SHN, hi-res FLAC support?

[coyote2]

I notice my beloved iAudio 9 doesn't play SHN, or high-res FLAC, files. Do or will any other Cowon player?

[CrowdAds]

[WalkGood]

My i9 plays EAC ripped FLAC 1.1.2-5 just fine but that's not what I normally put on there. I load mine with mp3's so I can carry more tunes ...

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by coyote2

I notice my beloved iAudio 9 doesn't play SHN, or high-res FLAC, files. Do or will any other Cowon player?

If you mean the 24-bit 96khz stuff, then no, they won't play them.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian

If you mean the 24-bit 96khz stuff, then no, they won't play them.

Correct, I missed the "hi-res" ... but who would do that on such a small player???

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

Correct, I missed the "hi-res" ... but who would do that on such a small player???

"audiophiles" aka "true Head-Fi'ers"

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian

"audiophiles" aka "true Head-Fi'ers"

Does not compute

[coyote2]

Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian

"audiophiles" aka "true Head-Fi'ers"

Given that Cowon units appeal to folks seeking better sound quality, I would have thought that hi-res FLAC support would be a FAQ.

I know it would cause me to buy a new unit if that's what it took!

[Satellite_6]

Originally Posted by coyote2

Given that Cowon units appeal to folks seeking better sound quality, I would have thought that hi-res FLAC support would be a FAQ.

I know it would cause me to buy a new unit if that's what it took!

hi-res audio is a misnomer. hi-res does not result in better sound qaulity. So requesting this could only come out of ignorance.

[sideways]

Here you go, a few earlier discussions on high res audio:
http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/sho...ble+blind+test

http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/sho...ble+blind+test

http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/sho...ble+blind+test

The discussion almost always comes back to people calling bullshit on the golden ears and asking for ABX double blind testing of different bitrate files. People do not seem to get much out of going past 320 kbs. Feel free to try it yourself if you have not already.

Some more food for thought:
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf

[coyote2]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

hi-res audio is a misnomer.

First, I'm going to assume you know what people mean by "high-res" (higher bitrate, etc).

hi-res does not result in better sound quality.

Yes it does, assuming you are lucky enough to have a source recording in high res, a system capable of resolving it, and ears capable of hearing it,

So requesting this could only come out of ignorance.

So since stating that could only come out of ignorance, I think I've helped, and you're welcome.

[sideways]

I totally forgot about Enigmatics excellent post on the matter and following discussion.

http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68675

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by coyote2

... Yes it does, assuming you are lucky enough to have a source recording in high res, a system capable of resolving it, and ears capable of hearing it ...

So have you done an ABX test to prove this to yourself?

[coyote2]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

So have you done an ABX test to prove this to yourself?

First, thank you to both sideways and Walkgood for the interesting responses.

I have not yet put together a system worthy of such a comparison. (But I plan to, hence my original question.) Nor have I seriously investigated the blind listening tests which claim to hear a difference, because:

In my reading on this topic, I found the following intriguing: even if one can't judge a difference, perhaps the effort the mind would put out replacing the missing bits that algorithms throw out because "people can't hear them", would detract from one's enjoyment. In other words, even if one can't tell which sounds better, there might still be a reason to care. And I care enough to make the effort just in case it matters.

[sideways]

When putting together a system the allocation of funds should go something along the lines of:

Speakers/Headphones/IEMs > Source > Amp > Beer & Lottery Tickets > Cables

In todays world a source either produces an accurate signal or it is broken, the law of diminishing returns sets in very quickly (a 50 dollar sansa clip will produce just as pure a signal as most anything else out there, and a better pure signal then some of the stuff selling for hundreds of dollars to audiofools[reference tests on HifiMan players]). Amps only add more power to the equation, you don't need that unless you are trying to drive some really tricky headphones or speakers. Beer and Lottery Tickets are always a winner. Cables are a scam.

Save your money for more music for your collection, live performances and whatever else you enjoy. You can do an ABX test without the ultimate hardware setup.

Placebo is placebo. If you want to go that route it is your prerogative, we are just trying to save you some buyers regret along the way.

[WalkGood]

I don’t believe everything I read, that’s why I tested for myself and IMHO that statement sounds like bunk. Based on my tests I can not hear the difference like I do comparing cheap headphones to good headphones. So for me using anything but Mp3’s on portable equipment is a waste of space. On the other hand I do listen to both FLAC and Mp3s at home and do prefer FLAC but not all my music is ripped to FLAC yet. I do believe it’s easier to tell the difference between FLAC and poorly encoded or low bit rate Mp3s on higher end home equipment but very doubtful on any portable equipment.

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by coyote2

In my reading on this topic, I found the following intriguing: even if one can't judge a difference, perhaps the effort the mind would put out replacing the missing bits that algorithms throw out because "people can't hear them", would detract from one's enjoyment. In other words, even if one can't tell which sounds better, there might still be a reason to care.

There is no effort involved from the mind. Lossy formats were created, because information can be discarded and still have little or no effect on sound quality. So one’s mind does not do any replacing of any lost information. So there is no detraction from one’s enjoyment if one cannot hear a difference. If, however, you do ABX tests and are able to hear differences, then you might experience detraction from enjoyment because you can hear compression artefacts.

[coyote2]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

On the other hand I do listen to both FLAC and Mp3s at home and do prefer FLAC but not all my music is ripped to FLAC yet. I do believe it’s easier to tell the difference between FLAC and poorly encoded or low bit rate Mp3s on higher end home equipment but very doubtful on any portable equipment.

I'm trying to project forward to the day when I may connect my portable player to a future higher end system. Not to mention the higher-res FLACs I have now (but have nothing to play them on) simply because they came that way!

Considering that storage space will advance quickly, I think it's rather tragic that there's been mass acceptance of compression, particularly so close to the limit of whether most people can hear it on their equipment. This acceptance of compression, and it's distraction from higher resolutions, will be with us long after storage space no longer provides what motivated the compression in the first place. I think we'd be better off FAR from that limit as measured by blind listening judgements, because there may be less well-quantified measures of enjoyment that are real.

There are indeed diminishing returns, which is why when someone is spending money for slim margins of return in their system, looking at resolution becomes as worthwhile as that.

High end audio forum discussions about this go much differently. It makes sense that a portable music forum would benefit from the reality-check y'all helpfully provide on this subject, thank you.

[Enigmatic]

Originally Posted by coyote2

High end audio forum discussions about this go much differently. It makes sense that a portable music forum would benefit from the reality-check y'all helpfully provide on this subject, thank you.

High-end audio also benefits from ABX tests—at least for consumers. For the snake-oil sellers that are in high-end audio, ABX tests do not give any benefits.

[Satellite_6]

Originally Posted by coyote2

First, I'm going to assume you know what people mean by "high-res" (higher bitrate, etc).Yes it does, assuming you are lucky enough to have a source recording in high res, a system capable of resolving it, and ears capable of hearing it,So since stating that could only come out of ignorance, I think I've helped, and you're welcome.

no.

[Lagoo56]

Some people simply prefer CDs,which is what FLAC is the equivalent of,why is that such a big topic?