Firmware suggestion: FLAC and FLAC lyrics support

[garnisco3]

I know that space is limited, but I really really wish for it.
MP3 320K sounds bad enough for making me want FLAC.

Oh, yeah, and lyrics support for FLAC wouldn't hurt either.

[raf1005]

Ogg 320 > FLAC

[rocktboy]

can you seriously hear the difference between 320kbps and wav?

i did an experiment encoding the same song with 320kbp, 192kbps, and 128kbps mp3, ogg and wav. I asked a co-worker to randomly play the same song with different encodings. I can only differentiate the 128kbps encodings from the higher sampling encodings, and I couldn't hear any difference between wav and any of the 320, 192kbps encodings....and I did this while concentrating very hard on the differences. So if I was just casually listening in the gym there is no way for me to tell the difference...

Don't get me wrong I like FLAC and I've been to audiophile shows where highend equipment vendor store songs on their laptop using FLAC and playing it back thru mega $$$$ (US$10k+) power amps and speakers. I am just not sure if it is really necessary on a device like the I5 and ear buds.

I may have way worse hearing than you do so if you can hear the difference between 320kbps and wav, more power to you!

[vinnie97]

Ogg 320 > FLAC

Qualitywise, that statement is false since 1 is lossless and the other is lossy. Also, a few people with golden ears have been documented to detect problem samples with mp3 even as high as 320. ;)

However, I think FLAC on the I5 is overkill.

[SUBMarcos]

To recognize better quality you must select a musical piece that has enough quality to test it. I mean quality as the arrangements of the instruments, some are in the background, some may be low frequency. If you play popular music you are not likely to hear a difference other than the bass sounds.

I recommend to test with a song that has a pattern in its beginning (so that no extra forwarding is required) and that is steady with background instruments. That way you only need to listen to the beginning of the song.

Do not use any effect or preset equalizer... do it in your pC not in your iAudio. If you are going to use headphones make sure these are better than your speakers.

Good luck

[SUBMarcos]

Ogg 320 > FLAC

Qualitywise, that statement is false since 1 is lossless and the other is lossy. Also, a few people with golden ears have been documented to detect problem samples with mp3 even as high as 320. ;)

However, I think FLAC on the I5 is overkill.


You are right in your first statement of lossy and FLAC. Why do you bring then an example dealing between mp3 and FLAC?? you need to convince yourself that ogg is way better than mp3.

[notguilty]

If you can hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC of the same music, here are 4 quick scenarios:
1. You haven't done a single ABX test, and it is placebo (this is easy to do with Foobar2000).
2. 320kbps is not --preset insane, but some wierd set of settings.
3. You ripped it poorly (pops, skips, chirps?), or used FhG.
4. It is a problem sample for LAME.

[garnisco3]

If you can hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC of the same music, here are 4 quick scenarios:
1. You haven't done a single ABX test, and it is placebo (this is easy to do with Foobar2000).
2. 320kbps is not --preset insane, but some wierd set of settings.
3. You ripped it poorly (pops, skips, chirps?), or used FhG.
4. It is a problem sample for LAME.


1. Done, and plenty.
2. Trust me, I tried the same songs with all the highest settings available, including API. I definitely didn't want to be stuck with requiring FLAC, but after the tests that's all I can point to.
3. I used EAC and definitely there were no pops or skips - the lower quality of the MP3 is more evident with its underwhelming bass clarity and the drop in detail (I wouldn't call the bass muddy, at 320, but definitely far from the WAV; plus the detail is certainly not all there and it is evident when background sounds are affected).
4. I tried different songs and styles, and it's not limited to a "problem sample".

I'm using UE-10 as headphones and since they're as transparent as they can be in a portable environment, with those you hear any imperfection: the highest quality MP3 is definitely not comparable with WAV.

[garnisco3]

Ogg 320 > FLAC

Qualitywise, that statement is false since 1 is lossless and the other is lossy. Also, a few people with golden ears have been documented to detect problem samples with mp3 even as high as 320. ;)

However, I think FLAC on the I5 is overkill.


You are right in your first statement of lossy and FLAC. Why do you bring then an example dealing between mp3 and FLAC?? you need to convince yourself that ogg is way better than mp3.


True, and definitely I would use OGG if there was no FLAC or WAV support.
I mentioned MP3, and I tried OGG, too - I heard subtle differences between the two, but nothing compared to how much better WAV sounded.

I'm not sure what raf1005 is smoking, but if it helps the perceived sound quality, please pass it along and I'll chill with OGG. ;)

OGG definitely gets my respect, although I cannot honestly say that I did blind tests between MP3 and OGG.
What I did was comparing MP3 with WAV and OGG with WAV (and we all know that FLAC and WAV are exaclty the same, right , raf1005?) and although I have to admit that OGG sounded arguably a bit better than MP3 (but, again, I didn't do a blind test between the two lossy codecs), it was still below WAV.

I agree that FLAC on I5 could be overkill, but it wouldn't hurt adding it as a feature, since I wanted to get a 2GB flash-based DAP to bring to the gym, while killing time waiting for the Rio Chroma (I have a Karma, already, but it's definitely not workout material).

[vinnie97]

Ogg 320 > FLAC

Qualitywise, that statement is false since 1 is lossless and the other is lossy. Also, a few people with golden ears have been documented to detect problem samples with mp3 even as high as 320. ;)

However, I think FLAC on the I5 is overkill.


You are right in your first statement of lossy and FLAC. Why do you bring then an example dealing between mp3 and FLAC?? you need to convince yourself that ogg is way better than mp3.

The same would apply for ogg. (I just posted in haste yesterday) ;) Also, I need no convincing as I use ogg exclusively on my I5.

[aguyinca]

I tried FLAC against 320kVBR OGG and MP3 PRo and MP3 (I can't remember all of the bit raites I tried). It's hard to test when you have to listen, remember and then replay the song with the new setting, but it was certainly good enough considering 320VBR OGG is about 1/2 the size of FLAC (I think it was compression lvl 5 or 6).

Unfortunately I still couldn't fit everything on my 40GB M3, so I convinced myself to go down to 192kVBR OGG. I can feel the difference between 192kVBR and FLAC, but since everyhting I have is encoded with 192kVBR your ears have a harder time telling the difference and everything seem near-CD quality... again it was a trade off for space since 192kVBR is approximately 1/4 of FLAC size.. which means the total compression is about 1/8 of a uncompressed CD. So I should get roughly 500 CD's on my M3.

BTW I've put over 500CD's on my M3 and I still have 10GB free (I assume the difference is mostly due to VBR. Now if they had a 120GB M3 I would have stuck with FLAC. :)

[notguilty]

If you can hear the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a FLAC of the same music, here are 4 quick scenarios:
1. You haven't done a single ABX test, and it is placebo (this is easy to do with Foobar2000).
2. 320kbps is not --preset insane, but some wierd set of settings.
3. You ripped it poorly (pops, skips, chirps?), or used FhG.
4. It is a problem sample for LAME.


1. Done, and plenty.
2. Trust me, I tried the same songs with all the highest settings available, including API. I definitely didn't want to be stuck with requiring FLAC, but after the tests that's all I can point to.
3. I used EAC and definitely there were no pops or skips - the lower quality of the MP3 is more evident with its underwhelming bass clarity and the drop in detail (I wouldn't call the bass muddy, at 320, but definitely far from the WAV; plus the detail is certainly not all there and it is evident when background sounds are affected).
4. I tried different songs and styles, and it's not limited to a "problem sample".

I'm using UE-10 as headphones and since they're as transparent as they can be in a portable environment, with those you hear any imperfection: the highest quality MP3 is definitely not comparable with WAV.It's a good thing those iPod muggers have no taste, then! If they had a clue, you'd be down just for the UE-10! :). However, if that's the case...I doubt you'll be in luck, and Ogg would be a better solution for the ears. I would be suprised if the player could get decent battery life with FLAC support.