Sansa Fuze+?

[dfkt]

Originally Posted by databass

I really hope the new Fuze supports 24-bit/96KHZ Flac. This has become the de-facto standard in the ripping community, plus it sounds damn good.

De-facto standard? It would be rather stupid to rip regular CDs to anything higher than their native 16/44.

As for "HD" formats: 24/96 sounds the same as a 16/44 rip, it's only that the HD layers on DVD-A's or SACD's are often differently mixed/mastered than the Redbook layer (not to mention they're often surround mixes as well). 24/96 for consumer audio products is a scam. There is no audible difference when you properly downmix a 24/96 to a 16/44 and ABX those files. As for vinyl ripped to 24/96... well, it's equally useless for the end user, but at least one has a decent backup for editing the files further.

[CrowdAds]

[multi-user]

Originally Posted by dfkt

De-facto standard? It would be rather stupid to rip regular CDs to anything higher than their native 16/44.

As for "HD" formats: 24/96 sounds the same as a 16/44 rip, it's only that the HD layers on DVD-A's or SACD's are often differently mixed/mastered than the Redbook layer (not to mention they're often surround mixes as well). 24/96 for consumer audio products is a scam. There is no audible difference when you properly downmix a 24/96 to a 16/44 and ABX those files. As for vinyl ripped to 24/96... well, it's equally useless for the end user, but at least one has a decent backup for editing the files further.

Bravo.... Agreed 100%

[lestatar]

Originally Posted by dfkt

De-facto standard? It would be rather stupid to rip regular CDs to anything higher than their native 16/44....SNIPPED....

+2. I don't profess to know all the technical details, but even I know this is the case for normal audio CDs.

Anything else is IMO a waste of effort and will probably result in one experiencing the mighty "placebo" effect.

[databass]

Sorry for not clarifying my previous post. 24/96KHZ seems to be the de-facto standard for ripping high-quality vinyl, not for normal CDs, obviously. Ripping a CD at 24/96 would be overkill.

My ears can definitely hear the difference between a vinyl ripped at 24/96 and one that's ripped at 16/44. And after hearing vinyl ripped at 24/96, especially high-quality reissues, I can't really stand listening to regular CDs, or any kind music at 16-bit for that matter. So much is lost.

Even on a Rockboxed Fuze, which downcoverts 24/96 to 16/44 there is still a noticeable difference. And on my SqueezeBox Touch, which plays 24/96 natively, the sound quality is amazing.

For me, 24/96 vinyl rips really bring back the qualities of the sound that has been lost during last 25 years or so of the CD era. And after the rip is finished, no more hassle of needles or dusty records!

Judging by the thousands of vinyls already available in 24/96 (as well as a lot of high-end 24/96 digital copies for sale HDTracks.com, it would be a big mistake for Sandisk to not play Flac at 24/96. And it's a win-win situation, since Sandisk can sell more memory and bigger cards (I can only fit about 25 albums on my maxed out 8 gb Fuze with 16 gb card).

If you can't tell the difference, I can respect that--and in that case you can fit way more tunes.

Originally Posted by dfkt

De-facto standard? It would be rather stupid to rip regular CDs to anything higher than their native 16/44.

As for "HD" formats: 24/96 sounds the same as a 16/44 rip, it's only that the HD layers on DVD-A's or SACD's are often differently mixed/mastered than the Redbook layer (not to mention they're often surround mixes as well). 24/96 for consumer audio products is a scam. There is no audible difference when you properly downmix a 24/96 to a 16/44 and ABX those files. As for vinyl ripped to 24/96... well, it's equally useless for the end user, but at least one has a decent backup for editing the files further.

[saratoga]

Originally Posted by databass

Sorry for not clarifying my previous post. 24/96KHZ seems to be the de-facto standard for ripping high-quality vinyl, not for normal CDs, obviously.

Yes but not for the reasons you seem to think. There are two reasons:

1) Because the ideal sampling rate is whatever the target system runs at, its hard to pick the right rate for distribution. Is the target a CD player, DVD, portable, PC? It could be 44.1 or 48k. It makes sense to distribute at whatever 96k and let people downsample on their PCs.

2) Because a lot of the people doing this are clueless and just think higher == better. If a lot of these groups doing rips didn't have standards, it'd all be 192k at 32 bit because some idiot figured out how to get his software to output at that.

Originally Posted by databass

Even on a Rockboxed Fuze, which downcoverts 24/96 to 16/44 there is still a noticeable difference. And on my SqueezeBox Touch, which plays 24/96 natively, the sound quality is amazing.

This is so stupid I don't even know where to begin. If you're listening to a 24/96 rip in rockbox, you're hearing a linearly interpolated downsample to 44.1k and (optionally) dithered truncation to 16 bit. Theres no way in hell you should be doing that. The interpolation is awful. Its there in place of just refusing to play the track which is only slightly worse IMO. Heres a picture of the same sin wave after linear and good interpolation:

http://stephan.win31.de/20k-upsampled.png

The top is what you are listening to. The bottom is what your file would give if you properly interpolated it (ignore that its shown at higher sampling rate for effect in that image). Do not listen to the top waveform when you can have the bottom. Its just plain stupid.

Seriously what you are getting is so much worse then a native 16/44.1k rip I can really only put this one way: stop being such a dumb n00b and actually compare these things before you make assumptions like this. Theres just no way you've take a 96/24 rip, a proper 44.1k downsample, and the output of rockbox and compared them in something like foobar2000. No way you would think the top waveform is more like a sin then the bottom one. If you had you wouldn't be saying stupid crap like this. So stop making terrible assumptions and actually listen to things! Do a proper downsample and flip back and forth in rockbox, or better yet use foobar2000's ABX tool. And please don't give advice if you're this clueless. You're just going screw up other people as bad as yourself.

[deadohiosky]

i don't have much clue about the audiotechnical stuff, but i can tell you one thing: an untrained (as in not educated in a school/studio/whatever) ear (rather the brain) can play you for a fool, as it makes you imagine all sort of things. hell, the brain can make you imagine audio, visuals and the like which didn't even exist in the first place.


about sandisk and raising the possible sampling rate: what on earth (and space, with all those satellites around) makes you think they should increase the sampling rate. after all they make products for the mass market, for main stream entertainment. not for some niche enthusiasts and "audiophiles" whose greatest wish would be to live in a studio with a 3 kilometer long mixer and 6 kilometer big boxes and even then they would not be satisfied because the floor carpet would suck up too much "audio".

sandisk is perfectly ok with delivering what the majority of its customers want, everybody else can get themselves a hifiman (or two, i heard the battery life sucks).

[Marvin the Martian]

Back to reality......the first hands-on impressions I've seen anywhere.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...ubj=MP3Insider

And the pics....http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-6490_7-...?tag=mncol;txt

[multi-user]

Thanks for the links, Marvin. Not too shabby. I'll probably have to get one to add to my mp3 collection....

[dfkt]

What a fail. Now that Samsung finally released the tactile YP-Q3, after their awful touch-area equipped Q1 and Q2, Sandisk repeats the same anti-usability mistake.

[FreeZ5]

Originally Posted by multi-user

Thanks for the links, Marvin. Not too shabby. I'll probably have to get one to add to my mp3 collection....

multi-user, I was thinking the same thing. And my thanks to Marvin, as well.

From my perspective, it doesn't look as bad as some of the first comments in this thread made me think. I know that many people will still complain because "xxx" is missing, but as cnet said, Sansa specializes in great sounding, music players that work. It will be interesting to hear how the video aspect works, especially with at least one format drag & droppable. (I really only care about the videos out of my Canon cameras though.) Glad it dropped the proprietary cable.

It looks like some improvements are so that the player works with iTunes. That should help sales amongst those that are less computer savvy. We have a family member who likes his Sansa Clip but would be better off with something compatible with iTunes.

Steve

[deadohiosky]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/31/s...ned-fuze-pmps/

[multi-user]

Originally Posted by FreeZ5

multi-user, I was thinking the same thing. And my thanks to Marvin, as well.

From my perspective, it doesn't look as bad as some of the first comments in this thread made me think. I know that many people will still complain because "xxx" is missing, but as cnet said, Sansa specializes in great sounding, music players that work. It will be interesting to hear how the video aspect works, especially with at least one format drag & droppable. (I really only care about the videos out of my Canon cameras though.) Glad it dropped the proprietary cable.

It looks like some improvements are so that the player works with iTunes. That should help sales amongst those that are less computer savvy. We have a family member who likes his Sansa Clip but would be better off with something compatible with iTunes.

Steve

My sentiments exactly. For me, being a heavy iPod user, the native AAC support and iTunes compatibility make it a player that I'll get and at least try.

[Marvin the Martian]

Originally Posted by deadohiosky

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/31/s...ned-fuze-pmps/

I see in that press release the claim of gapless playback. Now with the Clip+, they were close, but not quite there....do you suppose this new player will be the same way?

And I wish to never, ever hear or see the words "slotradio" or "slotmusic" again.

[deadohiosky]

hmm, in case nobody already jumped directly to sandisk.com

here is the official page for the fuze+


http://www.sandisk.com/microsites/sa...lus/index.html


i just got to say i'm rather disappointed by the looks. this "cross-hair" is just horrible.


edit: oh, man this promo video is just gross. i'm off searching for a bucket, or the toilet.

[advcomp2019]

The UI does look nicer, but the controls is a little different for Sandisk.

Plus if you look at the videos, the sub-menus have a little bit of lag. I wonder if they will fix that.

[eboyer93]

those capacitive touch controls look like they might work well.

[EnzoTen]

Our front page is up and running again! http://anythingbutipod.com/2010/08/s...nces-the-fuze/

[EggyCuppy]

um, marvin you and some others should love it, looks like its got tactile volume controls on the upper left.

The video is horrible that kid looks like an evil muppet :P

[Marvin the Martian]

I have yet to see any mention of a hold switch or feature....there'd better be one, or you could forget about ever putting this player in your pockets. And why didn't they just use the Clip+ style buttons? That would make more sense than this silly touch nonsense, or the scroll wheel, for that matter.

[dfkt]

The UI looks quite nice, though - not only because they used a similar font as the ABI logo.