128gb sdcard database initialization

[luisdent]

I'm considering buying this: http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Ultra-MicroSDXC-Memory-Adapter/dp/B00IIJ6W4S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400714405&sr=8-1&keywords=128gb+micro+sdxc for my zip clip and/or fuze v2.

I'm using a 64gb currently with no major issues, but I do sometimes initialize the database and things are missing that are on the card. Even after reinstalling rockbox completely. Odd. But I can still play those files manually with the player "file" list view.

Anyway, has anyone used this 128gb card? From what I understand, saratoga said it should work, but how large is a database file? Will it still initialize properly if the card is pretty full? How long might that take? Should I get it?! :-)

I want to cary two 128gb+ sansa players!

[[Saint]]

From what I understand, saratoga said it should work, but how large is a database file? Will it still initialize properly if the card is pretty full?

Its irrelevant how large the database is, because it is stored on the internal storage, not the removable storage.
Go nuts, fill it if you want.

How long might that take?

Possibly several minutes for the initial scan, a matter of seconds for subsequent scans.

Should I get it?! :-)

Considering the extreme cost and the fact that you can purchase a player that is considerably more robust, of better build quality, and has a larger capacity, for considerably less....I wouldn't, but, I'm not you - and neither is anyone else - so this is for you to answer.


[Saint]

[luisdent]

$40 for a zip clip with superb sound quality and $120 for a 128gb card. That's only $160.

What player has even close to that space, better build quality and less money? No player exists that meets those requirements on the entire planet. :-P hehe

The only players that even have more than 64gb of space are physically large and extremely expensive and not really better in any way either. If you know of something I don't, please fill me in.

Also, the database needs to be stored on the external card or the internal player storage, but either way it takes up space. As I fill both storage areas completely with music, I'd like to know how big it is so that I can leave ample space for it to work properly. Is there a file I can look at now to check my current database size? I assume it will scale somewhat linearly with more music in terms of size? In other words, twice the music in the database would make it twice as big roughly?

[[Saint]]

You can pick up a 160GB iPod Classic for ~$100 in pretty much any locale. Which is arguably better in every way.
An iPod Video with an aftermarket 240GB HDD doesn't come in considerably more expensive either.

The iPod(s) is/are physically larger, sure, but they have an LCD that was actually worth including on a device, and don't feel like a McDonalds Happy Meal toy, being very well made. For instance there's no power switch to eventually break, no dinky plastic casing, and the device doesn't feel like its going to break if you look at it the wrong way.

Also - do keep in mind that if you fill the volume entirely, if you ever have to defragment the volume it will either a: take *ages* to complete, or b: not actually be able to complete at all. Generally speaking you'll want ~10% free on each storage volume to allow for the OS to grow/save configuration files, etc.


[Saint]

[luisdent]

You can pick up a 160GB iPod Classic for ~$100 in pretty much any locale. Which is arguably better in every way.
An iPod Video with an aftermarket 240GB HDD doesn't come in considerably more expensive either.

The iPod(s) is/are physically larger, sure, but they have an LCD that was actually worth including on a device, and don't feel like a McDonalds Happy Meal toy, being very well made. For instance there's no power switch to eventually break, no dinky plastic casing, and the device doesn't feel like its going to break if you look at it the wrong way.

Also - do keep in mind that if you fill the volume entirely, if you ever have to defragment the volume it will either a: take *ages* to complete, or b: not actually be able to complete at all. Generally speaking you'll want ~10% free on each storage volume to allow for the OS to grow/save configuration files, etc.


[Saint]

You're argument is funny though, because you keep talking about the clip being "cheap" in construction. I love the classic. I had two. But despite me being more careful than anyone I know (I'm a server administrator and understand the toll moving takes on hard drives over time or on sudden impact), and my ipod drive failed slowly because I use it so much. The read/write lifespan of a flash drive like a clip is much longer for this type of use than a classic drive would typically last someone. So with all it's physical construction superiority, it fails above all from the drive. I've looked into an ssd replacement, but they're nothing simple, standard, affordable, etc.

Then there's the size. The ipod is o.k., but once you go clip you never go back. haha I could do the fuze, but that's about it. The touch is ok because it's so thin, but it fails from being small storage and only touch based.

As for screen, It doesn't bother me personally. Resolution and screen quality are nice, and while the touch is very nice in this regard, I listen to music primarily on my clip and do other stuff on my ipod. I don't sit and watch my album art. So personally I don't find much benefit for that purpose. If it existed, that's a nice bonus. However, I never really miss having art on my zip. I use themes that don't even display art. And the text characters are more than enough, especially with adjusted scrolling speed and whatnot that it is just as efficient for me.

Anyway, the point is that for me personally the flash based durability far outweighs me EVER going back to a HD based player. I can drop my clip on the ground while using it and it's fine. Maybe scratched if you're unlucky, but it's light and reasonably durable. Drop a classic on teh ground and you're lucky if the drive isn't damaged. Even if a 250gb classic came out I'd be very hesitant to give up a 132gb sansa player for it. I value quality music listening above all else. For me the sansa players let me listen to music anywhere with comfort, sound quality, ease of use (without looking at the screen), portability (I like the clip), etc. I've yet to find another player to do any of this, let alone have 128+gb of storage with flash based memory. :-P

That's all I was saying. :-) So I find the classic better in almost no ways for me, and that used to be my favorite player. Take away the HD storage size, and it does nothing better for my usage type than a clip. And with the 128gb card, my clip is approaching stock classic storage. :-) But I want MORE storage. I'm talking 500gb flash baby! :-P I don't get the microsd card limitation on so many players! Even the clip is limited stock, yet rockbox works? What's up with that? Sandisk MAKES the darn microsd technology. Sheesh.

I'd gladly buy a fuze type player with four micro cd card slots and then gladly cough up $360-$480 (would wish it were cheaper though) for three to four 128gb cards. With the player, that is over 340gb-512gb. And a 64gb ipod touch is already $400. That would be awesome. An amazingly small player with insane microsd storage.:-P Or at LEAST a player with more internal storage. Say, 64gb and then add a 128gb card to that. But I think "most" people are typical users, and their statistics show they wouldn't use more than 16gb on a music player, because they're content with low bitrate mp3s. Blargh.

[[Saint]]

I've "gone clip", several models thereof, and I've gone back. Repeatedly.

I guess this points out how drastically different opinions within the same community can be.

The Clip line, to me, both looks and feels as though it is going to implode if I look at it the wrong way. The Fuze line I find not entirely dissimilar, though slightly better. If I had to draw an analogy, I would compare them to many Samsung mobile handsets, surprisingly well made, and surprisingly poorly made, both at the same time.

Fairly decent hardware crammed into a flimsy, creaky, cheap feeling plastic shell.

Now, don't get me wrong...I am by no means an iWhore or Apple fanboy, but those guys over in Cupertino really know how to make some well machined hardware. The software isn't worth a damn, as is the case with many devices from many manufacturers, but the hardware and fitting are top notch.

You raise a valid point in regard to longevity, this is inarguable, at least directly.

But I would like to raise the issue of repairablity.

If the NAND *does* fail for any reason, outside of your warranty cover (if you ever had any), your device just became completely useless. Whereas with a HDD based player, while it may be somewhat of a financial setback, you can trivially replace the drive and go about your business.

If the battery should balloon, or lose its efficiency after extended or improper usage, if you aren't handy with and familiar to a soldering iron, you can also kiss the device goodbye.

Personally, I value the repairabilty of a device. With an iPod (or, indeed, many other device lines such as the iriver H** series or the Toshiba Gigabeat series, for example), the above mentioned issues are trivially overcome.

The cost is greater. Most definitely. Would I purchase an iDevice brand new? Most certainly not.
Go to your local pawn shop and check out the deals there.

The cost, I believe, is negated in the long term by the reparability and overall quality. My iPod Video 5.5Gs are some 9 years old now, the Classic 6/7Gs some 7 or 6 years old respectively, and they all look and run the same as they did when I, or their original first owners, got them.

I have also converted several of them to large capacity solid state drives, and one of them even has an embedded BlueTooth transmitter and direct microUSB access to the compact flash card adapter plate routed to the case exterior.

I suppose it eventually boils down to each individual needing to consider:

Do I want to buy a more expensive device, with high build quality, and extreme longevity by way of repairabilty, or do I want to buy a less expensive device of lower overall quality and repairability knowing that if any part of it fails I will almost certainly have to replace the entire device, potentially negating any savings in initial cost?

The environment in which you typically use the device will play a large part in this consideration, I imagine.

I treat my audio players like a newborn child, because I have sunk a LOT of money into the customization of them. If for some reason you're in an environment where your device could be destroyed catastrophically by any number of hazards, I suppose the choice in which device to purchase is fairly obvious.

If your needs are not as demanding and the risks to the hardware less great, and you are wanting a device that will "Just Work" and continue to do so for years to come, the choice becomes a lot less clear cut.

Edited to add: An additional, slightly tongue in cheek, point to take into consideration is that if you "value quality music listening above all else" (assuming this means faithful representation of an audio signal), physical measurement suggests that you should most definitely be using another device.


[Saint]

[luisdent]

Edited to add: An additional, slightly tongue in cheek, point to take into consideration is that if you "value quality music listening above all else" (assuming this means faithful representation of an audio signal), physical measurement suggests that you should most definitely be using another device.


[Saint]

Definitely disagree on that last part :-P
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/sansa-clip-measured.html

I've done double blind tests between the zip and my ipod and there is no audible difference with any style of music with decent bitrate files. The clip+ he reviews in that link is the clip zip. They are identical audio hardware, and he says that.

As for the other points you made, I agree with most of them, however, I find repairing an ipod a risk in itself. You can easily damage them, and I'm a 15+ year computer technician/administrator. The third part hardware options are also limited, from sometimes sketchy sources, not cheap and not well guaranteed. The drive perhaps isn't too bad, but I can replace a 132gb zip with microsd with only the $40-50 cost of the player if it fails, or the $120 cost of the memory if it fails. The ipod drive alone approaches the microsd card and is more prone to failure again. But to each his own. I definitely have gear that i prefer to repair and have that option. It just doesn't add up for me in this case.

As to construction, I definitely agree with you that the zip feels cheaply made. However, I don't think it "is" cheap in terms of durability. The lightweight body and size make it very unlikely to be damaged if dropped, no moving parts reduces failures, etc. etc. But again, they both have ups and downs. :-)