android
Go Back   abi>>forums > MP3 Players By Brand > Samsung > Samsung P2

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-14-2008, 06:34 PM
kasabian kasabian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
There are many problems with optical media.
Yeah, lets say you remove the scratches, finger prints and who knows what, getting what was done in a studio into your ears, CD is still the best, so a large capacity player, that would allow an MP3 size library in .wav format is the ultimate.

Thing is, IS CD the best way? I have no idea, I just assume. Storage being no limit, is there an even better way to get the original track into your ears? If so, then I guess that is the Holy Grail
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #22  
Old 03-14-2008, 06:53 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasabian View Post
Yeah, lets say you remove the scratches, finger prints and who knows what, getting what was done in a studio into your ears, CD is still the best, so a large capacity player, that would allow an MP3 size library in .wav format is the ultimate.
No. I am saying it's not. CD is an optical media, so you'd be better of ripping it first to the lossless/uncompressed format of your choice.
The reason CD (as in the physical disc) isn't the optimal medium is that it doesn't have time to error correct that much. And there _will_ be reading errors, no matter how few finger prints you have on that thing. When you rip it, it can continue to read the part which is creating a read-error until it gets it right. That's why ripping is the way to go.

When doing so, you get the actual data on the disc, without the errors, and then you get the way it was supposed to sound like (after they pressed the discs).

Quote:
Thing is, IS CD the best way? I have no idea, I just assume. Storage being no limit, is there an even better way to get the original track into your ears? If so, then I guess that is the Holy Grail
Nope. If you mean the files, and not the actual physical disc, there are better out there. But as a consumer, I cannot get hold of much in higher bit rates, so …
However, one has to strike a balance. I could record at 192kHz/24bits. But there is very little benefit going from 48kHz to 192kHz. Especially when you weigh it against the file size.
Another reason why 96kHz or even 192kHz might sound worse (!!) than 48kHz is because of the dac-chip in a given, well, dac. If it's running all that it can, it can cause errors (and thus artifacts) in the conversion from digital to analogue.
So, in real life, I get the most benefit from 24bits (noise floor, dynamic range) and 48kHz (less artifacts, standard sample rate, easily converted and so on).
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 03-14-2008, 07:20 PM
kasabian kasabian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23
Default

Interesting. I assumed the data on a CD was basically as it was recorded. Taking away a flaw in the actual plastic of the disk, or greasy hands, it was as close to being there as being there.

So taking the original recording and putting that into a Lossless format at the source is superior to a CD! I didn't know that.

OK, LOL. So the ultimate player, would be high capacity (to hold an MP3 size library) with support for Lossless and/or .wav, but done from source, not ripped from CD?

BTW, did any of this actually help you in deciding to buy a P2 it's kinda gone off on a mad tangent.
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 03-14-2008, 07:36 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasabian View Post
Interesting. I assumed the data on a CD was basically as it was recorded. Taking away a flaw in the actual plastic of the disk, or greasy hands, it was as close to being there as being there.
It is. And the best way of taking away those flaws is ripping your cd's with "error correction" ticked off.

Quote:
So taking the original recording and putting that into a Lossless format at the source is superior to a CD! I didn't know that.
True, if I get what you're saying, and we're not "cross talking" here

Quote:
OK, LOL. So the ultimate player, would be high capacity (to hold an MP3 size library) with support for Lossless and/or .wav, but done from source, not ripped from CD?
Well, it's fine ripping from a CD. But if you could get hold of a copy at 96kHz/24bit done at the studio, that one would be much better. And the ripping is great - if done uncompressed/lossless. But it's only better than playing the cd if you have error correction on it. Otherwise you could just as play the disc directly. I have to point out, though, that it is of course not better than what is actually pressed on the disc, it's just the least detoriated, if you know what I mean.

Quote:
BTW, did any of this actually help you in deciding to buy a P2 it's kinda gone off on a mad tangent.
Well, I got a nice talk and chat with you, didn't I

Seriously, though, if I try uploading a few short clips, 5-15 seconds of wav-files as attachments to this thread, would you be interested in dragging them onto your player and see if they would play? Assuming of course you have a UMS P2?

I'm asking because I think it might work at some bitrates - as the thing does play back its own wav-files.
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 03-15-2008, 01:23 AM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1,590
Default

Goodness gracious. This thread exploded. This is the most intelligent discourse I have seen on these forums in a long time. That said, now that I have some context for your needs and your specific requirements, I can better make a recommendation.

The problem with most DAP's is that they are designed for the 99.9% user. The music CD buying, mp3 ripping, WMP using, populace. Some players throw in the extra features for the more savvy user, such as support for lossless playback, or obscure codec support--like Ogg Vorbis--but in general, they are designed for one thing: mp3 playback.

There is the very select minority that wants a DAP for very niche applications. They want support for WAV recordings with higher bit depth and sampling rate. You're one of those people. The problem now is that most manufacturers are not expecting to sell a million units with this sort of functionality as a selling point, especially not at a 200 dollar price point. This is the sort of requirement of professionals, and that is the reason for professional gear with the professional price premium.

Samsung does not advertise WAV support on the P2. So I decided to test the playback capabilities of the device myself. I have a UMS modified P2 that supports true drag and drop. I have the most current firmware version 3.15 loaded on the device. I ripped directly from CD a track to linear PCM WAV 16 bit at 44.1kHz sample rate. I then up sampled, using a command line WAV encoder called BeSweet, to 24 bit and 48kHz, and every combination in between. This left me with 4 files. I put all four tracks on my player in a special folder and then went to the music browser on the P2. Because WAV does not support id3 tagging, it is not recognized natively in the music library. You can, however, access all files directly via the file browser. The files appeared, but none played. Each gave the message: "Not supported Format." It is probably safe to say the P2 does not support WAV playback at all.

I can already confirm that FLAC support is non-existent as well. So that's a non-issue. So, as it stands, the P2 has zero support for lossless formats and probably never will. Keep in mind that Samsung promises another firmware update in the near future that could support some sort of lossless playback. I wouldn't count on this, though.

There was so much said in this thread, that I feel that I need to respond to some of it directly. I'll quote for coherence and readability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piper
Well, first of all, the resampling wouldn't detoriate the quality, had I done that. But I haven't, of course, that would be pure stupidity (there, I was the one saying it). No, it's my own recordings, made on my own recorder. 48Khz is the sweet spot to me when editing and using multiple layers in a feature/documentary or an ordinary package.
24bit is used so I don't have to use dithering and so the noise floor is brought down long enough, no matter what it is I'm recording (it makes for much easier recording out in the field, when you have to focus on the actual contents, interview techniques, planning, ambience, change in background noice and so on).
You'll get no argument from me on this issue. In terms of perceptible audio, 65,536 is simply not enough possible values to accurately reproduce what we hear. It's like watching a movie on a 16 bit screen, there simply aren't enough colors to truly reproduce the entire color spectrum of what we see. The same goes for audio. 16,777,216 possible values more closely approaches an imperceptible quantization of an audio signal. Dithering becomes a non-issue, and you can make much less destructive changes to the signal in processing when you have a much more "discreet-looking" signal.

As far as sampling rate is concerned, you don't really need to disseminate anything above 44.1kHz because it's possible to perfectly reconstruct the signal with that rate. Think Nyquist-Shannon and most humans hearing cutting out at ~20kHz if you don't understand what I mean. The rub comes when you're dealing with recording and mastering. You can't very easily do digital processing and filtering on a signal that's barely oversampled. That's where 48kHz and higher comes in to play. 48kHz gives you plenty of wiggle room and yet still doesn't bloat your saved file sizes to infinity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piper
Yes, from the looks of it, it's a niche. But in reality it isn't. Wav, just like .aiff is one of the most widespread formats out there. The difference between wav and aiff is only a matter of where the info is placed (little vs. big endian). It sounds technical, but in reality, it isn't.
Hell, even an iPod (bleh!!) plays wavs.
With the hope that this doesn't come across as aggressive, I have to mention that wav is a standard format, and propably the format that is able to play on most things without needing special codecs/decoding.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, hardware-wise that would make it hard to implement this. It's all about whether they're willing to do so.
Further, the P2 already records in the wav-format (propably because it's the easiest recording format to implemt). Granted, it's not recording in 24bit/48kHz, but as it is, it can already record in the wave-file format and play those recordings back. So, I have to disagree with you, that wav is a "professional niche format", because that is simply not true. It's just a very good and simple uncompressed, unthinned format.
True. But as I said above, for the small, cheap, portable DAP market, it is extremely niche. And as far as P2 recording in WAV, that is not true. It is able to record from an FM radio broadcast, but it compresses it down to 128kbps CBR mp3. No WAV recording (or at least end-output) for the P2.

Quote:
But technically speaking it isn't compressed like a .RAR file, that is what I was questioning, there is a loss of data in any lossy compression. ie an MP3 decoder isn't a decompressor?
It isn't compressed like an archive in the sense that when "decompressed" it is bit-perfect and everything is there exactly as when it went in. The point of mp3 is to throw away the 10 out of 11 bits of information and when decoded, the intent is to sound like all 11 bits are present. Obviously this is not possible, but the intent is to "decompress" the audio to sound as close to the original as possible using sound-shaping algorithms.

Quote:
No. I am saying it's not. CD is an optical media, so you'd be better of ripping it first to the lossless/uncompressed format of your choice.
The reason CD (as in the physical disc) isn't the optimal medium is that it doesn't have time to error correct that much. And there _will_ be reading errors, no matter how few finger prints you have on that thing. When you rip it, it can continue to read the part which is creating a read-error until it gets it right. That's why ripping is the way to go.

When doing so, you get the actual data on the disc, without the errors, and then you get the way it was supposed to sound like (after they pressed the discs).
If you're going to be ripping your CD, you're going to want to use a ripper that has overly redundant error correction and jitter control. Also, you're going to want to use one that makes use of drive Accurate Stream features. The only ripper that can actually do this and guarantee you an accurate result, on even unscratched/undamaged CD's is Exact Audio Copy.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

You need this program. It makes all attempt, more so then even ticking "error correction" in your other ripper of choice, to get a bit-perfect rip from any CD. It works on perfect CD's as well as the slightly damaged variety equally well. Read the literature on the site for more information.


I hope this helps somewhat Piper.
__________________
"Changed my mind so much I cant even trust it
My mind changed me so much I cant even trust myself"
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 03-15-2008, 03:12 AM
iLLuSionS iLLuSionS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 163
Default

First of all... im just wondering, if you ARE using ur own recording, how big of each file are u talking about?

This is because, looking at it in a technical perspective, a non edited wav file thats 3 minutes long is about 50mb. so basically, if samsung supported wav, 4 gb can only support 80 recordings.

I assume that when u edit it and add stuff, the file would only get bigger, not smaller, so basically tat would be a lot less than 80 files (or 160 for 8gb). Therefore, I'm just saying, if u are actually not listening to "songs", but instead, other things for ur professional purpose, id say that the P2 is basically out of ur league.
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 03-15-2008, 05:58 AM
kasabian kasabian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23
Default

Sorry, it was past my bedtime, sassafras has done the .wav test anyway, so it's all good.

Quote:
It isn't compressed like an archive in the sense that when "decompressed" it is bit-perfect and everything is there exactly as when it went in.
Yeah that's what I was getting at, I didn't think it was a compression system.

Oooops, sorry musichound, my bad. He was saying Lossless is compressed, not MP3, I misread it.

Last edited by kasabian; 03-15-2008 at 06:01 AM. Reason: I am stupid.
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 03-15-2008, 01:29 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLLuSionS View Post
First of all... im just wondering, if you ARE using ur own recording, how big of each file are u talking about?
Depends on whether it's an interview, a whole piece or a documentary. Anything from 30-50MB and up to 500MB.

Quote:
This is because, looking at it in a technical perspective, a non edited wav file thats 3 minutes long is about 50mb. so basically, if samsung supported wav, 4 gb can only support 80 recordings.
Well, a 24bit/48kHz monofile, three minutes long, uncompressed, is just a tad under 25MB. You may say that's not small, but take a look at how big files from a digital camera able to take raw-pics are. That's just how it is.

Quote:
I assume that when u edit it and add stuff, the file would only get bigger, not smaller, so basically tat would be a lot less than 80 files (or 160 for 8gb). Therefore, I'm just saying, if u are actually not listening to "songs", but instead, other things for ur professional purpose, id say that the P2 is basically out of ur league.
"out of you league", haha

Anyway - you're wrong. Even if I used 30 stereo tracks (think "layers") all of them an hour long, all recorded at 24bit/48kHz, each of them 988MB in size, will not result in a file the size of 30GB.
Well, they will when working on the project, but the moment it's bounced ("recorded") to the harddisc as a stereo file, all those files will only make up the same 988MB, and to a mono file, half of that, of course. It's all about how many bits are used, if that makes sense.

I am not trying to get a player that can play back each of the tracks in multi-track session. There's a huge difference here. Of course nothing will go on there that isn't either mono or stereo.
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 03-15-2008, 01:30 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
Goodness gracious. This thread exploded. This is the most intelligent discourse I have seen on these forums in a long time. That said, now that I have some context for your needs and your specific requirements, I can better make a recommendation.

The problem with most DAP's is that they are designed for the 99.9% user. The music CD buying, mp3 ripping, WMP using, populace. Some players throw in the extra features for the more savvy user, such as support for lossless playback, or obscure codec support--like Ogg Vorbis--but in general, they are designed for one thing: mp3 playback.
Yet all the iPods, the Cowons and so on play more than just Mp3s. They play wav, MP4, lossless and so on. Heck, some of them even play FLAC and ogg vorbis – talk about niche formats. I have to say this again: Wav is not a niche format. It's PCM, raw audio. And since my files are bwf (with the .wav extension) they support metadata too. But again: Wav is not under any circumstances a niche-format.
I wonder what you guys think goes into the DA-converter after the MP3 has been read and decoded?


Quote:
There is the very select minority that wants a DAP for very niche applications. They want support for WAV recordings with higher bit depth and sampling rate. You're one of those people. The problem now is that most manufacturers are not expecting to sell a million units with this sort of functionality as a selling point, especially not at a 200 dollar price point. This is the sort of requirement of professionals, and that is the reason for professional gear with the professional price premium.
Not quite. First of all, I utterly disagree with the premise that wav is "niche" in any way, form or fashion. Secondly, because it isn't niche, it's not something you should need to buy pro equipment to play. I have that equipment – the problem is, they make a piss poor pocketable audio player.

I want the P2 so much more than the Cowon D2. But the D2 has Wav-playback (I assume it's only 16bit/44.1kHz). And I'd venture that the D2 is far from anything resembling "pro audio equipment".
Even the iPods have this sort of thing, not to mention numerous other players out there. This "not able to play wav" is a decision Samsung made –*not because of the hardware not being able to (at least at 16bit/44.1kHz), and certainly not because "it's a pro format". A decision I sorely wish they hadn't. In fact, I am quite sure that if you look at the code, they have crippled the firmware to exclude this (i.e. actually made an effort to not having it to work).


Quote:
Samsung does not advertise WAV support on the P2. So I decided to test the playback capabilities of the device myself. I have a UMS modified P2 that supports true drag and drop. I have the most current firmware version 3.15 loaded on the device. I ripped directly from CD a track to linear PCM WAV 16 bit at 44.1kHz sample rate. I then up sampled, using a command line WAV encoder called BeSweet, to 24 bit and 48kHz, and every combination in between. This left me with 4 files. I put all four tracks on my player in a special folder and then went to the music browser on the P2. Because WAV does not support id3 tagging, it is not recognized natively in the music library. You can, however, access all files directly via the file browser. The files appeared, but none played. Each gave the message: "Not supported Format." It is probably safe to say the P2 does not support WAV playback at all.
Excellent you tried that. Thanks a bunch, Sassafras!! It still sucks it can't play them back, but it's great you tried :-)


Quote:
I can already confirm that FLAC support is non-existent as well. So that's a non-issue. So, as it stands, the P2 has zero support for lossless formats and probably never will. Keep in mind that Samsung promises another firmware update in the near future that could support some sort of lossless playback. I wouldn't count on this, though.
We can hope. Even phones have begun supporting more and more types of big files – mainly because of the memory becoming cheaper.


Quote:
There was so much said in this thread, that I feel that I need to respond to some of it directly. I'll quote for coherence and readability.
Me too. These posts are huge. I'm sorry about that, you guys …


Quote:
You'll get no argument from me on this issue. In terms of perceptible audio, 65,536 is simply not enough possible values to accurately reproduce what we hear. It's like watching a movie on a 16 bit screen, there simply aren't enough colors to truly reproduce the entire color spectrum of what we see. The same goes for audio. 16,777,216 possible values more closely approaches an imperceptible quantization of an audio signal. Dithering becomes a non-issue, and you can make much less destructive changes to the signal in processing when you have a much more "discreet-looking" signal.
Exactly!


Quote:
As far as sampling rate is concerned, you don't really need to disseminate anything above 44.1kHz because it's possible to perfectly reconstruct the signal with that rate. Think Nyquist-Shannon and most humans hearing cutting out at ~20kHz if you don't understand what I mean.
Ah, yes. The Nyquist-theorem. The reason cd's are 44.1kHz/16bit :-(
All fine and dandy on full strength signals and equipment that are just as good as they are on paper. In real life, though, you can tell the difference between a 48kHz file and one downed to 44.1kHz. The reason I think this is is because frequencies affect other frequencies – and thus frequencies within the "normal hearing" area. But the real reason is this - just as you wrote:

Quote:
The rub comes when you're dealing with recording and mastering. You can't very easily do digital processing and filtering on a signal that's barely oversampled. That's where 48kHz and higher comes in to play. 48kHz gives you plenty of wiggle room and yet still doesn't bloat your saved file sizes to infinity.
Exactly, it's easy to push and pull, much easier to work with, and you want better quality to work on than wat you intend to output it as, basically.
To add a little nugget of an anecdote, in the US, some post production editors want the audio recorded at 48.048 kHz but labelled ("stamped") as 48kHz, causing it to play back 0.1 percent slower than recorded. The neat idea about this method is that it can be used really well, when working with 48kHz. Say I know I want to play something at a quater of the speed recorded –*I can then record the stuff at 192kHz, label it as a 48kHz-file, and have it play back at that speed, but at the quality of a 48kHz-file (because that is what it is) as opposed to slowing down a 48kHz file to 12kHz. Neat, isn't it?




Quote:
True. But as I said above, for the small, cheap, portable DAP market, it is extremely niche.
No it's not. Many, many players are able to play wave-files. They are, however, not able to play/decode lossless codecs as those are fairly processor intensive.

Quote:
And as far as P2 recording in WAV, that is not true. It is able to record from an FM radio broadcast, but it compresses it down to 128kbps CBR mp3. No WAV recording (or at least end-output) for the P2.
You're right. I just recall reading it somewhere that the recording was done in wav.


Quote:
I hope this helps somewhat Piper.
Very much so, Sassafras. Thanks again. :-)

I have taken the part about ripping CD's out. I will reply to that one in a post of it's own, later tonight.
Reply With Quote

  #30  
Old 03-15-2008, 02:56 PM
kasabian kasabian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23
Default

Not to advertise other players, but iAudio7 and D2.........

WAV: ~48khz, 16bit, mono/stereo

Seems more like what you need.

Did a Yahoo on Y2-P2 .wav and was suprised to find how many reviews have commented on it's lack of .wav support!
Reply With Quote

  #31  
Old 03-15-2008, 03:20 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasabian View Post
Not to advertise other players, but iAudio7 and D2.........

WAV: ~48khz, 16bit, mono/stereo

Seems more like what you need.
Yup. I know, but I sooo want to get myself a P2

You see, if it was just a matter of playing my files, and nothing else mattered, there wouldn't even be a reason for me to buy a portable player. It's about getting me the player where the "softer" features such as the UI, the hardware and my needs and wants converge.

What's funny is that even a camera like the Samsung NV15 does wave-files:
http://www.samsungcamerausa.com/prod...25&category=16

Oh, the irony


_______________________

I see you added the yahoo-line! Yes, I'm telling you, wav is not some "extreme niche only pros are interested in".
Reply With Quote

  #32  
Old 03-15-2008, 03:50 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

[]If you're going to be ripping your CD, you're going to want to use a ripper that has overly redundant error correction and jitter control. Also, you're going to want to use one that makes use of drive Accurate Stream features. The only ripper that can actually do this and guarantee you an accurate result, on even unscratched/undamaged CD's is Exact Audio Copy.

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

You need this program. It makes all attempt, more so then even ticking "error correction" in your other ripper of choice, to get a bit-perfect rip from any CD. It works on perfect CD's as well as the slightly damaged variety equally well. Read the literature on the site for more information. [/quote]

I kind of knew about that programme, as I used it a couple of years ago. However, I am a Mac user going the Thinkpad-hackintouch route in the near future so as of now, it's not even a possiblity. But, since we're talking ripping, not things like encoding, I'm not even close to worried that my rips aren't top notch (they are).

What one should worry about is of course crap "guesstimates", and thus artifacts – especially if you listen to MP3s and other lossy formats.

The thing about this (or basically any other form of ripping,) is that it _will_ do a better job than any CD-player that has to move on, in order to not interrupt the "data stream". The CD-player has to go with the best guesstimate much sooner than anything else.
(depending which playback-system you use, of course. But all else equal, it will better).

As error correction is just that, corrections, it's of course very good, that it goes over and over again, when the disc is damaged. But really, it's quite superfluous if your CD's are just reasonably in shape.

I am much more worried about jitter in playback-equipment, than I am when ripping, and I posed this question to an audio engineer-friend of mine, just to be sure. It's when playing back an audio file, jitter reduction has any meaning. And, just like me, he would be wary of introducing yet another layer of jitter-reduction, as that in itself, might, just might, introduce artifacts. And that was what we tried removing/reducing in the first place.

With this said, there's a huge pile of … snake-oil floating around, especially among "audiophiles".
As I said, EAC is good, because it runs over and over again and again, however, the jitter-claim is, shall we say, a bit of claim. And when ripping (reading the cd), the only difference is that it can check and recheck as opposed to a stand-alone cd-player many more times.
It's good, but it's not the holy grail.


–– all of this pertains to a "decent" print which isn't way damaged, of course.

For the life of my, though, I don't get why anyone would use EAC, if they're going to thin the crap out of it afterwards?
Reply With Quote

  #33  
Old 03-15-2008, 04:06 PM
kasabian kasabian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Yup. I know, but I sooo want to get myself a P2
You need to win the Lottery, then off to Samsung with a blank cheque!

It was just that I noticed above you said..............

Quote:
But the D2 has Wav-playback (I assume it's only 16bit/44.1kHz)
I noticed the 48khz bit on the specs, but you already knew. I suppose you are going to have to hang for a few weeks and see what appears in BlueWave3 and hope they read some of these forums and implement .wav (fingers crossed for FLAC).

You never know, they may just read threads like this.

SAMSUNG - WE NEED WAV AND FLAC!
Reply With Quote

  #34  
Old 03-15-2008, 04:14 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

[QUOTE=kasabian;226983]
Quote:
SAMSUNG - WE NEED WAV AND FLAC!
LOL, we certainly do! And as you added, it seems like quite a few reviewers out there agree with us

ADD:
Not that I'm leaving, but I just wanted to say thanks for a great thread, you guys.

Last edited by Piper; 03-15-2008 at 04:21 PM. Reason: Added the stuff below "ADD:"
Reply With Quote

  #35  
Old 03-15-2008, 08:15 PM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1,590
Default

So much happens in my absence, I have a hard time forming coherent posts without losing my already limited train of thought. I'll simply quote from above and respond in kind.

Quote:
Yet all the iPods, the Cowons and so on play more than just Mp3s. They play wav, MP4, lossless and so on. Heck, some of them even play FLAC and ogg vorbis talk about niche formats. I have to say this again: Wav is not a niche format. It's PCM, raw audio. And since my files are bwf (with the .wav extension) they support metadata too. But again: Wav is not under any circumstances a niche-format.
I wonder what you guys think goes into the DA-converter after the MP3 has been read and decoded?
Quote:
I want the P2 so much more than the Cowon D2. But the D2 has Wav-playback (I assume it's only 16bit/44.1kHz). And I'd venture that the D2 is far from anything resembling "pro audio equipment".
Even the iPods have this sort of thing, not to mention numerous other players out there. This "not able to play wav" is a decision Samsung made *not because of the hardware not being able to (at least at 16bit/44.1kHz), and certainly not because "it's a pro format". A decision I sorely wish they hadn't. In fact, I am quite sure that if you look at the code, they have crippled the firmware to exclude this (i.e. actually made an effort to not having it to work).
The P2 plays just about every format that most other DAP's play. About the only relatively "common" format it does not support is .WAV. This is intriguing as all bitstreams coming out of a codec are going to be linear PCM audio (aka WAV) before it hits the DAC. This is why most players support .WAV playback... It's really easy to do so without any additional coding. Thus I find myself in agreement with your statement that it seems Samsung purposefully sabotaged .WAV support in the firmware for an, as yet, unknown reason. I don't know. It's probably due to the fact that Samsung has made the decision to cater to the perceived mainstream crowd and offer support for music audio playback. To be honest, despite your assertion otherwise, I still believe WAV to be an extremely awkward format for music playback. I fully understand and will defend it for recording and production any day, but for music playback, I simply believe it's a trifle feature for a player sold to play back music.

Most players that do support WAV playback only support it at CD audio levels (16bit/44.1kHz) because it's just easy to add it to the list of supported codecs. It's the way the DAC reads the bitstream and it's no work to include it. I don't think any manufacturer actually intends to sell millions of units on the basis of WAV support alone.

Quote:
Not quite. First of all, I utterly disagree with the premise that wav is "niche" in any way, form or fashion. Secondly, because it isn't niche, it's not something you should need to buy pro equipment to play. I have that equipment the problem is, they make a piss poor pocketable audio player.
I think you're misinterpreting the nature of the argument I'm trying to make. I am not saying that WAV is a niche format. It's the most widely used format for digital audio in the word (.aiff container differences aside). The point that I'm trying to make is simply what I was saying above. For the portable Digital Audio Player market, a player designed to play audio is not sold on the basis of WAV support. WAV is a cumbersome format for final playback after full and complete mastering. For most (myself included) mp3 is a fully acceptable format when encoded properly, and for the more discerning listener, compressed lossless is still better than WAV. Uncompressed WAV audio is far too cumbersome if you're simply listening to to final stage work that you're not intending to later edit and process. Even as memory prices drop, it still makes no sense to use WAV as an end use format when FLAC does the same job at half the size. Not to mention the fact that as much as you might disagree, properly encoded VBR mp3 sounds the same as CD in 99% of A/B/X testing. Who buys a player to listen to music (that they rip from a CD) in uncompressed audio stream?

Also, I think you missed specifically what I was trying to say in that you are extremely niche in that you want WAV playback at something that is not CD audio specification. WAV itself, I still assert is not an appropriate format for end-use playback, and you're asking for a player that supports bit depths and sampling rates different from something a user would rip from a CD. I'm not saying that that makes it an irrelevant format, I'm simply saying it's like using a full hardware rack setup to compress Britney Spears to mp3. The purpose of the device is different. That's why there are consumer level devices and professional level devices.

Quote:
Exactly, it's easy to push and pull, much easier to work with, and you want better quality to work on than wat you intend to output it as, basically.
To add a little nugget of an anecdote, in the US, some post production editors want the audio recorded at 48.048 kHz but labelled ("stamped") as 48kHz, causing it to play back 0.1 percent slower than recorded. The neat idea about this method is that it can be used really well, when working with 48kHz. Say I know I want to play something at a quater of the speed recorded *I can then record the stuff at 192kHz, label it as a 48kHz-file, and have it play back at that speed, but at the quality of a 48kHz-file (because that is what it is) as opposed to slowing down a 48kHz file to 12kHz. Neat, isn't it?
Something like how 45 RPM vinyl has higher fidelity than 33 1/3 RPM ...

Quote:
The thing about this (or basically any other form of ripping,) is that it _will_ do a better job than any CD-player that has to move on, in order to not interrupt the "data stream". The CD-player has to go with the best guesstimate much sooner than anything else.
(depending which playback-system you use, of course. But all else equal, it will better).

As error correction is just that, corrections, it's of course very good, that it goes over and over again, when the disc is damaged. But really, it's quite superfluous if your CD's are just reasonably in shape.

I am much more worried about jitter in playback-equipment, than I am when ripping, and I posed this question to an audio engineer-friend of mine, just to be sure. It's when playing back an audio file, jitter reduction has any meaning. And, just like me, he would be wary of introducing yet another layer of jitter-reduction, as that in itself, might, just might, introduce artifacts. And that was what we tried removing/reducing in the first place.

With this said, there's a huge pile of snake-oil floating around, especially among "audiophiles".
As I said, EAC is good, because it runs over and over again and again, however, the jitter-claim is, shall we say, a bit of claim. And when ripping (reading the cd), the only difference is that it can check and recheck as opposed to a stand-alone cd-player many more times.
It's good, but it's not the holy grail.
It's not the jitter control that makes it powerful. It is probably, as you say, snake oil. I merely added that for the sake of the 'unenlightened masses' that like the big jargon sounding words to convince them.

The real fun of EAC is the overly redundant error correction. It's trying to read the CD as a bitstream like a drive would read a data disc, not like an audio stream which is what most rippers are essentially doing. Without ticking 'error correction' on your ripper of choice, you're essentially ripping the CD full speed like your standalone player would. Even worse, most rippers read at the full speed of the CD drive, and it's reading the CD probably 20x faster than the standalone player would, which leaves even less confidence in it's ability to get the bitstream right. EAC probably doesn't do any better than any other ripper can with a sufficiently high fidelity copy, but it never hurts to be sure.

Besides, as a format, CD audio is a little frustrating. There is no 'holy-grail' ripper, but EAC sure comes close.

Quote:
For the life of my, though, I don't get why anyone would use EAC, if they're going to thin the crap out of it afterwards?
Agreed there. Nothing worse than taking the time to rip your CD in a decent manner then saving it to 128 bit CBR mp3.

As far as your assertion that mp3 is basically a worthless format. Consider my own dispelling of the snake-oil about uncompressed lossless audio. To the end user listener--even so called audiophiles--properly encoded VBR mp3 is indiscernible from CD audio to a level that is statistically equal to CD. Listeners are given a sample of CD audio ("A"), then made to listen to the same sample encoded with the highest quality VBR mp3 ("B") (for specifics: -V0 LAME @ ~ 250 kbps_. They are then asked to listen to a sample ("X") and decide which of the two prior "A" or "B" by selecting one or the other. Only about 1% of the time do the results differ from 50% right/50% wrong (the expected null hypothesis). Thus, 99% of the time, a listener cannot tell the difference between mp3 and CD. Don't misunderstand, I don't mean to say that continual modification of said mp3 would not be distructive, simply that for end-use listening, it's a wholly acceptable format.
__________________
"Changed my mind so much I cant even trust it
My mind changed me so much I cant even trust myself"
Reply With Quote

  #36  
Old 03-15-2008, 10:49 PM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Excellent post, Sassafras!


Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
So much happens in my absence, I have a hard time forming coherent posts without losing my already limited train of thought. I'll simply quote from above and respond in kind.



The P2 plays just about every format that most other DAP's play. About the only relatively "common" format it does not support is .WAV. This is intriguing as all bitstreams coming out of a codec are going to be linear PCM audio (aka WAV) before it hits the DAC. This is why most players support .WAV playback... It's really easy to do so without any additional coding. Thus I find myself in agreement with your statement that it seems Samsung purposefully sabotaged .WAV support in the firmware for an, as yet, unknown reason. I don't know. It's probably due to the fact that Samsung has made the decision to cater to the perceived mainstream crowd and offer support for music audio playback. To be honest, despite your assertion otherwise, I still believe WAV to be an extremely awkward format for music playback. I fully understand and will defend it for recording and production any day, but for music playback, I simply believe it's a trifle feature for a player sold to play back music.
Well, I don't. But then again, I might be damaged goods, so to speak. Back in the days, I did find it awkward using wavs/aifs (little/big endian, yadda, yadda, I can tell you know the drill), but I have always chosen to use these formats ever since I went digital (except for a stint with [sigh!] Atrac (because of my HBB Portadisc)), simply because this format is the most universal. Especially if you want to reencode it. Yes, I have moved on to lossless for storage, but as you have already mentionen, not that many players out there do lossless, not to mention in a specific form, be it alac, flac or other formats.
Heck, Adobe Soundbridge doesn't do much else besides wav (yes, I know that's not a "consumer" app – praying it will eventually support much, much more).

Wavs are pretty big, I'll grant you that. But so is raw and tiff-photos, yet, as memory gets cheaper and more and more people see through the claims of "cd-quality" and "pro picture quality" (with jpegs, no less), more and more people chose to buy equipment that are able to play back/shoot/show these types of formats. I'll get back to the quality of lossy formats at the end of this post.



Quote:
Most players that do support WAV playback only support it at CD audio levels (16bit/44.1kHz) because it's just easy to add it to the list of supported codecs. It's the way the DAC reads the bitstream and it's no work to include it.
Exactly.

Quote:
I don't think any manufacturer actually intends to sell millions of units on the basis of WAV support alone.
Haha, no, of course not. But they could just not make the effort of shutting the option down, and through not doing that letting the consumer choose if he wants everything in wav, everything in mp4, mp3 or a little of each.


Quote:
I think you're misinterpreting the nature of the argument I'm trying to make. I am not saying that WAV is a niche format. It's the most widely used format for digital audio in the word (.aiff container differences aside). The point that I'm trying to make is simply what I was saying above. For the portable Digital Audio Player market, a player designed to play audio is not sold on the basis of WAV support. WAV is a cumbersome format for final playback after full and complete mastering. For most (myself included) mp3 is a fully acceptable format when encoded properly, and for the more discerning listener, compressed lossless is still better than WAV.
No it's not. It's just smaller files. Lossless doesn't sound better than PCM, nor does it do anything to the sound. However, you do get smaller files, but your trade off is general compatibility (until you convert the stuff to the format you'll be needing, obviously).

Quote:
Uncompressed WAV audio is far too cumbersome if you're simply listening to to final stage work that you're not intending to later edit and process.
They're bigger, but that doesn't necessarily translate into more "cumbersome" in my opinion. Some of my files I have to convert into wavs or a different lossless format in order to play them on a given player, whereas a straight-up wav rarely has that problem, unless the player is purposely crippled, of course.

Quote:
Even as memory prices drop, it still makes no sense to use WAV as an end use format when FLAC does the same job at half the size.
I am not trying to convince everyone to convert their stuff into WAVs, and I will never have all my audio in wavs either. Not at all. But the support to chose a file here and a file there to play it without the need to convert it is mighty handy. Just like having a player that can play flac is mighty handy, even if someone with a 4 gb propably doesn't want the thing to be filled with flac-files. But, if taken to extremes, most people listen to 128kbps MP3's, so why not stop right there?

Quote:
Not to mention the fact that as much as you might disagree, properly encoded VBR mp3 sounds the same as CD in 99% of A/B/X testing. Who buys a player to listen to music (that they rip from a CD) in uncompressed audio stream?
I'll get back to the blind testing at the end, but I never said I wanted this for the audio quality. I would want this for convenience, and not having to maintain more libraries than necessary. I would want this because of the ease one could dump a file on it, before getting up and leaving your computer. Let's say, that they do in fact come out with a firmware that "supports" 48kHz @ 24bit, then it wouldn't matter to one bit, if it had to downsample to 16bit/48kHz in order to play the thing, because it's about bringing that track, that audio snippet, that interview along with you in the easiest manner.

Quote:
Also, I think you missed specifically what I was trying to say in that you are extremely niche in that you want WAV playback at something that is not CD audio specification.
Well, I am certain the DAC can handle 16bit/44.1kHz, and as such, it _is_ cd-audio specced. Unless I somehow (continue to?) misinterpret what you're saying, it certainly is. Further, since even Samsungs cameras (!!!) play back wavs, their music players should too. Don't you find it odd, they don't?

Quote:
WAV itself, I still assert is not an appropriate format for end-use playback, and you're asking for a player that supports bit depths and sampling rates different from something a user would rip from a CD.
Well, I'm not saying it necessarily should play back at those bit rates, but if you look at the specs of cheap-ass dacs (I mean the chips, not necessarily stand-alones), most are at least 24bit/96kHz these days and many are 24bit/192kHz. The reason being, that the mere mention of this, actually sells stuff. Just like saying a given camera has such-and-such MPixels. Even though we geeks know that it's not that simple.

Plus they have become so cheap, you'd be hard pressed to actually find a DAC-chip only capable of running at a mere 16bit/44.1kHz.



Quote:
I'm not saying that that makes it an irrelevant format, I'm simply saying it's like using a full hardware rack setup to compress Britney Spears to mp3. The purpose of the device is different. That's why there are consumer level devices and professional level devices.
Nope. Not even close. You know just as well as I do, that theres much more to the equation when comparing consumer stuff to pro stuff than whether or not it is able to play wavs or at what bit rate. If only it wasn't, then I could make do with an edirol R9, haha.

Take a look at this link (sorry, had to link it this way, because if I remove the frame and link directly to the page, it asks for login). This is Wolfson chipset, the same brand as in the P2, albeit not the same model (more of this after the link):

http://*******.com/2tqg9t

[edit: the stars above should be changed into "t-iny-ur-l" (without the dashes) – I have no clue why it does that. But whatever, it's just a link to a google image search, and it's a looooooong url]

Take a look at how much that chip retails for in quantities of a mere thousand. Yes, that's right 1 dollar and 44 cents. And this was in fact all the way back in juli 2002. Six years ago.
Anyway, my point is, it would take nothing away from the MP3-afficionados out there if samsung chose _not_ to cripple the player in this area. Oh, did I mention their cameras are able to play WAVs?



[quote]Something like how 45 RPM vinyl has higher fidelity than 33 1/3 RPM ...
Haha, yes. Something like that


Quote:
It's not the jitter control that makes it powerful. It is probably, as you say, snake oil. I merely added that for the sake of the 'unenlightened masses' that like the big jargon sounding words to convince them.

The real fun of EAC is the overly redundant error correction. It's trying to read the CD as a bitstream like a drive would read a data disc, not like an audio stream which is what most rippers are essentially doing. Without ticking 'error correction' on your ripper of choice, you're essentially ripping the CD full speed like your standalone player would.
Yup.

Quote:
Even worse, most rippers read at the full speed of the CD drive, and it's reading the CD probably 20x faster than the standalone player would, which leaves even less confidence in it's ability to get the bitstream right. EAC probably doesn't do any better than any other ripper can with a sufficiently high fidelity copy, but it never hurts to be sure.
Nope, but other "rippers" have error correction too. However, I have to say, if something is severely damaged, I usually just give up, and get it some other way.

Quote:
Besides, as a format, CD audio is a little frustrating. There is no 'holy-grail' ripper, but EAC sure comes close.
It certainly is. I like buying the CD's, owning them and so forth, but I don't actually use them after they have been ripped. They're in waterproof and dark (=lightproof) boxes in the basement.



Quote:
Agreed there. Nothing worse than taking the time to rip your CD in a decent manner then saving it to 128 bit CBR mp3.

As far as your assertion that mp3 is basically a worthless format. Consider my own dispelling of the snake-oil about uncompressed lossless audio. To the end user listener--even so called audiophiles--properly encoded VBR mp3 is indiscernible from CD audio to a level that is statistically equal to CD. Listeners are given a sample of CD audio ("A"), then made to listen to the same sample encoded with the highest quality VBR mp3 ("B") (for specifics: -V0 LAME @ ~ 250 kbps_. They are then asked to listen to a sample ("X") and decide which of the two prior "A" or "B" by selecting one or the other. Only about 1% of the time do the results differ from 50% right/50% wrong (the expected null hypothesis). Thus, 99% of the time, a listener cannot tell the difference between mp3 and CD. Don't misunderstand, I don't mean to say that continual modification of said mp3 would not be distructive, simply that for end-use listening, it's a wholly acceptable format.

I'm not saying it's basically a worthless format. I don't like it for a variety of reasons. One of these is future-proofing my files. I know I could have both, but that means having to maintain yet another library. I don't want to do that.

Secondly, I think it's a stretch when people are saying that because a given set of "average" people can't tell the difference, then nobody can.
Most people can't even tell the difference between a file sampled at 16bit/44.1 kHz encoded to mp3 @ 128kbps and the original at 96kHz/24bit, played as pcm.
Further, most people can't tell the difference between good and bad headphones.
Then, of course, there's the problem that's inherent of any logarhithm: They're tailored to a given average audio file/audio fingerprint. MP4 is a much better codec for music, all else being equal. But it too have the same problems of lack of dynamic range, tailored to a given type of music and so on. In short, I am saying that I don't like mp3's as the quality, no matter how high a bitrate will have problems with some types of music, giving me, the listener, anything but the ideal listening session.

Further, remember the MP2-format? Although old as hell, it's still used in pro-audio. I am not kidding!
You can laugh (I would), but the reality is, that when it comes to reproducing speech, it's a much better codec than both mp3 and mp4. They're each tailored to a given "fingerprint". And that, in a nutshell, is my problem with lossy formats: I don't like the decision-part, and I don't like that the audio quality varies because of this. Hence I choose to not use lossy formats whenever I can get away with it.
I think that with the advent of BWF-files (wav-files with metadata) and cheaper and bigger memory chips/hdds that uncompressed audio will gain acceptance once again. MP2/3/4 and whatnot will slowly die, because it's simply not necessary to compress the shyte out of it in order to bring the best of your audio with you. Much like on the "photo-scene".

On the other hand, I'm not an "snake-oil-audiophile" by any means. I listen to my fair share of podcasts and whatnot, and I even have two (different) radios from Tivoli Audio I use a lot

(ouch, yet another humongous post …)
Reply With Quote

  #37  
Old 03-15-2008, 11:13 PM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1,590
Default

If this continues, this thread is going to rival wikipedia in the sheer quantity of useless knowledge.

Quote:
Wavs are pretty big, I'll grant you that. But so is raw and tiff-photos, yet, as memory gets cheaper and more and more people see through the claims of "cd-quality" and "pro picture quality" (with jpegs, no less), more and more people chose to buy equipment that are able to play back/shoot/show these types of formats. I'll get back to the quality of lossy formats at the end of this post.
I think I've finally found the nature of our disagreement. What it comes down to is the fact that I think I view the P2 and any other small DAP in a different role as I think you're trying to. For the record, my entire collection of CD (save the occasional crappy hot mastered CD that's not worth the effort) is encoded in FLAC on my hard drive. FLAC is easy to decode to WAV using a quick frontend program called Multi Frontend so whenever I want to do something to it, I can make a WAV out of in in seconds. I think the role of a DAP is to play back files in a aurally pleasing way without trying to specifically reproduce every slight nuance of the sound possible.

As you might have noticed, I just said that my entire collection is encoded in FLAC, but my primary player doesn't even support it as a playback format. Your next question is likely how I choose to listen to my files on a device that seems so limited in capability. The answer is: I take the time to transcode to mp3 any album as I want it on my device. It takes about 2 minutes per album using the same frontend encoder (Using the LAME codec) and if I was to transfer a significant chunk of library, would be very time consuming. Luckily, I only use my player to listen to tracks that I'm in the mood for, and on average, only about 4-5 albums are going on or off the player at any one time. That's not implying that my music tastes aren't eclectic, I have over 300 GB of music (stored as about 85% FLAC and about 15% mp3) and my mood changes as rapidly as the weather. I don't have a need for a DAP that is going to playback my files as I store them because, to me, the slight inconvenience of having a storage format and a playback format incongruence is minimal.

I understand your need, you're not wrong. You're just different

Quote:
Haha, no, of course not. But they could just not make the effort of shutting the option down, and through not doing that letting the consumer choose if he wants everything in wav, everything in mp4, mp3 or a little of each.
Agreed. Whole heartedly.

Quote:
I'll get back to the blind testing at the end, but I never said I wanted this for the audio quality. I would want this for convenience, and not having to maintain more libraries than necessary. I would want this because of the ease one could dump a file on it, before getting up and leaving your computer. Let's say, that they do in fact come out with a firmware that "supports" 48kHz @ 24bit, then it wouldn't matter to one bit, if it had to downsample to 16bit/48kHz in order to play the thing, because it's about bringing that track, that audio snippet, that interview along with you in the easiest manner.
That's the rub right there. I see conversion as a slight inconvenience, not worth the trouble to gripe. I think you're looking for a DAP that fully integrates with your workflow and doesn't require extra work to function as you desire. For that, I suppose the best option is always to make a post in this forum: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum...splay.php?f=65

Quote:
Nope. Not even close. You know just as well as I do, that theres much more to the equation when comparing consumer stuff to pro stuff than whether or not it is able to play wavs or at what bit rate. If only it wasn't, then I could make do with an edirol R9, haha.

Take a look at this link (sorry, had to link it this way, because if I remove the frame and link directly to the page, it asks for login). This is Wolfson chipset, the same brand as in the P2, albeit not the same model (more of this after the link):

http://*******.com/2tqg9t

[edit: the stars above should be changed into "t-iny-ur-l" (without the dashes) I have no clue why it does that. But whatever, it's just a link to a google image search, and it's a looooooong url]

Take a look at how much that chip retails for in quantities of a mere thousand. Yes, that's right 1 dollar and 44 cents. And this was in fact all the way back in juli 2002. Six years ago.
Anyway, my point is, it would take nothing away from the MP3-afficionados out there if samsung chose _not_ to cripple the player in this area. Oh, did I mention their cameras are able to play WAVs?
Your URL is blocked because we block certain URLs that spammers have been known to use. It's a decision we moderators make

The wolfsen codec is crap. Plain enough. Samsung made a poor decision in using this component on their SOC design.

Quote:
I'm not saying it's basically a worthless format. I don't like it for a variety of reasons. One of these is future-proofing my files. I know I could have both, but that means having to maintain yet another library. I don't want to do that.

Secondly, I think it's a stretch when people are saying that because a given set of "average" people can't tell the difference, then nobody can.
Most people can't even tell the difference between a file sampled at 16bit/44.1 kHz encoded to mp3 @ 128kbps and the original at 96kHz/24bit, played as pcm.
Further, most people can't tell the difference between good and bad headphones.
Then, of course, there's the problem that's inherent of any logarhithm: They're tailored to a given average audio file/audio fingerprint. MP4 is a much better codec for music, all else being equal. But it too have the same problems of lack of dynamic range, tailored to a given type of music and so on. In short, I am saying that I don't like mp3's as the quality, no matter how high a bitrate will have problems with some types of music, giving me, the listener, anything but the ideal listening session.

Further, remember the MP2-format? Although old as hell, it's still used in pro-audio. I am not kidding!
You can laugh (I would), but the reality is, that when it comes to reproducing speech, it's a much better codec than both mp3 and mp4. They're each tailored to a given "fingerprint". And that, in a nutshell, is my problem with lossy formats: I don't like the decision-part, and I don't like that the audio quality varies because of this. Hence I choose to not use lossy formats whenever I can get away with it.
I think that with the advent of BWF-files (wav-files with metadata) and cheaper and bigger memory chips/hdds that uncompressed audio will gain acceptance once again. MP2/3/4 and whatnot will slowly die, because it's simply not necessary to compress the shyte out of it in order to bring the best of your audio with you. Much like on the "photo-scene".

On the other hand, I'm not an "snake-oil-audiophile" by any means. I listen to my fair share of podcasts and whatnot, and I even have two (different) radios from Tivoli Audio I use a lot
I think you're confused where this A/B X testing came from. It was done by the HydrogenAudio.org forums, a group of devoutly audiophillic digital music aficionados who are far from the average consumer.

As far as different codecs being better at different sound "fingerprints" you're bang on. I wouldn't go about recommending mp3 for anything but music, because it's not designed to reproduce other sound types. It's bad for speech and downright awful for movie tracks and other things with huge dynamic range.

You could always look into the Speex codec if you want a really good high compression speech audio compressor
__________________
"Changed my mind so much I cant even trust it
My mind changed me so much I cant even trust myself"
Reply With Quote

  #38  
Old 03-16-2008, 12:00 AM
Piper's Avatar
Piper Piper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
If this continues, this thread is going to rival wikipedia in the sheer quantity of useless knowledge.
haha, yup, but I'm enjoying myself to a degree I rarely do on forums.

Quote:
I think I've finally found the nature of our disagreement. What it comes down to is the fact that I think I view the P2 and any other small DAP in a different role as I think you're trying to. For the record, my entire collection of CD (save the occasional crappy hot mastered CD that's not worth the effort) is encoded in FLAC on my hard drive. FLAC is easy to decode to WAV using a quick frontend program called Multi Frontend so whenever I want to do something to it, I can make a WAV out of in in seconds. I think the role of a DAP is to play back files in a aurally pleasing way without trying to specifically reproduce every slight nuance of the sound possible.

As you might have noticed, I just said that my entire collection is encoded in FLAC, but my primary player doesn't even support it as a playback format. Your next question is likely how I choose to listen to my files on a device that seems so limited in capability. The answer is: I take the time to transcode to mp3 any album as I want it on my device. It takes about 2 minutes per album using the same frontend encoder (Using the LAME codec) and if I was to transfer a significant chunk of library, would be very time consuming. Luckily, I only use my player to listen to tracks that I'm in the mood for, and on average, only about 4-5 albums are going on or off the player at any one time. That's not implying that my music tastes aren't eclectic, I have over 300 GB of music (stored as about 85% FLAC and about 15% mp3) and my mood changes as rapidly as the weather. I don't have a need for a DAP that is going to playback my files as I store them because, to me, the slight inconvenience of having a storage format and a playback format incongruence is minimal.
Well, that would seem to hit the nail on the head. I guess, that because I also have what I would call a "pro library" in this context, where I also keep track of which files are mono, which are stereo, what they contain (interview, church bells, in which country, town or place they are recorded) and what the topic is, whether it has been broadcast, and which bits (parts) were used where, how good a recording it is and on and on), I try to keep everything else as simple as possible.

Come to think of it, I don't think I would mind doing what you're doing if it were photos. It just becomes too much if I have to "work with" yet another format. It's bad enough having to incorporate and use Dalet* from time to time.

Quote:
I understand your need, you're not wrong. You're just different
Ouch, hurtful childhood memories of being "special" …


Kidding

I do see where you're coming from, though. We have different thresholds and areas which we perceive as "cumbersome".




Quote:
That's the rub right there. I see conversion as a slight inconvenience, not worth the trouble to gripe. I think you're looking for a DAP that fully integrates with your workflow and doesn't require extra work to function as you desire. For that, I suppose the best option is always to make a post in this forum: http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum...splay.php?f=65
I might do that. But I think I'll hold out to see what the BW3 brings. If it doesn't, I'll propably go Cowon D2.



Quote:
Your URL is blocked because we block certain URLs that spammers have been known to use. It's a decision we moderators make
Ah, I see!
Well, just don't blacklist me for being a spammer

Quote:
The wolfsen codec is crap. Plain enough. Samsung made a poor decision in using this component on their SOC design.
Yup. Never said it was good. Just saying that in 2002 you could get a same-brand 24bit/192kHz DAC for 1.44 dollar each if you purchased a 1000, so it's definately not price holding 24bit/48kHz back.



Quote:
I think you're confused where this A/B X testing came from. It was done by the HydrogenAudio.org forums, a group of devoutly audiophillic digital music aficionados who are far from the average consumer.
Yes, I missed that part. But that doesn't really change anything at the core of my statement. Namely, that a given lossy format is tailored to a given fingerprint.


Quote:
As far as different codecs being better at different sound "fingerprints" you're bang on. I wouldn't go about recommending mp3 for anything but music, because it's not designed to reproduce other sound types. It's bad for speech and downright awful for movie tracks and other things with huge dynamic range.
But my claim goes that bit further, in reality. I am saying that some tracks are really crap with either of those codecs. If only I could say it was this, this and that genre where MP3/4 blows it would be great. But I tried with Primus for example, and one track was allright, whereas the next, with the same sort of energy, much the same dynamic range and so on, totally blew. The reason is of course, it decision about which parts to throw out were less than well chosen for this sort of music. And, what really surprised me, that it has also happened with an artist like Lisa Ekdahl. But those artists aren't the only ones I have experienced this with, it's just the ones that springs to mind.

Quote:
You could always look into the Speex codec if you want a really good high compression speech audio compressor
I'm always up for trying new codecs, even though a codec like that will never make it into my workflow, or be able to be incorporated into anything at work. But I have no "need" as such to use it. My recorder has a 16GB CF-card in the slot, I have one or two extra 16GBs CF-cards in my bag, plus there's a 160GB HDD inside the thing. I can go on for a very, very long time without access to a computer – even if were running at 192kHz/24bit/stereo



* http://www.dalet.com/Solutions-for-digital-radio
Reply With Quote

  #39  
Old 03-16-2008, 12:21 AM
sassafras's Avatar
sassafras sassafras is offline
Samsung Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 1,590
Default

Quote:
haha, yup, but I'm enjoying myself to a degree I rarely do on forums.
Likewise. Although I think we've scared off the more meek among us.

Quote:
I might do that. But I think I'll hold out to see what the BW3 brings. If it doesn't, I'll propably go Cowon D2.
Cowon D2 is totally respectable anyway. It's more brick looking, but the UI is solid, and the player is totally quality in every way. In fact, considering that you seem to have headphones with slightly higher impedances (as noted from your profile), you might prefer the D2 because of it's massive output wattage. It drives 100 ohm + phones with ease. The p2 has a respectable OpAmp at 27 mW per channel, but it's nothing compared to the sheer power of the D2.

I chose the P2 for the pretty factor, and because I primarily use low impedance IEMs (between ~16 and 40 ohm) that don't need a massive amp to drive. Right now I'm stuck on my q-Jay armatures. They're probably the best sounding headphones I've ever heard that weren't large cans. By far. So precise and yet not cold, they're so smooth it's like candy in my ears. If you're looking for good IEM's, I would consider them.
__________________
"Changed my mind so much I cant even trust it
My mind changed me so much I cant even trust myself"
Reply With Quote

  #40  
Old 03-16-2008, 01:28 AM
Eredor Eredor is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sassafras View Post
Likewise. Although I think we've scared off the more meek among us.
on the contrary, at least for me... i usually stay away from such long posts.. but this is very interesting... i learned so much about audio encoding through this thread... i don't mind if you guys continue this for a few more pages :P

now i just need to aquire an ear which cares about these things(through time and expensive equipment which i can't afford atm i'm sure it will)
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 03:04 PM.