressed with it.  So, when I got my fuze with ogg support, I did some critical listening tests with FLAC, Mp3 and ogg vorbis.

Everyone’s ears are different, but to me, the ogg vorbis format sounds vastly superior to Mp3.  Although version 2 of the ogg vorbis codec has the capability of utilizing up to 500kbps sampling rates, I find that if I encode my music at 350kbps VBR using ogg, that the music files are indistinguishable from the original…with the added benefit of taking less storage space than FLAC.

I’m not saying that you will like ogg vorbis, but I find it my codec of choice.  The only way you will know if it suits your needs, is to experiment a bit with it…"

Thanks for your comment, highlighting an interesting possibility… 

Maybe it’s just my definitely non-“techie” background, but when I searched the Web to establish the practicalities of setting up a framework so that I could experiment to establish whether your suggestion was a genuinely practicable option and saw the detailed and sometimes apparently decidedly arcane comment re decoders etc, my brain hurt!!..:smiley: There did not seem to be any link that would provide a basic straightforward implementation guide to install or incorporate Vorbis into a basic but competent media player*, but lots of geeks discussing elements that were very effectively a completely foreign language as far as I was concerned…

* Wherever any choice existed, I avoid using Windows Media Player…

Are you aware of any framework/outline that could be followed by a definite newbie that simply offered a Vista Home edition PC user the opportunity to install and easily use some sort of equivalent of Real Player that would allow files to be ripped from CD/converted from .wav computer file to Vorbis, and then play the results from the host computer as well as providing a source of files to “drag and drop” to the Fuze?..

Without such a framework, Ogg Vorbis files would be likely to remain “an interesting possibility”, with no further action seen as practicable, for the indefinite future…:cry:

Happy New Year!.. :smiley:

Bill. 

The ogg vorbis format is no more difficult to use than any other audio format. Because in clinical listening tests ogg vorbis consistently outperforms Mp3 to most listeners, it is becoming more popular all of the time.  Everyone has their own personal “likes” what a given software package should do, so it is rather difficult to suggest viable options for you.  If you are a Windows Media Player fan, you can even get ogg to work with that, if you so desire.

Probably the best place to start is by visiting the official ogg vorbis website, where they list numerous codec and software options that are proven to work. (www.vorbis.com)

@pipeman wrote:

 

FLAC was chosen as although the higher grades of MP3 can indeed present vaguely pleasant versions of an original recording, I am not - despite my mature years - yet sufficiently cloth-eared not to be able to very clearly distinguish between any individual performance played at MP3 compression and it’s counterpart at CD level… even through Koss PortaPro or PX100 'phones… :o)

 

Getting a bit off topic for sd cards here, but…

 ABX testing is a humbling experience for many a golden ear.

 People who find it truly easy to tell the difference (between high bitrate lossy and original) often have some hearing defect that invalidates the models used to figure what sounds mask others.  As a gross example, if you were stone deaf in one ear, then a cannon shot in that ear would not mask a pin drop in the other, whereas it would for someone with normal hearing.  

People who train themselves to recognize differences between mp3 and original (including me to a small extent at one time) generally say that expensive vs cheap-but-decent phones doesn’t make a difference.  The things you look for aren’t the things that good phones do better.

 

Message Edited by donp on 01-01-2009 08:10 AM

@donp wrote:


@pipeman wrote:

 

FLAC was chosen as although the higher grades of MP3 can indeed present vaguely pleasant versions of an original recording, I am not - despite my mature years - yet sufficiently cloth-eared not to be able to very clearly distinguish between any individual performance played at MP3 compression and it’s counterpart at CD level… even through Koss PortaPro or PX100 'phones… :o)

 


Getting a bit off topic for sd cards here, but…

 ABX testing is a humbling experience for many a golden ear.

 People who find it truly easy to tell the difference (between high bitrate lossy and original) often have some hearing defect that invalidates the models used to figure what sounds mask others.  As a gross example, if you were stone deaf in one ear, then a cannon shot in that ear would not mask a pin drop in the other, whereas it would for someone with normal hearing.  

People who train themselves to recognize differences between mp3 and original (including me to a small extent at one time) generally say that expensive vs cheap-but-decent phones doesn’t make a difference.  The things you look for aren’t the things that good phones do better.

 

 

Message Edited by donp on 01-01-2009 08:10 AM

Exactly.  That’s why whenever I have been involved with clinical listening and usage tests, the participants go through a complete hearing exam.  That way, we know if the differences “heard” are real or imagined.

fuze_owner-GB, Many thanks…

Perhaps if I had Googled “Vorbis” rather than “Ogg”, my search would have been rather less traumatic…

In any event, yes, I think I’ll give it a shot, not least because I already run RealPlayer on my PC, and there is indeed a RealPlayer “plug-in” for Ogg Vorbis…:smiley:

As regards other comment, I seem to have survived Life thus far with sufficiently marked hearing deficiencies to not only clearly hear differences between highest quality MP3 and CD but have been able to - on “blind test” - achieve 100% success in identifying at each sample which particular known interconnects (of 4 sets) were used in my system, with the choices apparently being made at random and involving three long-ish sessions of “mix and match”…

As you might expect, the above was undertaken as a result of one of those silly “dares” to which audio folk seem to be prone, but I realistically never had any real doubt as to the outcome…

I now look forward to a little happy experimentation with Ogg Vorbis…:smiley: 

Bill.

@pipeman wrote:

fuze_owner-GB, Many thanks…

 

Perhaps if I had Googled “Vorbis” rather than “Ogg”, my search would have been rather less traumatic…

 

In any event, yes, I think I’ll give it a shot, not least because I already run RealPlayer on my PC, and there is indeed a RealPlayer “plug-in” for Ogg Vorbis…:smiley:

 

 

As regards other comment, I seem to have survived Life thus far with sufficiently marked hearing deficiencies to not only clearly hear differences between highest quality MP3 and CD but have been able to - on “blind test” - achieve 100% success in identifying at each sample which particular known interconnects (of 4 sets) were used in my system, with the choices apparently being made at random and involving three long-ish sessions of “mix and match”…

 

As you might expect, the above was undertaken as a result of one of those silly “dares” to which audio folk seem to be prone, but I realistically never had any real doubt as to the outcome…

 

I now look forward to a little happy experimentation with Ogg Vorbis…:smiley: 

 

 

Bill.

 

 

 

 

Glad I was at least some help.  If you need any other help along your journey with ogg vorbis, let us know.  Just so you know, there are 2 flavors of the ogg vorbis codec.  With your sensitive ears, you may want to opt for the V2 of the codec as it has the ability to encode up to 500kbps sampling rates.  The program (which is simple to use, BTW) that I use that utilizes the V2 codec is called “oggdropXPd”, which is available at the vorbis website.  Once ripped and encoded, these files will play back with any software that supports ogg vorbis.  The files that I create with this little program sound very good (to my ears anyway) on the fuze.

Message Edited by fuze_owner-GB on 01-01-2009 11:28 AM

@pipeman wrote:

 

As regards other comment, I seem to have survived Life thus far with sufficiently marked hearing deficiencies to not only clearly hear differences between highest quality MP3 and CD but have been able to - on “blind test” - achieve 100% success in identifying at each sample which particular known interconnects (of 4 sets) were used in my system, with the choices apparently being made at random and involving three long-ish sessions of “mix and match”…

 

 

ONe thing to watch for is sometimes (maybe usually) people encode at “highest quality”  mp3 (Not sure what this is, but for that label I’d say 320 kbs, slow encode, latest version of Lame or Helix encoder) and neglect to turn off the setting for 16 khz lowpass filtering. 

 I don’t want to sound to picky on this, but there’s a wide range of people out there that range from a hip-shot “oh yeah, the difference is obvious” to those who make an avocation of systematically indentifying compression artifacts in rigorous double blind statistically controlled trials. 

Message Edited by donp on 01-01-2009 02:53 PM

@donp wrote:


@pipeman wrote:

 

As regards other comment, I seem to have survived Life thus far with sufficiently marked hearing deficiencies to not only clearly hear differences between highest quality MP3 and CD but have been able to - on “blind test” - achieve 100% success in identifying at each sample which particular known interconnects (of 4 sets) were used in my system, with the choices apparently being made at random and involving three long-ish sessions of “mix and match”…

 

 


ONe thing to watch for is sometimes (maybe usually) people encode at “highest quality”  mp3 (Not sure what this is, but for that label I’d say 320 kbs, slow encode, latest version of Lame or Helix encoder) and neglect to turn off the setting for 16 khz lowpass filtering. 

 

To some, like myself, mp3 doesn’t sound very good at any setting.  It was a useful codec 10 years ago, but it’s definitely showing it’s age…I’ve moved on to higher fidelity codecs and haven’t used mp3 since.

@fuze_owner_gb wrote:


To some, like myself, mp3 doesn’t sound very good at any setting.  It was a useful codec 10 years ago, but it’s definitely showing it’s age…I’ve moved on to higher fidelity codecs and haven’t used mp3 since.

I use a variety depending on the application. Mostly Vorbis and Musepack.  Speex for audiobooks… not hi-fi, but amazingly good at spoken word for fitting 6 hours into 30 megabytes or so.

From what I’ve seen of test results, some of the mp3 encoders have improved a lot in the last 5 years or so (the Helix and Lame I mentioned,)  maybe there isn’t much further to go from here.