android
  #1  
Old 01-15-2010, 02:56 PM
mysticstryk's Avatar
mysticstryk mysticstryk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 57
Default Two questions about S9

Did a bit of research and finally got all the track names in order, just a couple questions.

1) Two albums are taking up just short of 1GB! I ripped the cd's into FLAC compression level 6 through mediamonkey. Maybe a higher compression level? Will it make a big difference?

2) The higher the compression level, does it reduce sound quality?

Thanks
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 01-15-2010, 03:26 PM
ultrauber's Avatar
ultrauber ultrauber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 516
Default

1) Two albums are taking up just short of 1GB! I ripped the cd's into FLAC compression level 6 through mediamonkey. Maybe a higher compression level? Will it make a big difference?

Yes, higher compression will make a difference in size, that's flac. mp3/vorbis will get you smaller files.

2) The higher the compression level, does it reduce sound quality?

In theory, no, but some people can hear the difference on certain tracks.
__________________
Cowon S9 32GB > HiFiMan RE0 (RIP) | Sansa Clip+ 16GB (Rockbox) > Soundmagic PL20
If you have problems, try MSC mode, then google.com
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 01-15-2010, 04:19 PM
gcogger gcogger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticstryk View Post
Did a bit of research and finally got all the track names in order, just a couple questions.

1) Two albums are taking up just short of 1GB! I ripped the cd's into FLAC compression level 6 through mediamonkey. Maybe a higher compression level? Will it make a big difference?

2) The higher the compression level, does it reduce sound quality?

Thanks
If you mean a higher compression level, but staying with flac, then no, it won't make a big difference (but it will also have zero effect on sound quality). I rip flacs at level 5 since the difference in size between that and the maximum level is negligible.

If you really want to reduce the size, you'll need to use mp3, ogg or similar...
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 01-16-2010, 03:12 AM
amit's Avatar
amit amit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ether
Posts: 173
Default

FLAC is just like a zip archive which compresses the WAV sound. It doesn't matter how much you compress it, on extraction it will always return the same WAV file. So whether you compress to level 5 or level 8, the only difference will be in size of the file & not in sound quality. But I think that higher compression level will result in more power usage (not sure abt it, maybe someone else can confirm or refute this point with certainty).
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 01-16-2010, 11:11 AM
ultrauber's Avatar
ultrauber ultrauber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amit View Post
FLAC is just like a zip archive which compresses the WAV sound. It doesn't matter how much you compress it, on extraction it will always return the same WAV file. So whether you compress to level 5 or level 8, the only difference will be in size of the file & not in sound quality. But I think that higher compression level will result in more power usage (not sure abt it, maybe someone else can confirm or refute this point with certainty).
I can't say it with certainty, but it seem that that would be the case. Otherwise, nobody would use the lower compression levels.
__________________
Cowon S9 32GB > HiFiMan RE0 (RIP) | Sansa Clip+ 16GB (Rockbox) > Soundmagic PL20
If you have problems, try MSC mode, then google.com
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 01-16-2010, 11:45 AM
steagle steagle is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
Default

i always compress in FLAC lvl 8 because it produces the smallest file sizes. sure it's kind of negligible but why not have smaller file sizes for the same sound quality?
__________________
current: Cowon S9 32GB / previous: Toshiba Gigabeat S30 / phones: Ultrasone PROLine 550, Sennheiser HD280, Sony MDR-7506
-- FLAC FTW! --
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 01-16-2010, 12:17 PM
ultrauber's Avatar
ultrauber ultrauber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steagle View Post
i always compress in FLAC lvl 8 because it produces the smallest file sizes. sure it's kind of negligible but why not have smaller file sizes for the same sound quality?
yes, if amit is right, then the only reason not to use the extremely compressed files is battery life. Otherwise, its the same sq for smaller size.
__________________
Cowon S9 32GB > HiFiMan RE0 (RIP) | Sansa Clip+ 16GB (Rockbox) > Soundmagic PL20
If you have problems, try MSC mode, then google.com
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 01-16-2010, 01:55 PM
Technex's Avatar
Technex Technex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Berkshire, UK.
Posts: 253
Default

So many interesting questions .
__________________
Cowon S9 16GB Ultimate PMP! | Ex player (Samsung P3)
Audio-Technica ATH-A900's | MEElectronics M6 Clear IEM's

Stop the loudness war - Turn Me Up!
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 01-17-2010, 02:51 AM
mysticstryk's Avatar
mysticstryk mysticstryk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 57
Default

Thanks for the replies. I just started ripping all my music, so any suggestion on a different file type I rip my cd's into and still get the same good quality lossless sound? (but taking up much less space) (I will also try the higher compression FLAC to see if that makes a big enough difference)

Also, I forgot to ask this before-> If I'm correct, then cowon updated the s9 to have gapless playback. I have not tested this myself, so is there anything special I need to do to enable gapless, or is it like this automatically?
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 01-17-2010, 09:23 AM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

The difference between FLAC L5 and L8 in size is incredibly tiny. L8 just takes longer to encode. Of course I use L8 too, even though I know the difference is negligible.

Gapless is gapless, nothing special to do. If you ripped your CDs properly, they should play gapless on the S9. Mediamonkey of course isn't the best solution for ripping CDs, so I can't say how that works.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 01-17-2010, 12:25 PM
ultrauber's Avatar
ultrauber ultrauber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
Gapless is gapless, nothing special to do. If you ripped your CDs properly, they should play gapless on the S9. Mediamonkey of course isn't the best solution for ripping CDs, so I can't say how that works.
Well, when your talking about mp3, "properly" doesn't imply gapless b/c mp3 doesn't require that standard. But yes, most rippers like cdex or eac will be gapless. I know cdex uses lame. Flac/ogg is also gapless.
__________________
Cowon S9 32GB > HiFiMan RE0 (RIP) | Sansa Clip+ 16GB (Rockbox) > Soundmagic PL20
If you have problems, try MSC mode, then google.com
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 01-17-2010, 12:33 PM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

With 'properly' I meant something that isn't WMP, iTunes, Xing, FHG, and so on. You never know what those sub-par apps and codecs do to the files.

FLAC or Vorbis (not Ogg, that's just a container) are by definition/specs gapless formats, but on most hardware players they also don't play gapless, just like MP3s. It still has to be specifically implemented in a firmware to get them to play gapless. Or, the firmware developers have to be smart and not mess up the specs, to phrase it differently. It's just that MP3s need a workaround to make up for the old, lacking MP3 standard specifications, while the more modern formats should theoretically be easier to implement in a gapless way.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 01-17-2010, 12:41 PM
ultrauber's Avatar
ultrauber ultrauber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post
With 'properly' I meant something that isn't WMP, iTunes, Xing, FHG, and so on. You never know what those sub-par apps and codecs do to the files.

The problem is that these sub par apps are used by 95% of the population. So you have to assume that people think that they are up to snuff, because if they're so popular they must be good right? No, these seemingly solid apps are causing misconceptions about lame, and encoding in general. But yes.

FLAC or Vorbis (not Ogg, that's just a container) are by definition/specs gapless formats, but on most hardware players they also don't play gapless, just like MP3s. It still has to be specifically implemented in a firmware to get them to play gapless. Or, the firmware developers have to be smart and not mess up the specs, to phrase it differently. It's just that MP3s need a workaround to make up for the old, lacking MP3 standard specifications, while the more modern formats should theoretically be easier to implement in a gapless way.
I see, I was under the impression that vorbis/flac developers demanded that any encoder take advantage of the gapless feature.
__________________
Cowon S9 32GB > HiFiMan RE0 (RIP) | Sansa Clip+ 16GB (Rockbox) > Soundmagic PL20
If you have problems, try MSC mode, then google.com
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 01-17-2010, 04:24 PM
gcogger gcogger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticstryk View Post
I just started ripping all my music, so any suggestion on a different file type I rip my cd's into and still get the same good quality lossless sound? (but taking up much less space)
If you really want lossless encoding, you're not going to get significantly smaller file sizes whatever you do. The only option to reduce file size is a lossy compression type such as mp3 or ogg. I suggest you try a listening test between, say, high quality mp3 and flac and see if you can tell the difference.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 01-18-2010, 03:06 AM
mysticstryk's Avatar
mysticstryk mysticstryk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcogger View Post
If you really want lossless encoding, you're not going to get significantly smaller file sizes whatever you do. The only option to reduce file size is a lossy compression type such as mp3 or ogg. I suggest you try a listening test between, say, high quality mp3 and flac and see if you can tell the difference.

I can hear a difference.

It's just that when I used to have a zune, I used WMA lossless, which took up much less space than FLAC.
About 25 cd's in WMA lossless took up 5 gb's. With FLAC, I'm gonna get about 10 cd's per 5gb's.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 01-18-2010, 05:25 AM
dfkt's Avatar
dfkt dfkt is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 15,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticstryk View Post
I can hear a difference.
Have you ever tried a double blind ABX test? Foobar's ABX plugin is a good tool to evaluate these things without placebo effect and confirmation bias getting in the way, for example. I'm sure with a little testing you would find a size/bitrate of a lossy codec that you can't hear a difference compared to the original.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticstryk View Post
It's just that when I used to have a zune, I used WMA lossless, which took up much less space than FLAC.
About 25 cd's in WMA lossless took up 5 gb's. With FLAC, I'm gonna get about 10 cd's per 5gb's.
No way is the size difference between WMAL and FLAC that extreme. Difference between the codecs is about 2% on average, not 150%. Something obviously went wrong there, sounds like you either put uncompressed WAV files on your player instead of FLAC, or you used normal lossy WMA instead of lossless.
__________________
Please don't PM me with questions that can be answered in a forum thread. Don't be an idiot.
My Gear and Reviews | My RMAA Tests | IRC: #anythingbutipod on Freenode | Last.fm | Album Art Exchange | Rockbox | Replaygain
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 PM.