[Kulin Remailer]

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio" but since you guys
DO know good audio I want to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC. I have
a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save me from
re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery dies??? Any and all
comments appreciated.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer wrote
(in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio" but since you guys
DO know good audio I want to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC. I have
a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save me from
re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery dies??? Any and all
comments appreciated.




Can't say about that specific model, but all the Sansa's I've heard sound
terrible, have lousy battery life, and are cheaply made.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kulin Remailer" wrote in message


I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio"
but since you guys DO know good audio I want to ask your
opinions on this player.

I have one, and find it to be eminantly useful and usable. Sounds good to
me!

I also did some bench tests on it, and it performs about as well as a good
stereo receiver. It is approximately CD quality.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and
plays FLAC.

I've played some FLAC files on mine, and they played well.

I have a large collection of FLAC rips of my
CDs and this would save me from re-ripping everything in
MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery
dies??? Any and all comments appreciated.

The battery runs the machine for 12-15 hours depending on how bright you run
the display and how long and how often. For the $35 or so that I paid for
mine, I think it would be a good deal ever if I had to replace it every few
years because the battery had became worn out.

[[email protected]]

On 2010-12-06, Kulin Remailer wrote:
Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio" but since you guys
DO know good audio I want to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC. I have
a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save me from
re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery dies??? Any and all
comments appreciated.


I've had a Sansa Clip+ for about 18 months now. I use Etymotic ER4-S
in-ear phones and Sony MDR-7206. The Clip+ is about the size of a
matchbox.

I think the sound quality of this combination is sufficient to consider
it a high-end device.

Battery life playing FLAC is about 12 hours per charge; 384Kb/s VBR MP3
gets about 15 hours per charge. Charging takes about 3 hours via USB.
I have not noticed a decrease in battery life yet; I use it for an hour or
two most days.

-dsr-


--
http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr/eula.html is hereby incorporated by reference.
You can't defend freedom by getting rid of it.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Kulin Remailer writes:
Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio" but since you guys
DO know good audio I want to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC. I have
a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save me from
re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery dies??? Any and all
comments appreciated.

I have a Sansa Fuse, which highly resembles the previous iPod Nano
design. I chose the Fuze since it has a microSD port for memory
expansion beyond the 4G it comes with. I use Sony in-ear phones and
192K VBR MP3s I rip with Exact Audio Copy. I am quite satisfied with
the combo for portable listening. I get around 15 hours between
charges.

-- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer wrote
(in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio"
but since you guys DO know good audio I want to ask your
opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and
plays FLAC. I have a large collection of FLAC rips of my
CDs and this would save me from re-ripping everything in
MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery
dies??? Any and all comments appreciated.

Can't say about that specific model, but all the Sansa's
I've heard sound terrible, have lousy battery life, and
are cheaply made.

????

Some earlier model?

We've got two votes for 12-15 hour battery life, good sound, and good build
quality.

The Sansa Fuze is larger, has longer battery life and a larger display.

[Kulin Remailer]

Thanks to all who have responded. I read your comments, thanks for taking
the time to post them. Due to the software I use for posting, my posts are
often lost. Some may show up out of order. I responded earlier but
nothing's shown up yet.

At this point the Clip+ looks to be worth trying given the price/feature
ratio. If it turns out to be a dud as Audio Empire had said then I suppose
I'll try and sell it to a high school student :-)

Cheers,

Alan

[Kele]

Sansa Clip is a good MP3 player, simple enough to operate in five
minutes without the instructions. It doesn't need to be used with PC
software. They say sound quality has been improved. My teenage
daughter's Clip was a daily driver for two years... I think she
pulled the control mechanism button off because she wanted a more Gig
model. She bought a Sansa Fuse+. The Fuse is slick once the
"swiping" menu access is mastered. I would get a Clip.

I still have one of the original iRiver MP3 players. It sounds very
good (MP3 320). I think the iRiver sounds slightly better (cleaner/
less tubby w/ MP3 comparison only) than the older model Sansa Clip. I
haven't spent enough time with the Fuse+ to comment about it's sound
compared to the iRiver. I no longer see iRiver players in stores, but
they still exist ( http://www.iriver.com/product/list.asp?pCode=001 )

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:46:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer wrote
(in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio"
but since you guys DO know good audio I want to ask your
opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and
plays FLAC. I have a large collection of FLAC rips of my
CDs and this would save me from re-ripping everything in
MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery
dies??? Any and all comments appreciated.

Can't say about that specific model, but all the Sansa's
I've heard sound terrible, have lousy battery life, and
are cheaply made.

????

Some earlier model?

Yeah, They used to be lousy. Nice to see they've improved 'em.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

I've had one for over 6 months. Sounds great on VBR files
I use. I replaced the stock earbuds with some Sony
(forget the model, ~$60). Sounds great to me.

I don't think I've ever listened to any of the digital players I've ever
purchased with the earbuds/earphones that came with them.

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

On 12/11/2010 9:25 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:


I don't think I've ever listened to any of the digital players I've ever
purchased with the earbuds/earphones that came with them.


I tried the ones that came with my first iPod.

They hurt my ears so much that that lasted about 5 minutes.

They also kept falling out.

Doug McDonald

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:57:57 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 12/11/2010 9:25 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:


I don't think I've ever listened to any of the digital players I've ever
purchased with the earbuds/earphones that came with them.


I tried the ones that came with my first iPod.

They hurt my ears so much that that lasted about 5 minutes.

They also kept falling out.

Doug McDonald

Earbuds seem to be designed on the (obviously false) premise that everyone
has that little fold of skin at the bottom of their outer ear, near the lobe,
which forms a channel that the ear buds can hang in. While many people do
have that fold, just as many don't. Those who don't can't keep ear buds in
place. There's nothing to hold them in the ear.

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

On 12/12/2010 11:15 PM, Audio Empire wrote:

Earbuds seem to be designed on the (obviously false) premise that everyone
has that little fold of skin at the bottom of their outer ear, near the lobe,
which forms a channel that the ear buds can hang in. While many people do
have that fold, just as many don't. Those who don't can't keep ear buds in
place. There's nothing to hold them in the ear.

Exactly, and I have huge ears.

This is off-topic, but so what!

I'm using Sony MDR-V150 headphones while exercising.
They are the best I tried at Best Buy or, before its
death, Circuit City.


Are there better ones suitable for such use? They have to
fit several requirements, including a tightly closed design,
a headband that will fit under my straw hat, and not be too heavy.
This lets out the very high-end designs.

Doug McDonald

[Mr. Finsky[_2_]]

On Dec 6, 9:17=A0am, Kulin Remailer wrote:
Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio" but since you gu=
ys
DO know good audio I want to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC. I ha=
ve
a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save me from
re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non use=
r
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery dies??? Any and all
comments appreciated.

I have owned a Sansa Clip (same as the Clip+ but no slots for
expansion) for over two years. I use Rhapsody for device management.
The sound quality is pretty good for a bargain price. I instantly
bought new earbuds (Sennheiser and Skullcandy), which improved the
sound quality to shockingly good levels. I also use Sennheiser PX-100
on-ear headphones, which can be driven by the Clip. Considering the
price and size, the Clip is a great low cost alternative to the
expensive toys sold by the fruit company. The Clip or Clip+ is
available at Amazon or Costco.

[Trevor Wilson[_3_]]

Kulin Remailer wrote:
Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end audio" but since
you guys DO know good audio I want to ask your opinions on this
player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC.
I have a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save
me from re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like
the non user replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery
dies??? Any and all comments appreciated.

**Based on the comments in this thread, I purchased a Sansa Fuze. It is, far
and away, the nicest MP3 player I've used. Sound quality is excellent,
whilst the user controls are the best I've seen. All in all, highly
recommended.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Kulin Remailer]

Thanks for your update and congrats on your new player!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:46:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer wrote
(in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end
audio" but since you guys DO know good audio I want to
ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap
and plays FLAC. I have a large collection of FLAC rips
of my CDs and this would save me from re-ripping
everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the
non user replaceable battery, throw it away after the
battery dies??? Any and all comments appreciated.

Can't say about that specific model, but all the Sansa's
I've heard sound terrible, have lousy battery life, and
are cheaply made.

????

Some earlier model?

Yeah, They used to be lousy. Nice to see they've improved
'em.

One tiny glitch - they play music 0.25% fast. I confirmed this with
measurements on my Clip+.

There is a fix - third party firmware called "Rockbox".

[Trevor Wilson[_3_]]

Kulin Remailer wrote:
Thanks for your update and congrats on your new player!

**It's a gift for someone and I am so mightily impressed, I may buy one for
myself. It really is head and shoulders above many other MP3 players I've
used. FWIW, it appears to be beautfully constructed too. I just love the way
it works. Very intuitive.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:19:30 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:46:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer wrote
(in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end
audio" but since you guys DO know good audio I want to
ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap
and plays FLAC. I have a large collection of FLAC rips
of my CDs and this would save me from re-ripping
everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the
non user replaceable battery, throw it away after the
battery dies??? Any and all comments appreciated.

Can't say about that specific model, but all the Sansa's
I've heard sound terrible, have lousy battery life, and
are cheaply made.

????

Some earlier model?

Yeah, They used to be lousy. Nice to see they've improved
'em.

One tiny glitch - they play music 0.25% fast. I confirmed this with
measurements on my Clip+.

There is a fix - third party firmware called "Rockbox".



One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone with perfect pitch
would notice that, it's not even a semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off
pitch. I suspect that the worlds best turntables aren't that close to the
perfect speed nor were the cutting lathes that did the masters. I don't know
what percent speed error that CD allows, but I'll bet it's not much better.

It's one of those differences that make no difference. I certainly wouldn't
worry about it (unless Arny put his decimal point in the wrong place when he
posted the above). What made you check, anyway?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 20:59:47 -0800, Trevor Wilson wrote
(in article ):

Kulin Remailer wrote:
Thanks for your update and congrats on your new player!

**It's a gift for someone and I am so mightily impressed, I may buy one for
myself. It really is head and shoulders above many other MP3 players I've
used. FWIW, it appears to be beautfully constructed too. I just love the way
it works. Very intuitive.




It's cheap too. I wouldn't replace my iPod Touch with one, but I think that I
would contemplate one before I purchased a Shuffle, a Nano, or a Classic!

[Esmond Pitt[_2_]]

On 22/12/2010 5:49 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone with perfect pitch
would notice that, it's not even a semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off
pitch.

Err, quavers measure *duration*. Pitch is measured in tones and
semitones, or commas and cents, or in Hertz.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:51:13 -0800, Esmond Pitt wrote
(in article ):

On 22/12/2010 5:49 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone with perfect pitch
would notice that, it's not even a semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off
pitch.

Err, quavers measure *duration*. Pitch is measured in tones and
semitones, or commas and cents, or in Hertz.

No, it's proper. The faster the playback runs, the shorter the duration of
each note, the slower it runs, the longer the duration of each note.

[Trevor Wilson[_3_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 11:57:57 -0800, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 12/11/2010 9:25 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:


I don't think I've ever listened to any of the digital players I've
ever purchased with the earbuds/earphones that came with them.


I tried the ones that came with my first iPod.

They hurt my ears so much that that lasted about 5 minutes.

They also kept falling out.

Doug McDonald

Earbuds seem to be designed on the (obviously false) premise that
everyone has that little fold of skin at the bottom of their outer
ear, near the lobe, which forms a channel that the ear buds can hang
in. While many people do have that fold, just as many don't. Those
who don't can't keep ear buds in place. There's nothing to hold them
in the ear.

**Correct. I can't wear the buggers either. I have touse the ones with a
clip that fits around my pinna.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Paul D. Spiegel]

Audio Empire wrote:

One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone with perfect pitch
would notice that, it's not even a semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off
pitch.

Haha! I love the use of the old British term "quaver" for musical
notation. I have rarely heard it since studying music in '70's here in
California. My recollection is that "quavers" refer to time and rhythm
and not pitch.

Wikipedia confirmed that a "quaver" is an eight note and a semi-quaver
is a sixteenth note. I remember that you could string the terms
together for really silly sounding, and confusing terms.

The fraction analogy works much better, I think. (I.e. eight,
sixteenth, 1/32, etc.)

BTW, I agree that a .25% increase would be hard to hear. Digitally, I
think it would just affect the tempo, and not the pitch.

Thanks for the laugh!

- Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:19:30 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:46:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer
wrote (in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end
audio" but since you guys DO know good audio I want
to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap
and plays FLAC. I have a large collection of FLAC
rips of my CDs and this would save me from re-ripping
everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like
the non user replaceable battery, throw it away
after the battery dies??? Any and all comments
appreciated.

Can't say about that specific model, but all the
Sansa's I've heard sound terrible, have lousy battery
life, and are cheaply made.

????

Some earlier model?

Yeah, They used to be lousy. Nice to see they've
improved 'em.

One tiny glitch - they play music 0.25% fast. I
confirmed this with measurements on my Clip+.

There is a fix - third party firmware called "Rockbox".

One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone
with perfect pitch would notice that, it's not even a
semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off pitch.

A brief study suggests that the Just Noticable Difference (JND) in pitch is
itself a function of pitch, but that 0.5% is a reasonable approximation:

http://www.avatar.com.au/courses/PPo...g/psycho1.html

I suspect
that the worlds best turntables aren't that close to the
perfect speed

If they are stable once adjusted, very close adjustments can be accomplished
by many means including the classic stroboscope. 0.1% accuracy is not
unobtainable with turntables and cutting lathes.

r were the cutting lathes that did the
masters. I don't know what percent speed error that CD
allows, but I'll bet it's not much better.

CD speed accuracy is as good as the time base in the players and recorders
used to make and play them. Good digital equipment uses 0.005% accuracy
crystals for their time base.


It's one of those differences that make no difference. I
certainly wouldn't worry about it (unless Arny put his
decimal point in the wrong place when he posted the
above).

In other terms, it is pretty well known that a Clip running the current OEM
firmware plays a 1000 Hz tone at 1000.25 Hz.

What made you check, anyway?

There has been some discussion of this fact on other forums.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:16:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:19:30 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:46:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:17:17 -0800, Kulin Remailer
wrote (in article ):

Hi,

I know portable players are not exactly "high end
audio" but since you guys DO know good audio I want
to ask your opinions on this player.

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap
and plays FLAC. I have a large collection of FLAC
rips of my CDs and this would save me from re-ripping
everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like
the non user replaceable battery, throw it away
after the battery dies??? Any and all comments
appreciated.

Can't say about that specific model, but all the
Sansa's I've heard sound terrible, have lousy battery
life, and are cheaply made.

????

Some earlier model?

Yeah, They used to be lousy. Nice to see they've
improved 'em.

One tiny glitch - they play music 0.25% fast. I
confirmed this with measurements on my Clip+.

There is a fix - third party firmware called "Rockbox".

One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone
with perfect pitch would notice that, it's not even a
semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off pitch.

A brief study suggests that the Just Noticable Difference (JND) in pitch is
itself a function of pitch, but that 0.5% is a reasonable approximation:

http://www.avatar.com.au/courses/PPo...g/psycho1.html

I suspect
that the worlds best turntables aren't that close to the
perfect speed

If they are stable once adjusted, very close adjustments can be accomplished
by many means including the classic stroboscope. 0.1% accuracy is not
unobtainable with turntables and cutting lathes.

r were the cutting lathes that did the
masters. I don't know what percent speed error that CD
allows, but I'll bet it's not much better.

CD speed accuracy is as good as the time base in the players and recorders
used to make and play them. Good digital equipment uses 0.005% accuracy
crystals for their time base.


It's one of those differences that make no difference. I
certainly wouldn't worry about it (unless Arny put his
decimal point in the wrong place when he posted the
above).

In other terms, it is pretty well known that a Clip running the current OEM
firmware plays a 1000 Hz tone at 1000.25 Hz.

That's pitch, not tempo. I would have thought that a digital player running
fast, would affect tempo rather than pitch. I.E., Middle C on the piano is
440 Hz fundamental. That means that the Sansa plays it back as 440.11 (more
or less) and that's a little sharp.

What made you check, anyway?

There has been some discussion of this fact on other forums.



Ah! But do YOU notice the difference? I don't think I would, and I'm pretty
sensitive to pitch.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:15:34 -0800, Paul D. Spiegel wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

One quarter of one percent fast? I doubt if even someone with perfect pitch
would notice that, it's not even a semi-hemi-demi quaver (1/64th note) off
pitch.

Haha! I love the use of the old British term "quaver" for musical
notation. I have rarely heard it since studying music in '70's here in
California. My recollection is that "quavers" refer to time and rhythm
and not pitch.

Wikipedia confirmed that a "quaver" is an eight note and a semi-quaver
is a sixteenth note. I remember that you could string the terms
together for really silly sounding, and confusing terms.

The fraction analogy works much better, I think. (I.e. eight,
sixteenth, 1/32, etc.)

BTW, I agree that a .25% increase would be hard to hear. Digitally, I
think it would just affect the tempo, and not the pitch.

Thanks for the laugh!

- Paul


Since a speed variation would cause a note to go either flat or sharp (in
analogue terms) it is an appropriate (if a bit arcane - and you're right, I
used it humorously ) word to use. BUT, you bring-up a good point. In digital,
running fast would not affect pitch, but rather tempo. And something running
0.25% fast or slow would not be detectable either way.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:27:04 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
BUT, you bring-up a good point.

But one that is quite wrong.

In digital, running fast would not affect pitch, but rather tempo.

Uh, it most assuredly DOES affect pitch, exactly the same
way it does in an analog system.

Hmm I read somewhere that just the opposite was true. But I'll take your
word for it! Your explanation, below, makes sense.

Consider the following. At 44.1 kHz sampling rate, a 1 kHz
tone has a positive going zero-crossing occuring once every
44.1 samples. If the playback sample rate is, in fact, 44.1
kHz, or one sample every 0.000022675 seconds (22.675 uS),
that zero crossing will occur once every 44.1 * 0.000022675
or 0.001 seconds. That folks, is 1 kHz.

Now, change your playback sample rate to, oh, 45 kHz, or
on sample every 0.00002222 seconds (22.222 uS). Now,
the zero crossings, occuring every 44.1 samples, arrive
every 44.1 * 0.00002222 or 0.00098 seconds (0.98 mS),
and that, kind people, is about 1020.41 Hz.

Yes, it affects tempo, including the tempo of individual
elements of waveforms and the very samples that make them
up.

Take it from me, I was very heavily involved in the design
and implementation of a vari-speed, vari-tempo and vari-pitch
DSP processing for a high-end digital editing workstations
and our life would have been FAR easier if your assertion
were true. But to get a pitch chift in digital without a tempo
change, or a tempo change without a pitch shift is a REALLY
tough job. Simply varying the sample rate CAN NOT do it.

And don't anyone dare say you can't have a waveform taking
up 44.1 sample in digital or any phenomenon involving fractional
sample periods, because I will stop this car, find a good sturdy
willow branch and switch your sorry bottoms into next week.


Merry Christmas to you too! 8^)

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 07:16:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

In other terms, it is pretty well known that a Clip
running the current OEM firmware plays a 1000 Hz tone at
1000.25 Hz.

That's pitch, not tempo.

In this case, they are locked together.

I would have thought that a
digital player running fast, would affect tempo rather
than pitch. I.E., Middle C on the piano is 440 Hz
fundamental. That means that the Sansa plays it back as
440.11 (more or less) and that's a little sharp.

Unless some far more complex trickery is used, pitch and tempo are locked
together.

FWIW I not infrequently use software that allows me to alter pitch and tempo
independently, but it takes a lot more than storing and playing a digital
file to accomplish such things.

What made you check, anyway?

There has been some discussion of this fact on other
forums.

Ah! But do YOU notice the difference?

I never did, but I don't have anything like perfect pitch.

I don't think I would, and I'm pretty sensitive to pitch.

Since it is about half the widely given and scientifically-obtained Just
Noticable Difference, it is pretty safe to say that very very few people if
anybody can hear the difference.

It's just a little irritating because the hardware is capable of far better
performance. Much better performance is commonplace with digital recorders
and players. The observed situation is due to a slight error in the
firmware.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 23, 9:30=A0am, Scott wrote:

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

kind of reminds me of a debate over this video.http://www.youtube.com/wat=
ch?v=3D3D8alxBofd_eQ
many people are convinced it has been sped up. I figured if it were
sped up the notes would all be too high. I figured it would really
tough to speed up the video and keep the pitch accurate.

Link looks broken for some reason. here is another link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8alxBofd_eQ

[Kulin Remailer]

It's just a little irritating because the hardware is capable of far
better performance. Much better performance is commonplace with digital
recorders and players. The observed situation is due to a slight error in
the firmware.

That's no error, it's just some smart engineer with an MBA that realized how
he could save battery life. He gets .25% more music out of a battery charge
than those crappy players that play music at the right pitch, and hardly
anybody notices. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


kind of reminds me of a debate over this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8alxBofd_eQ
many people are convinced it has been sped up. I figured
if it were sped up the notes would all be too high. I
figured it would really tough to speed up the video and
keep the pitch accurate.

In this day and age, software that changes tempo and/or pitch independently
is pretty common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_t...h_modification

I've been using this feature in Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition, which is
mentioned in the article. It is generally but not always sonically
acceptable. There's a definiate limit to how much alteration can be done
while preserving sound quality.

The article does not seem to cover a related technique for speech which
involves detecting and altering the duration of the brief silences that
commonly exist in recordings of speech.

Interestingly enough, my Panasonic BD-65 Blu Ray player seems to attempt
some kind of pitch-preserving time compression when implementing its first
step of fast-forward processing.

[Harry Lavo]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...

[ Excess quotation snipped -- dsr ]

Take it from me, I was very heavily involved in the design
and implementation of a vari-speed, vari-tempo and vari-pitch
DSP processing for a high-end digital editing workstations
and our life would have been FAR easier if your assertion
were true. But to get a pitch chift in digital without a tempo
change, or a tempo change without a pitch shift is a REALLY
tough job. Simply varying the sample rate CAN NOT do it.

And don't anyone dare say you can't have a waveform taking
up 44.1 sample in digital or any phenomenon involving fractional
sample periods, because I will stop this car, find a good sturdy
willow branch and switch your sorry bottoms into next week.


You type while driving, Dick? :-)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 23, 4:22=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



kind of reminds me of a debate over this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D8alxBofd_eQ
many people are convinced it has been sped up. I figured
if it were sped up the notes would all be too high. I
figured it would really tough to speed up the video and
keep the pitch accurate.

In this day and age, software that changes tempo and/or pitch independent=
ly
is pretty common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_t...h_modification

I've been using this feature in Cool Edit Pro/Adobe Audition, which is
mentioned in the article. It is generally but not always sonically
acceptable. There's a definiate limit to how much alteration can be done
while preserving sound quality.

The article does not seem to cover a related technique for speech which
involves detecting and altering the duration of the brief silences that
commonly exist in recordings of speech.

Interestingly enough, my Panasonic BD-65 Blu Ray player seems to =A0attem=
pt
some kind of pitch-preserving time compression when implementing its firs=
t
step of fast-forward processing.

So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I thought to speed up a
Youtube video while maintaining the pitch. You can probably get away
with some substantial sonic degredation on Youtube before anyone would
complain. The thing I notice in that video is a slight lack of sync
between the sound and image but that is pretty common on youtube
videos so I thought little of it.

[willbill[_2_]]

6 Dec 2010 15:17:17 GMT, Kulin Remailer wrote:

One of the main attractions is it's relatively cheap and plays FLAC.

Cheap yes, just $42 (Sansa Clip+ 8GB) from my local Costco
a day ago.

And another $42 for decent in-ear units.

Also (after struggling) finally got it to talk to my PC for xfer
of my EAC *FLAC* files which are especially impressive.

I have
a large collection of FLAC rips of my CDs and this would save me from
re-ripping everything in MP3 and losing quality. I don't like the non user
replaceable battery, throw it away after the battery dies??? Any and all
comments appreciated.

The Clip+ is a nice unit. IMO use it with your FLAC rips.

Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I thought to
speed up a Youtube video while maintaining the pitch.

I do things like this routinely.

You
can probably get away with some substantial sonic
degredation on Youtube before anyone would complain.

One of the good news items about audio production is that your work doesn't
have to pass a befre-and-after ABX test.

The thing I notice in that video is a slight lack of sync
between the sound and image but that is pretty common on
youtube videos so I thought little of it.

Loosing lip synch (or not even starting with it) is a common problem with
video. Once you get the video and the audio in lip synch, there's no
guarantee that they will stay together for the duration of the piece.
Making adjustments so that lip synch is preserved is just another cannonical
skill.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , Scott
wrote:

So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I thought to speed up a
Youtube video while maintaining the pitch.

For audio, we use a neat little program in our department at the college
called "The Amazing Slow Downer". http://www.ronimusic.com/
It's very help for slowing down music without changing the pitch, and
it's inexpensive.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 24, 8:15=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I thought to
speed up a Youtube video while maintaining the pitch.

I do things like this routinely.

I did not know you were dabbling in video as well.


You
can probably get away with some substantial sonic
degredation on Youtube before anyone would complain.

One of the good news items about audio production is that your work doesn=
't
have to pass a befre-and-after ABX test.

yeah no kidding. especially not for youtube.


The thing I notice in that video is a slight lack of sync
between the sound and image but that is pretty common on
youtube videos so I thought little of it.

Loosing lip synch (or not even starting with it) is a common problem with
video. =A0Once you get the video and the audio in lip synch, there's no
guarantee that they will stay together for the duration of the piece.
Making adjustments so that lip synch is preserved is just another cannoni=
cal
skill.

Thank you for your input Arny. I guess the debate shall rage on as to
whether this video was sped up or not. I have an opinion but it is
based on things that, well, don't really work as "proof."

When I was working on and off at MAD TV i would go check out the sound
checks for all of our musical guests, The proof was in the puddin
right there as to who had the goods and who didn't. Sometimes it was
surprising who delivered and who didn't. We had a few folks lip sync.
One of them didn't even know she was lip syncing. Funny how that went
down.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article , Scott
wrote:

So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I thought to
speed up a Youtube video while maintaining the pitch.

For audio, we use a neat little program in our department
at the college called "The Amazing Slow Downer".
http://www.ronimusic.com/
It's very help for slowing down music without changing
the pitch, and it's inexpensive.

Yes, $50 is pocket change if you are at all serious about quality
production. In my case a really-pretty-good slower-downer and speeder-upper
came with Cool Edit Pro which I bought about 10 years ago for a couple of
hundred dollars and use frequently to this day. However, I don't think there
has really been anything that competes with CEP for the Mac. Yes, there are
many other good editors, but CEP has always distinguished itself with the
wide variety of quality special effects that simply came in the box.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Dec 24, 8:15 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as I thought to
speed up a Youtube video while maintaining the pitch.

I do things like this routinely.

I did not know you were dabbling in video as well.

I do several video projects a week ranging from short videos to hour-long
productions. But as usual I don't work in enviroments that would bring me
much credit.

You
can probably get away with some substantial sonic
degredation on Youtube before anyone would complain.

One of the good news items about audio production is
that your work doesn't have to pass a before-and-after
ABX test.

yeah no kidding. especially not for youtube.

Youtube is often pretty casually-produced stuff. However, one sees quite a
bit of suboptimal stuff on cable and the big networks as well. Big screens
and HD make small errors more apparent, and digital seems to make errors
more frequent. A bit of the old learning curve, I suspect.

The thing I notice in that video is a slight lack of
sync between the sound and image but that is pretty
common on youtube videos so I thought little of it.

Loosing lip synch (or not even starting with it) is a
common problem with video. Once you get the video and
the audio in lip synch, there's no guarantee that they
will stay together for the duration of the piece. Making
adjustments so that lip synch is preserved is just
another cannonical skill.

Thank you for your input Arny. I guess the debate shall
rage on as to whether this video was sped up or not. I
have an opinion but it is based on things that, well,
don't really work as "proof."

Exactly.

When I was working on and off at MAD TV i would go check
out the sound checks for all of our musical guests, The
proof was in the puddin right there as to who had the
goods and who didn't. Sometimes it was surprising who
delivered and who didn't. We had a few folks lip sync.
One of them didn't even know she was lip syncing. Funny
how that went down.

One of the problems with video lip synch is that it gets quite a bit harder
to fix things closer than within a frame. IOW, the smallest nudge in the
software I use is 1 frame which is not necessarily visually perfect. I see
lots of stuff on TV that suggests that many of us work within these same
basic limits.