Before buying: songs playing at a slower speed?

Guys…all due respect here, most of you have a lot more technical knowledge than me, but this is getting a wee bit an*l-compulsive.

I am interested in the topic and what, if any, SanDisk’s response is, but c’mon, this is a throw-away consumer product to be had for under $100.  It’s amazing what they packed into this little ■■■■■■, the sound quality is pretty durn good and the features are more than are found in iPods costing 2 to 3x as much.

PLUS, they offer some level of support and ongoing firmware upgrades!  How much do you want?  Maybe they could pack an entire digital recording studio in here, give it a terabyte of storage on-board, liquid nitrogen cooled, with a 2000-hour battery, add shortwave radio and satelite uplink and downlink…plus 78 rpm shellac disc record support (only for REAL audiophiles)in a tintanium-berrilium zircon-encrusted case and provide lifetime support with a VIP Lear Jet available 24/7…for under $25…still, there would be grousing.

I’m not saying there’s no room for improvement; that seems to be actually ongoing…but let’s be real.

Alright, just my two cents (pun intended)

Over and out.

Message Edited by blackdog-sansa on 02-01-2009 04:58 PM

I have not have had any problems with this, its how the ablum, or the order of music you listen to.

Its called mix. In fact, sometimes, my music plays REALLY fast.

Variation of frequency in the UK and Europe is  

Your Electricity Board is obliged by law to deliver 230 volts +10% - 6% (ie. between 216.2 volts and 253 volts), and to maintain the frequency at 50Hz ± 1% (ie. between 49Hz and 51Hz) over a 24 hour period.

In the United States and Canada, national standards specify that the nominal voltage at the source should be 120 V and allow a range of 114 to 126 V (-5% to +5%). Historically 110, 115 and 117 volts have been used at different times and places in North America. Main power is sometimes spoken of as “one-ten”; however, 120 is the nominal voltage.Not sure of the American frequency tolerances but they will probably be similar.

(The strange UK/European voltage limits were a fudge to account for the UK’s original 240V and most of Europes 220V after a vague attempt to standardise on the same figures).

As far as I recall it was the cheaper turntables that ran directly off the mains, most decent stuff ran through controller circuits usually with an independantly timed strobe for speed checking/setting.

I think I may know why this problem is occurring.  

To test you would need two audio files, one for which the “slowdown” playback problem occurs, and another for which the problem does not occur.

Check the sample rate of each song.  To do this in XP, right click on the mp3, select Properties -> Summary -> Advanced, then scroll down to the entry for “Audio Sample Rate.”  Post back the numbers here.

If it is what I suspect it is, then one mp3 will probably have an audio sample rate that is integer multiple of 44.1Khz, and the other will be an integer multiple of 48Khz.  

All my songs are 44.1.

When played on my PC or any other device I’ve ever had, pitch is smack on.

When played on the Fuze, pitch is flat and speed is slow.

= unusable.

hmm, does anyone have the Audio Sample Rate for one file that plays back slow, and another that plays back fine?

Most are comparing THE SAME file on both PC & Fuze, so even if it were recorded wrong the pitch or time difference is what we are interested in.

My file was generated with the Audacity sound editor at exactly 44100 Hz sample rate. There is no room for error since it was created simply as a pure mathematical function.  It shows 44Kh in the windows properties. It plays slow on the Fuze and dead on for the PC and other MP3 players in the house.

Message Edited by Mp3Geek on 02-14-2009 05:18 AM

@mp3geek wrote:

 

The sample rate of my file is 44100 Hz, and it plays slow on the Fuze.

 

Can someone post the sample rate of a file that plays back correctly on the Fuze? 

Message Edited by maxplanck on 02-14-2009 02:51 PM

*bump* 

Can someone please post the sample rate of a file that plays back correctly on the Fuze? 

To do this on Windows XP: right click on the mp3, select Properties -> Summary -> Advanced, then scroll down to the entry for “Audio Sample Rate.”  

Message Edited by maxplanck on 02-14-2009 02:55 PM

I don’t think that any special sample rate exists that will magically play at the correct speed on the Fuze.  And if it did, it would certainly play fast and at a sharp pitch rise on any other standard playback devices.

44.1 khz is very common in the consumer market and it’s likely that >98% of the tracks people listen to are CD rate 44.1 at 16bit.

I also can’t imagine having to convert all of our music using some third party application just to be able to play music on the Fuze and have it sound the way the artists and producers intended it to be heard.

Message Edited by Arranger on 02-14-2009 08:22 PM

@arranger wrote:

I don’t think that any special sample rate exists that will magically play at the correct speed on the Fuze.  

 

 

 

Possibly, let’s find out for sure by determining the sample rate of an MP3 that plays correctly. 

 


Arranger wrote: 

And if it did, it would certainly play fast and at a sharp pitch rise on any other standard playback devices.

 

 

No, not necessarily.

 


Arranger wrote: 

 

44.1 khz is very common in the consumer market and it’s likely that >98% of the tracks people listen to are CD rate 44.1 at 16bit.

Of course anything ripped from a commercial source will be 44.1kHz if not converted to another sample rate, but 

there are plenty of people who rip audio who don’t know anything about sample rate.  They may unwittingly have their ripping software set to downsample or upsample.

 

 

 

 

 

Arranger wrote: 

 

 

I also can’t imagine having to convert all of our music using some third party application just to be able to play music on the Fuze and have it sound the way the artists and producers intended it to be heard.

 

  

Agreed, that would be incredibly stupid.  Whatever the problem is, it should have not happened in the first place.  Blame our system of industry, where greed comes first, and everything else is considered incidental.

@maxplanck wrote:

… it should have not happened in the first place.  Blame our system of industry, where greed comes first, and everything else is considered incidental.

 

Amoung other things I write software for user devices for a living, though the machine are quite a bit larger than a Fuze.  Things like this happen all the time, especially subtle problems like this that are not apparent at first glance to the rather inexperienced software quality assurance guys - ours are mostly from India. What counts is accepting that an error was made and getting a fix to the customers in a reasonable time.

Sure, but the reason the problem occurs in the first place, in your example, is because the company cheaped out on Quality Assurance.

Compare the dollar cost of implementing a decent QA process to the dollar value of the average number of man hours wasted by an end user dealing with this problem, multiplied by the number of end users. The loss is enormous. Therefore the cost to society of these greed driven business practices is enormous. Management and shareholders don’t care because they benefit, but we should.

Message Edited by maxplanck on 02-14-2009 09:49 PM

 

(Link removed, found in Off Topic forum currently)

LOL 

Please note that the linked video contains multiple expletives, not really appropriate here, folks, though it was amusing.  We need to keeo it clean, as the forum is open to all.

 

µsansa

Message Edited by microsansa on 02-15-2009 11:58 AM

@maxplanck wrote:

 (Link removed.  Agreed, Tapeworm.)   -µsansa

LOL 

Enough already! You’ve spammed this same link in 3 different places already; none of which is appropriate!

I suggest you cease & desist or you will be planting this filth on a differnt forum! :angry:

Message Edited by microsansa on 02-15-2009 11:59 AM

c’mon, have a sense of humor already.  Filth?  This is one of the more realistic things I’ve seen recently.  Reality is often filthy, does that mean we should ignore it?

Message Edited by maxplanck on 02-15-2009 12:01 PM

No But keep in mind, there are youngsters on here. Some as young as 13(My cousin whom I registered and monitor). For me thats an awesome video, but its not appropriate for my 13 year old cousin.

 You know this is just about the stupidest thread i’ve seen on these boards.Most people (except apparently those with infallible internal clocks) would never notice a  one second variance in the speed of any given song.Who cares,besides which,i really tend to doubt that this supposed “flaw” even exsists.Life is way to short to let this little of a problem hang me up.Like somebody else posted,i can live with it. 

@shmince wrote:
 You know this is just about the stupidest thread i’ve seen on these boards.Most people (except apparently those with infallible internal clocks) would never notice a  one second variance in the speed of any given song.Who cares,besides which,i really tend to doubt that this supposed “flaw” even exsists.Life is way to short to let this little of a problem hang me up.Like somebody else posted,i can live with it. 

*applauds*

@shmince wrote:
Who cares,besides which,i really tend to doubt that this supposed “flaw” even exsists.

 

Translation: Prefer disbelieving others to trying it your self.  Though, as I said, mine is a Clip, it’s pitch accuracy was 20x further off than any of the 5 other players I tried.  If this is just a lack of calibration, then some will be closer. 

Message Edited by donp on 02-15-2009 04:06 PM