Hi-fi Mp3

[eWoud]

I prefer to use quality presets. They are tuned and thoroughly tested by people who actually have ears (unlike Drak)

MP3 (+-192kbps VBR):
lame --preset fast standard

Ogg Vorbis (+-160kbps VBR):
oggenc -q 5

Both are perfect for HiFi, anyone over 20years old will not be able to tell the difference. (children have much superior hearing)

The gp2x however, has a low quality audio-out. There's a constant high-pitch whine coming through, the sound is very metallic and harsh (yes with different EQ's) and tends to distort when going over 80%. It's no match for high quality mp3-players like iRivers, iPods and Creatives. Too bad

 

[Spadger]

Drak - Please explain this "lagging" that you speak of ("...A few of my 320kb mp3s actually lagged with the mplayer...").

I think my comprehension is lagging behind your wisdom.

 

[donny662]

So, you are saying: buy a ~$300 program

Ahoy, matey! There be a rogue vessel off the starboard bow!

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We pillage plunder, we rifle and loot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We kidnap and ravage and don't give a hoot.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We download and share but with a loud w00t.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We extort and pilfer, we filch and sack.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Maraud and embezzle and even highjack.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.
We kindle and char and in flame and ignite.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We burn up the city, we're really a fright.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

We're rascals and scoundrels, we're villians and knaves.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
We're devils and black sheep, we're really bad eggs.
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.

We're beggars and blighters and ne'er do-well cads,
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Aye, but we're loved by our mommies and dads,
Drink up me 'earties, yo ho.
Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me.

 

[hairryharry]

Thanks again.

As a matter of interest has any one managed to play back flac or shn files (FLAC or Shorten lossless audio compression files) on the GP2X. mplayer on by linux box plays them both.

HH

 

[scorpio]

Considering getting GP2X for lots of reasons but wondering if the MP3 player sounds any good connected to a Hi-Fi.

Personally, I use one of these:

http://www.empeg.com/index.html

I would have doubts about the constant plugging and unplugging of the GP2X's audio jack, given the things I've read...

That said, however, the quality is not bad and would be mostly dependent on the quality you've encoded the audio at. There is a very slight hiss from the audio circuitry, but you'd only notice it when the amp volume is turned right up, at which point you'd probably have the neighbours around banging on the door anyway.

Also, when plugged into the mains adaptor, there is no ground hum on the audio which can affect some of these kinds of devices, so that's a plus.

 

[rokdcasbah]

I prefer to use quality presets. They are tuned and thoroughly tested by people who actually have ears (unlike Drak)

MP3 (+-192kbps VBR):
lame --preset fast standard

Ogg Vorbis (+-160kbps VBR):
oggenc -q 5

Both are perfect for HiFi, anyone over 20years old will not be able to tell the difference. (children have much superior hearing)

The gp2x however, has a low quality audio-out. There's a constant high-pitch whine coming through, the sound is very metallic and harsh (yes with different EQ's) and tends to distort when going over 80%. It's no match for high quality mp3-players like iRivers, iPods and Creatives. Too bad

i like the quality presets too. mainly because they seem to encode faster. but you do get the most bang for your buck with these regardless.

have you tried the optimized builds of the ogg tools? they fly. i'm encoding ogg faster than mp3 now (around 30x speed for q7).

http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/

 

[Crazy Goat]

So, you are saying: buy a ~$300 (I don't know how much soundforge is these days) program to basically use it as a GUI for a free program.

Slightly narrow minded. :lol:

 

[tshroom]

The GP2x supports OGG? Thats a great format. Half the size of an MP3 with the same quality.

 

[Drak]

So, you are saying: buy a ~$300 (I don't know how much soundforge is these days) program to basically use it as a GUI for a free program. Good thinking . I know soundforge is a good program for audio editing (I use an older Sonic Foundry version for recording, myself), but if you want to suggest a program for encoding mp3s, all you need to say is LAME is great for doing just that.

If you think 64kbps VBR sounds just as 128kbps CBR, I am happy for you and that may be the case for many people using cheaper headphones with the GP2X. Quality can be very relative, and I hope your perception doesn't change later on. I listen to some of the music files and CD's I fiddled around with 4-5 years ago, and I am appalled at some of the descisions I made, which effected the quality, which I now deeply regret because the originals have been either lost or damaged.

For any of my rips, I use ogg with the Constant Quality settings with a nominal bitrate of 160kbps. Getting an exact filesize is really what ABR is for, and since I don't need exact filesizes for fitting a certain amount of music on a CD or something, I use the better optimized CQ settings (at least better for ogg). Also, the overall quality of the tracks should be consistent; with an ABR encode, the overall quality of the tracks may vary individually with the complexity of the song.

I didnt buy soundforge. I downloaded it and cracked it No one would waste their money when you can crack it for free, unless they really want to waste money.

I can only tell a difference in quality on my computer from 64kbps to 320kbps, anything in between it is really hard to notice. I guess I must have horrible ears then guys

On the gp2x.. I cant tell anything at all with the rock/pop/normal/3d equalizers.

My headphones; however, are really nice sony ones that arent in production anymore I think..

 

[jmetal88]

I prefer analogue audio over any bitrate digital audio.


Go vinyl!

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

I think as far as sound quality is concerned, all MP3 players are not the same. It's all down to the quality of the audio circuitry and how good the D to A converters are. You can have a fantastic high definition MP3 or wav file playing, with the best EQ, but if the audio circuitry is poor, you will get poor output.

For instance, I have a minidisc, and a PSP in my handbag. The PSP sounds awful compared to the minidisc using the same headphones. This is not because the definition of the files on the minidisc compared the the PSP as they are both from the same source MP3s. It's purely down to the quality of the (as I said above) audio circuitry.

So really I think it depends on the hardware. I don't yet own a GP2X so I cannot compare it to anything I already own, but if it is like a PSP, then the output will not be fantastic when compared to a device designed specifically for audio.

Even in the world of MP3 players, some sound better than others, purely down to hardware again.

 

[iignotus]

I prefer analogue audio over any bitrate digital audio.


Go vinyl!

I'm sure you can hear the difference :rolleyes:

 

[Epicenter]

I have trouble distinguishing audio quality on the GP2X with that of my desktop and laptop computers, or my old iPod and my 2 PocketPCs. All the PCs and PocketPCs shared the AC97 audio codec and used software sound as does the GP2X, so this is logical. Some of the EQ settings really destroy the sound (Rock, Heavymetal most notably), but Classic, Jazz, and Hall do a lot to sharpen it and make songs with a lot of high frequencies (e.g. Techno, dance music, and game chiptunes) sound a lot more clear and pleasant.

I'm sure it's not up to the standards of major audiophiles, but what would they be doing with a device using a standard headphone jack anyway?

PROTIP: There's really nothing to stop you from utilizing a USB sound adapter (there are some VERY high-end models available) via USB Host and the relevant Linux driver. It would probably work 'out of the box' with a recompiled driver from standard Linux, but more proprietary models might not. (Creative?)

 

[donny662]

I prefer analogue audio over any bitrate digital audio.


Go vinyl!

I'm sure you can hear the difference :rolleyes:

Have you ever listened to a good vinyl recording??? It is much fuller and richer sounding than a CD. I have CD and vinyl copies of Pink Floyd's Animals, and I can tell you the vinyl is nicer to listen to. The only problem with vinyl is you start to get some artifacts like clicks, pops, etc., so I don't listen to the vinyl copy as often.

The only digital medium that could compare with vinyl are the new DVD-Audio and SACD formats. Although, I have never heard them, myself.

 

[Dimacus]

From what i have heard, your ability to hear weaker tones, and fainter sounds don't really change that mutch until your late 40's, unless you damage your ear someway.
Now there is a big difference between 256kbit and 128kbit, and it should be quiet easy to hear the difference if you listen to the same song, first 256kbit and then a 128kbit version.

Also, by listening carefully you train your brain to pickup the weaker signals from the ear.

 

[iignotus]

I prefer analogue audio over any bitrate digital audio.


Go vinyl!

I'm sure you can hear the difference :rolleyes:

Have you ever listened to a good vinyl recording??? It is much fuller and richer sounding than a CD. I have CD and vinyl copies of Pink Floyd's Animals, and I can tell you the vinyl is nicer to listen to. The only problem with vinyl is you start to get some artifacts like clicks, pops, etc., so I don't listen to the vinyl copy as often.

The only digital medium that could compare with vinyl are the new DVD-Audio and SACD formats. Although, I have never heard them, myself.

It's strange how the difference you're hearing is physiologically near-impossible. At least 90% percent of people who say Vinyl is better than CDs are complete story-tellers. The other 10% simply have a better analog rig than digital one (which may include badly mastered CDs).

 

[donny662]

I guess you haven't heard them side-by-side then. The fact is CD's and Vinyl sound different. Vinyl is analog; a CD is digital. Therefore, they will sound different. The people who first touted that it is "physiologically near-impossible" to tell the difference were trying to sell the product. Also, if it is impossible to tell the difference, there would be no need for the new DVD-Audio and SACD formats because people wouldn't be physiologically capable of distinguishing between a DVD-Audio recording and a CD. I'm sure if you heard a SACD and a CD side-by-side, you would think the SACD is of better quality, which can be quantitatively proven.

The same thing happens with guitar amps in the tube vs. solid state debate. On paper, the transistor and the vacuum tube may have the same properties, but in the real world they are going to sound different because a transistor is not a vacuum tube.

 

[iignotus]

The fact is CD's and Vinyl sound different.

They sure do!

Vinyl is analog; a CD is digital.

Yep. I said that. No wonder why it sounds familiar!

Therefore, they will sound different.

Well of course they will. They're not the same thing.

The people who first touted that it is "physiologically near-impossible" to tell the difference were trying to sell the product.

Nope, I'm pretty sure they're a people know as "Scientists".

Also, if it is impossible to tell the difference, there would be no need for the new DVD-Audio and SACD formats because people wouldn't be physiologically capable of distinguishing between a DVD-Audio recording and a CD.

You're right! There really is no need for any of those formats. The only real benefit from them is the range you get from seperation of channels. But you do, after all, only have two ears, so even that's not neccesary.

I'm sure if you heard a SACD and a CD side-by-side, you would think the SACD is of better quality,

I doubt I would, and if I did, it would either be because of a difference in equipment, or a placebo effect (including a perceived gain in quality with channel seperation, which is negligible).

which can be quantitatively proven.

If you mean "quantitatively" as in 'technically', then sure, in the direct sense of the word, SACD is considerably better than CD. However, if you mean "quantitatively" as in 'perceptually', then nope, that's a lie (myth sounds better though).

The same thing happens with guitar amps in the tube vs. solid state debate. On paper, the transistor and the vacuum tube may have the same properties, but in the real world they are going to sound different because a transistor is not a vacuum tube.

This is quite different actually, as this regards the output, not the input. If you had made an analogy with something silly like "high-fidelity audiophile-tested guitar cables", then it would be more accurate.

 

[rokdcasbah]

It's strange how the difference you're hearing is physiologically near-impossible. At least 90% percent of people who say Vinyl is better than CDs are complete story-tellers. The other 10% simply have a better analog rig than digital one (which may include badly mastered CDs).

it also depends on how the album itself was made, and who was in charge of mastering it.

- a well-made thick record has all of the "resolution" of a cd, and for an album that was recorded & mastered analog, you don't have to put up with whatever's introduced by the digitization process.
- some of the artifacts that result from storage and playback on analog media, whether tape or vinyl, sound good and can enhance the music.
- besides this, CDs are usually pressed "hotter" whereas with a record if you start trying to crank the signal too much you get high-end distortion from the needle.
- this means that often records have better dynamics than cds, which has to do more with the mastering than the 16-bit quantization.
- riaa equalization, although it should be transparent, does subtle things for/to a record.
- the masters deteriorate...

so it's not really a question of whether or not 44.1khz/16-bit sampled audio is theoretically indistinguishable from the original, since there's a lot that goes on during the mastering process that does make a noticeable difference. and on that note, it's not really fair to compare a CD side by side with the LP unless the CD is a remaster...often the CD releases are just rush jobs!

 

[donny662]

It's strange how the difference you're hearing is physiologically near-impossible

Therefore, they will sound different.

Well of course they will. They're not the same thing.

Well if they sound different (I meant perceptually by a human; though, you may have meant by an oscilloscope), people are going to say that one sounds better than the other. I am saying most people will say vinyl sounds better.

But you do, after all, only have two ears, so even that's not neccesary.

Have you ever heard a sound from behind you? How about in front of you? to the side? just a little off center? You may have two ears, but you can still hear in 3 dimensions. Multi-channel recordings are used because it would be an incredible technical achievment (next to impossible) to be able to get accurate 3 dimensional sound from two speakers, and multi-channel is the easy way to recreate a 3 dimensional sound experience.