FLAC support, too much to wish for?

[paulr]

Well, video is another story, but a flac-encoded cd is typically maybe 300MB, so 160GB is over 400 cd's, maybe 500. Of course there are folks with larger collections than that, but it's still quite a few. I'm sure I don't have anywhere near that many. The only way I could see it happening is if I were to start indiscriminately collecting, and at that point it would be easy to get TB's even in lossy format, beyond the capacity of any portable player.

I tend to put stuff on my portables in whatever format I got it in, so it's a mix of mp3, vorbis, and flac. Therefore the average hours/gb is quite a bit higher than if it were all flac.

I'm still resisting ordering a 500gb archos player, because I don't know what I'd do with it if I had one. It would sure hold an awful lot of flacs though.

One reason I can think of for carrying EVERYTHING on a portable (say while travelling) is to be able to swap files with people you meet. In that situation flacs are better than lossy. There are even some bands that explicitly forbid mp3 trading (but allow flac trading) because they want to make sure everyone gets lossless files rather than files that have been through someone's lossy encoding process.

[CrowdAds]

[The DarkSide]

Pop a huge HDD in an iPod video & Rockbox it, or buy an X7 and upgrade the HDD in that (you won't hit a file limit using FLAC, now will you,...). There goes a nice sounding FLAC compatible player. Sony don't give a damn.

[paulr]

TDS has it exactly right, Sony is like Apple in trying to lock users into their products by ignoring standards. Look how many years it took for them to even support MP3 instead of keeping on digging in with ATRAC. They are also a big content company (Sony Records etc). though their content side and their electronics side seem to be at odds with each other sometimes. All in all I don't see much reason to care about the Sony players. I'd stay with Sandisk, Cowon, etc. Note re the video ipod, you need an old 5.5g unit, since the current "classic" model is anti-rockboxed.

[3602]

One needs to understand that the concept of "United States" (and Canada, aaand Europe) is merely secondary for Sony. Japan is their priority. Since iPods aren't hugely popular over there, Sony gets the market share by reserving the best (such as ATRAC) for their home market. So it is quite true that Sony couldn't care less in America.

Also since when did "FLAC support" become an industry standard?

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by 3602

One needs to understand that the concept of "United States" (and Canada, aaand Europe) is merely secondary for Sony. Japan is their priority. Since iPods aren't hugely popular over there, Sony gets the market share by reserving the best (such as ATRAC) for their home market. So it is quite true that Sony couldn't care less in America.

Also since when did "FLAC support" become an industry standard?

It's not an industry standard....it's an "audiophile" standard.

I lke the idea of having the FLAC as an archived file, but I'd never put it on any of my portables. High-bitrate LAME mp3 is just fine....either V2/V0 for the stuff I convert myself, or if necessary 320 for the stuff I acquire as is.

Anyone that insists on lossless on their portable , be it FLAC, ALAC, WAV, APE, or whatever else is out there, needs to get over themself and get back to just enjoying the music instead of obsessing over inaudible differences....IMO.

[McDougal]

Lossless has never touched my iPod.....LAME MP3 FTW !

[The DarkSide]

Originally Posted by McDougal

Lossless has never touched my iPod.....LAME MP3 FTW !

Agreed!!!

[h1a8]

I think gapless for mp3 is far more valuable feature than flac is. But I definitely wouldn't mind flac either.

[JSBach]

Being honest, Flac ist overweight compared to mp3, so less tunes in your device.

I did a test with some clavichord and orchestral and chamber songs in flac and converted to mp3 192 kbps.

After hearing the samples i couldn't heard the difference between MP3 192 and Flacs. The clavichord sounded well and i could heard the reverbs on both files.

i prefer MP3 over lossless because the space limitations of portable devices

[lollicup04]

Originally Posted by Clegane

If it weren't for the lack of FLAC support, I'd buy a Sony in a heartbeat. I'm simply not going to go to the chore of converting my collection into multiple formats to suit the limitations of different hardware. I have already decided on one audio format to rule them all, one audio format to find them, one audio format to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

The new sony walkman f-800 coming out in august is the first walkman to support flac. Its alittle pricey at $269 for 16gb and $300 for 32gb but it is worth it. I compared both a mp3 file and flac file of the same song and believe me you can hear the difference. The flac file is much louder and clearer.

[skip252]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

The new sony walkman f-800 coming out in august is the first walkman to support flac. Its alittle pricey at $269 for 16gb and $300 for 32gb but it is worth it. I compared both a mp3 file and flac file of the same song and believe me you can hear the difference. The flac file is much louder and clearer.

Were you able to distinguish the difference using ABX testing? http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum...ad.php?t=68675

Identifying whether you are able to tell the difference between lossless and perceptually encoded files isn't easy. There's a number of factors that can affect your judgement. ABX testing will eliminate those and allow you to determine if the difference was the codec used or something as simple as a relatively small difference in volume levels.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

... I compared both a mp3 file and flac file of the same song and believe me you can hear the difference. The flac file is much louder and clearer.

I agree with skip above, did you volume match them for the comparison, was it a blind test? Also to make a statement; "$269 for 16gb and $300 for 32gb but it is worth it," indicating it's worth it because it plays flac is silly. For example Sansa 8GB Clip Zip, 32GB microSD (40GB) and rockbox will play flac as well at less than half the cost ($80.00 total or less), now that's really worth it

[lollicup04]

Originally Posted by skip252

Were you able to distinguish the difference using ABX testing? http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum...ad.php?t=68675

Identifying whether you are able to tell the difference between lossless and perceptually encoded files isn't easy. There's a number of factors that can affect your judgement. ABX testing will eliminate those and allow you to determine if the difference was the codec used or something as simple as a relatively small difference in volume levels.

What I did was play both files with vlc media player. They were both set at the same volume. I listened to each one with external speakers. To me the flac was louder and clearer. It had more bass and more detail in the song. While the mp3 file sounded very similar it was lacking the detail and bass that was heard in the flac file.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

What I did was play both files with vlc media player. They were both set at the same volume. I listened to each one with external speakers. To me the flac was louder and clearer. It had more bass and more detail in the song. While the mp3 file sounded very similar it was lacking the detail and bass that was heard in the flac file.

What encoder did you use to rip the mp3? What encoder settings did you use? I hope you know that not all mp3's are created equal ...

[lollicup04]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

I agree with skip above, did you volume match them for the comparison, was it a blind test? Also to make a statement; "$269 for 16gb and $300 for 32gb but it is worth it," indicating it's worth it because it plays flac is silly. For example Sansa 8GB Clip Zip, 32GB microSD (40GB) and rockbox will play flac as well at less than half the cost ($80.00 total or less), now that's really worth it

while the sansa clip is a great alternative. I am stating that the sony walkman f-800 is the first walkman that supports flac that I know of. Not only is it a mp3 player. It runs android ics. which allows you to surf the web, play games, check your email, and etc. Like I said before there is nothing wrong with the sansa clip and its a great mp3 player. But for people who want more of a smartphone experience and great sound quality. They should go for sony walkman f-800. I own a smartphone myself. The sound quality of it terrible which is why I use a dedicated mp3 player for listening to music. Now I have been waiting awhile now for sony to make a smartphone that features the s-master amplifer and eq built in. So that I can get the best of both worlds without having to carry two devices. But sadly sony will never do this. Because this will cannabalize their mp3 sales. Please do not recommend getting the ipod touch

[El C]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

What I did was play both files with vlc media player. They were both set at the same volume. I listened to each one with external speakers. To me the flac was louder and clearer. It had more bass and more detail in the song. While the mp3 file sounded very similar it was lacking the detail and bass that was heard in the flac file.

I'd like to know what kind of speakers you have.

[lollicup04]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

What encoder did you use to rip the mp3? What encoder settings did you use? I hope you know that not all mp3's are created equal ...

I downloaded the song off amazon. Then I googled mp3 to flac converter and used the following link to convert the song.

http://www.mp3toflacconverter.com/

Originally Posted by El C

I'd like to know what kind of speakers you have.

I use the Bose Companion 2 Desktop Speakers. Here is more info on it

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HZDF8W/..._df_B000HZDF8W

[skip252]

Unless Amazon has started offering lossless files what you did was a lossy to lossless transcode. As you'll see when from the link there's no improvement possible in audio quality when that's done. This means your conclusion that the file FLAC was superior is essentially flawed. There won't be audio information in the FLAC file than there was in the original lossy file. There can't be more bass or detail than there was in original lossy file.

This reads like a classic case of expectation bias. When you heard the FLAC file and knew it was a FLAC file you expected it to sound better so it did. If you had followed the link I provided earlier and performed ABX testing you wouldn't have been able to detect a difference because there wouldn't have been one.

Before you go any further with this claim you really want to follow that link and learn how to perform meaningful testing. To do that you'll need files from a lossless source. Starting with lossy files and working backwards just doesn't work.

You can use any codec you chose on your portable player. Trying to advise others as to what they should use on theirs would be better received if you demonstrated a working knowledge of how audio encoding really works.

[lollicup04]

Originally Posted by skip252

Unless Amazon has started offering lossless files what you did was a lossy to lossless transcode. As you'll see when from the link there's no improvement possible in audio quality when that's done. This means your conclusion that the file FLAC was superior is essentially flawed. There won't be audio information in the FLAC file than there was in the original lossy file. There can't be more bass or detail than there was in original lossy file.

This reads like a classic case of expectation bias. When you heard the FLAC file and knew it was a FLAC file you expected it to sound better so it did. If you had followed the link I provided earlier and performed ABX testing you wouldn't have been able to detect a difference because there wouldn't have been one.

Before you go any further with this claim you really want to follow that link and learn how to perform meaningful testing. To do that you'll need files from a lossless source. Starting with lossy files and working backwards just doesn't work.

You can use any codec you chose on your portable player. Trying to advise others as to what they should use on theirs would be better received if you demonstrated a working knowledge of how audio encoding really works.

The link I provided does indeed not show any information. However unless you have tried converting a file using it. I wouldn't be to quick to disprove of it. Comparing the properties of the original mp3 file and the flac file. I can tell you that the file size increased alittle over three times in size. Which makes sense because flac files are alot bigger than mp3 files. Try converting a song with the link I provided than listen to both.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by lollicup04

I downloaded the song off amazon. Then I googled mp3 to flac converter and used the following link to convert the song. http://www.mp3toflacconverter.com/ I use the Bose Companion 2 Desktop Speakers. Here is more info on it http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HZDF8W/..._df_B000HZDF8W

Originally Posted by lollicup04

The link I provided does indeed not show any information. However unless you have tried converting a file using it. I wouldn't be to quick to disprove of it. Comparing the properties of the original mp3 file and the flac file. I can tell you that the file size increased alittle over three times in size. Which makes sense because flac files are alot bigger than mp3 files. Try converting a song with the link I provided than listen to both.

At what point are you willing to read the facts from the links provided. You are suffering from what's called placebo effect thinking that you can make a FLAC file from an mp3 and have it sound better. If you had told me that you own the CD and ripped a FLAC file from it using a good program (EAC, etc) and you also ripped a mp3 file from said CD, then and only then would your claim be believable.

I’ll just quote another post from another thread here.

Quoted from here:
Every time you encode with a lossy encoder, the quality will decrease. There's no way to gain quality back even if you transcode your 128kbps MP3 into a 320kbps MP3 (or any other high-quality compression). Transcoding between lossy formats is therefore generally not recommended. The sound quality of the result will always be worse than the (lossy) source file. ...

In layman terms: an mp3 made from a WAV file, during the transcoding it throws out a lot of information to make a smaller file. Now when you convert that mp3 back to FLAC, sure the files size is larger but the missing information is lost so it can not be replaced, hope this makes sense. The only way to test if one file is better or not isn't with VLC, it's by doing an ABX test as it was suggested earlier to you. Who knows what that link you provided does to the file, maybe gain is increased to fool the persons using it.