best song format

[natanelho]

at the last time i found out that i need to recharge my (rockboxed) clip zip more then once a day if i listen to music a lot that day. i use mp3 format for my songs, and i read somewhere that this isn't the best format for battery usage. i want to know:

1)what is the sound format with the highest sound quality?
2)what is the sound format that uses the smallest amount of battery?

i mean file type that rockbox supports
and i don't care about the memory it takes- i have 16 gb memory chip+ 4 gb internal for my 60 songs

sorry if it isn't the right place to post it - i don't know where should i place this post.

[saratoga]

Mp3 is pretty power efficient.  FLAC is maybe a little better.  You can see a table of codecs and bitrates here:

http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/CodecPerformanceComparison#AMS_AS3525v2_w_47_24MHz_PClK_40ARM926EJ_45S_41

[natanelho]

i don't understand anything from this table. so you say that flac is better than mp3 by its sound quality?

[saratoga]

I did not say that, however flac is a lossless format so by definition it has perfect reproduction.

[404_user_not_found]

1)what is the sound format with the highest sound quality?
2)what is the sound format that uses the smallest amount of battery?

1) Uncompressed PCM files (usually *.wav) or compressed with lossless algorithm - FLAC. Forget about hi-rez formats (above than 16 bit, 44100 Hz). Because they make no sense for increasing a quality of music, takes a lot of memory and not supported by hardware of sansa clip zip. They can be played, but they will be converted on the fly to 16 bit, 44100 Hz with worst resampler.
2) Uncompressed PCM files (usually *.wav) or compressed with lossless algorithm - FLAC. Also don't forget that CPU can't lower MHZ to any number. They have a fixed numbers of supported frequencies.

i don't understand anything from this table.

How to interpret codec test

so you say that flac is better than mp3 by its sound quality?]

Of course yes. Also you should read about lossless (flac) and lossy (mp3) codecs in google.

[ursamajor]

Concerning lossy formats...
For me, Musepack (Insane) sounds better than MP3 encoded even at 320 kbps.

[Fernando Negro]

From what I read, some months ago, the difference between a 320kbps MP3 file (only this type, and not the other lower bitrates) and a FLAC file is imperceptible. So, although the FLAC format doesn't eliminate any sounds, the ones that are eliminated by the 320kbps MP3 files are indeed inaudible - and, therefore, it makes no practical difference, on the listening aspect, if you're hearing such (high bitrate) MP3 files or FLAC ones. I read that this is even true for the most hi-fi equipments. And, that's when I understood how come a world-class producer of classical music, such as Deutsche Grammophon, would sell the best and most detail-rich music there is in MP3 format. (Which would be a "crime" for such good music, if that was reducing its quality.) You can easily search for information about this on the Internet. (Theoretically, FLAC files should sound better than MP3 files. But, in practical terms, it looks like the MP3 compression algorithm really works well, and eliminates only the sounds that are inaudible.)

But, this being said... I don't know anything yet about the hardware capabilities of the different players that can run Rockbox in it. So, perhaps - as it is said above - it makes the difference which lossy or lossless format you use, depending on the player...

[Fernando Negro]

And, speaking of hardware capabilities...

Can anyone here tell me where can I find detailed (or listed) information, concerning the "bits" and "Hz" playing capabilities of the different Rockbox-supported devices?

Is this limited capability, of playing up to some values - in this small portable players - noticeably different, in terms of results, from playing the same files on a regular computer?

[saratoga]

Can anyone here tell me where can I find detailed (or listed) information, concerning the "bits" and "Hz" playing capabilities of the different Rockbox-supported devices?

You can find a list of sampling rates supported by the rockbox device drivers in the config files, under HW_SAMPR_CAPS:

http://git.rockbox.org/?p=rockbox.git;a=tree;f=firmware/export/config;h=e3abed727ab38aaf520c9ea7a148fc4416046260;hb=HEAD

Some devices may support other sampling rates that aren't implemented though.  Usually most of these devices can be programmed to do almost any sampling rate less than a few hundred kilohertz if one is really willing to screw around with the PLL settings though. 

I don't think we have any devices that can actually output more than 16 effective bits, except maybe the DX50. 

[404_user_not_found]

Fernando Negro
For me there are no reason to use lossy formats anyway with hard drive and sd card with huge capacity. And with lossless you can use any lossy format of your choice without lossy>lossy transcode.

[[Saint]]

I am really surprised this question didn't get pummelled into the dirt by audiophiles.

Putting that aside, some of the statements made, whether in the view of an audiophile or just an experienced listener, are quite untrue.

While it may not be the case for some (perhaps most?) of the population, discerning listeners can certainly perceive a difference between mp3@320 and lossless codecs. When you know what to listen for, it can be very easy to pick up on artefacts from the encoding process. Especially in tracks you are familiar with.

But the simple fact of it is, for a large percentage of people, no matter how accurately your device can reproduce the samples, be they lossless or lossy, the monitors most people use will have a rather serious impact on whether or not the listener is able to perceive any difference.

Basically, it all boils down to "it depends".

It depends wildly on the original recording, how accurately the device can reproduce that recording, how much detail from that the monitors can present to the listener, and the age of the listener how badly theirs hearing is affected (for men in particular, loss in the higher ranges can happen at a fairly young age, regardless if hearing damage from environmental or industrial stresses is present or not. For women, this effect is somewhat lessened, and occurs slightly later in life as a general rule - this effect is known as presbycusis).

All in all, generally speaking, I believe it to be a fallacy to say that lthe difference between lossless codecs and high bitrate mp3 is imperceptible.


[Saint]

[monoid]

All in all, generally speaking, I believe it to be a fallacy to say that lthe difference between lossless codecs and high bitrate mp3 is imperceptible.

You are right. But.

The difference between lossless codecs and high bitrate mp3 is IMHO imperceptible for most of real world cases and most of listeners.

Of course, there are experienced listeners with good hearing, who are able to distinguish those two, if proper recording is played on the high quality equipment and good environment. But unfortunately it is probably a tiny, tiny fraction of percent of users and usage cases, I guess.

High percentage of recordings are of low quality even in loosles, high percentahe of users are not experienced listeners, high percentage of users do not have good hearing and high percentage of users do not use the equipment to take the advantage of loosless over hi-bitrate loosy. Not speaking about environment where high percentage of users listens to music. And also what attention they pay to music listened.

But still, I prefer loosless. But to be honest, I doubt I am a member of that tiny fraction of percent's group. Unfortunately, I have to say. I love music.

[Fernando Negro]

saratoga,

I've checked the link, and I was able to find that exact information. Thank you very much for your answer.


404_user_not_found,

Well, for the usual 32 GB limit of SD cards size, that the majority of players support, it can make quite a difference, in the number of albums you can put on a card, whether you use lossless or lossy formats. You can still put a good number of albums in an SD card using a lossless format, yes. But, if the quality difference is very (very) little to none, it ends up being more convenient to use a lossy format. (That's why I think this issue matters.)


[Saint] and monoid,

I know there are a few people (I don't know the percentage in the population) who can hear better than the average person. And, in those, yes, I know it can make a difference. I didn't state this - at least, explicitly - but I was referring to the regular audio listeners. (Since, I'm sure that the people who have "extra" hearing capabilities are already aware of such differences.) I just don't know how rare this persons are.

As for the difference between high-rate MP3 files and FLAC ones, I read contradictory statements on the Internet. But, having then read what I stated above (I remember it was on what it looked to be a credible forum, but I now can't remember which one was it), that some people reported that there was no difference, even in hi-fi equipments, I then concluded that the belief(?) that FLAC files were better, was just a "psychological suggestion" (I'm not sure what's the best term in English - but, what I mean is a kind of "placebo effect"). And, I have yet to make the test myself...

I guess it might be what monoid says... That you need to have an either "trained" or exceptionally good hearing, to notice any difference, at all. And, that might have been what I have read, also. But, being just a regular listener myself, what my memory kept was a simple: "there's no difference".

And, I suppose that the best thing for anyone to do, in order to clear his or her doubts, is to just make a "blind" test him or herself - and draw their own conclusions...

[monoid]

Yes, probably best way is to make a blind or even better double blind test.

My friend, who is sound engineer, who has a training, equipment, optimal hearing room and is young says that it has been prooved in many tests that people are not able to distinguish loosless and hi-bitrate loosy.

I would not be so cathegorical and I accept possibility that some people are able to in optimal conditions.

But, we speak about equipment worth thousands of dollars, maybe tens of thousands. I may be wrong, but IMHO if one uses DAP worth several hundreds of dollars and headphones in similar price level then even the best listeners with finest bat-ears cannot tell the difference.

I guess, the best is to have music in flac in computer or NAS, if your collection fits to a card, than no problem. If not, convert it to loosy for use in DAP (unless you are sure, you can hear the difference) and keep it in flac at source collection.

[[Saint]]

...
Well, for the usual 32 GB limit of SD cards size, that the majority of players support
...

In almost every single case when a device states that it supports "up to *GB", it is a marketing blunder.

The manufacturer and/or its marketing department is just stating that it has support for what was probably the highest density μSD card at the time the product was launched. It is incredibly rare to find a device which actually has an artificial (because it would be completely, and totally, artificial) limitation on how much removable storage the device can address.

In reality, if it were possible to manufacture cards with such a high density (and it isn't, we're struggling to get to 256GB) devices would happily address 2TB (yep, two terabytes, or two thousand gigabytes if you prefer).


[Saint]