| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Katie
Posting is for Closers
44 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2004 : 1:03:01 PM
|
| I'm looking at buying my very first portable player. The Neuros definitely looks like a good option, but since I convert all my albums to FLAC (quality is everything, I have absolutely no use for lossy formats nor giant WAV files), support for this format would be nice. The Rio Karma so far looks like the best option since it does support FLAC, and gapless playback too. My deadline is the middle of October or there abouts. Will the Neuros II have FLAC + gapless support by then? If so I'll hold onto my money to get an 80GB Neros. If not then I'll just move on right now. Thanks all! |
Your quick response to this post: (3 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
 |
|
|
noiz
Posting Mania
919 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 1:10:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katie
I'm looking at buying my very first portable player. The Neuros definitely looks like a good option, but since I convert all my albums to FLAC (quality is everything, I have absolutely no use for lossy formats nor giant WAV files), support for this format would be nice. The Rio Karma so far looks like the best option since it does support FLAC, and gapless playback too. My deadline is the middle of October or there abouts. Will the Neuros II have FLAC + gapless support by then? If so I'll hold onto my money to get an 80GB Neros. If not then I'll just move on right now. Thanks all!
the rio karma only has 20 gigs though, right. it seems like if you were looking for a portable audio player, you would want like 60-80 gigs. and yes, hopefully it will be able to support FLAC since the firmware source will be opened soon and then DI can have help on getting it implemented in the firmware.
-noiz |
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Chameleon
Posting Mania
1396 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 6:00:47 PM
|
That's the hope, anyway...
But truly noone can predict the future, that's why companies always put forward-looking statement disclaimers on any PR they put out talking about future developments.
The best advice we can and should offer is for you to wait and see if FLAC is available or at least being worked on by the time you are wanting to purchase.
I can attest to the fact that Neuros Audio, LLC has had a solid track record of doing what they say they are going to do, even if dates are sometimes pushed back due to circumstances beyond their control. I would say it's a relatively safe bet that FLAC will be available on the Neuros in the near future, but that's just a hypothesis... Forward-looking statement disclaimers apply.
-- 'I switched to Vorbis and saved a bunch on my hard-disk space!' |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Katie
Posting is for Closers
44 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 05:36:22 AM
|
Yeah, the only thing going for the Rio Karma seems to be it's playback abilities. Gapless OGG, MP3, and FLAC. That's pretty sweet, especially for someone who has lots of gapless material. The Gladiator soundtrack pops to mind for example. And it proves it can be done, so there really isn't an excuse not to have the ability. Unfortunately using the player in the car and at work, with minimal cable hassle and external power is just as important. In this regard the iPod (with Monster brand power/FM cable) and Neuros seem to be the best bets.
If FLAC and gapless ability could both be introduced on the Neuros, I think it would pretty much be the ultimate player, espeically for audiophiles. I think there are probably a lot of people out there wanting lossless/gapless abilities, especially if Hydrogenaudio.org is any indication. Of course, even with just FLAC (which would be better than nothing I suppose) you wouldn't be able to call it lossless if it can't be played back gapless.
The hard drive space is another concern too. If one is going to use a lossless format, then the more space the merrier and the Rio Karma definitely sucks in this area, with no hope for the future from the looks of it (have been looking through the Rio forums). That's why I'm interested in the 80GB Neuros at the moment. But if it's not going to be gapless then there is really no point, and one might as well get something smaller (like an iPod or iRivier) and just transcode all FLAC files to a lossy format. From my tests Nero compressed AAC seems pretty decent as far as really small files go. Ugh... why does choosing just the right player have to be so fricking hard?! ;) |
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
kronin
Posting Mania
1144 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 10:08:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katie
Of course, even with just FLAC (which would be better than nothing I suppose) you wouldn't be able to call it lossless if it can't be played back gapless.
Um, yeah they could. FLAC = lossless audio compression. Gapless playback has absolutely nothing to do with lossless audio files. I agree it's a nice _feature_, but that's all it is, not a requirement to stamp your player as being able to play lossless audio files. |
Your quick response to this post: (5 total votes)
I agree (60%)
I disagree (40%) |
|
|
|
Katie
Posting is for Closers
44 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 10:21:35 AM
|
| I disagree based on the opinion that lossless implies more than just how the audio is compressed. Ripping an album to a lossless format should inherently encompass how playback is handled as well, and is why these formats are gapless in nature. IE: one should be able to play back an album exactly how it was meant to be heard. You ARE losing something by not doing so. A two track song, for instance, that is not meant to have a gap, will on this player. Thus it has destroyed the lossless nature of the song by introducing a gap that should not be there. |
Your quick response to this post: (7 total votes)
I agree (57%)
I disagree (43%) |
|
|
|
nxg125
Posting Mania
310 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 11:05:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katie
I disagree based on the opinion that lossless implies more than just how the audio is compressed. Ripping an album to a lossless format should inherently encompass how playback is handled as well, and is why these formats are gapless in nature.
Well, that may be your opinion, I'm not sure many people would agree with that...
quote:
IE: one should be able to play back an album exactly how it was meant to be heard. You ARE losing something by not doing so. A two track song, for instance, that is not meant to have a gap, will on this player. Thus it has destroyed the lossless nature of the song by introducing a gap that should not be there.
No. Lossless means that you can decode the file back to its original state and all the bits will be there, i.e. none have been "lost". I'm not saying gapless playback wouldn't be great, because it would. However I don't see how it's tied to any particular format. If DI implements gapless playback for one format, they had better do it for all of them IMHO.
--Nick
|
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (50%)
I disagree (50%) |
|
|
|
kronin
Posting Mania
1144 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 11:16:30 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katie
I disagree based on the opinion that lossless implies more than just how the audio is compressed. Ripping an album to a lossless format should inherently encompass how playback is handled as well, and is why these formats are gapless in nature.
I agree that playing back albums that are gapless in an environment that isn't gapless sucks, but I have to say again that it is outside the idea of lossless audio compression/decompression. If you read the FLAC features page, and FAQ, nowhere is gapless playback mentioned. Now, that doesn't prove my point, but it's a pretty strong argument.
I don't want crossfading or gapless playback to be tied to FLAC playback, because they are completely different things. I'd love to have both, but to me FLAC playback is first. |
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Katie
Posting is for Closers
44 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 12:07:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nxg125
Lossless means that you can decode the file back to its original state and all the bits will be there, i.e. none have been "lost".
According to your definition of lossless, if the FLAC encoder added silent bits to the end of the file like MP3 does, which is considered to be a non-gapless format (LAME being an exception), it would still be considered lossless. After all, all the bits are there, right?
Regardless, the FLAC site doesn't need to say gapless because lossless implies exactly that. If you decode a FLAC file back to WAV, it will be a bit for bit copy of the original. If the format wasn't inherently gapless, the way MP3 isn't, then you wouldn't be able to do that. And if silence was added a the end, then by the definition being put forth here in this thread, it would still be considered lossless.
Not that any of this really matters. As I said, it's just an opinion and frankly I certainly don't feel anybody has to agree with it. Actually I originally picked up on it from frequently reading the Hydrogenaudio forums and when I put some thought into it, it made logical sense.
Edit: Forgot to say that I agree that support for more audio formats is more important than gapless. FWIW, there are 42 votes for lossless and only 30 for gapless according to bugzilla, which bears this opinion out too. I also agree that all formats should be made gapless if possible, not just FLAC. |
Edited by - Katie on 08/24/2004 12:11:37 PM |
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (50%)
I disagree (50%) |
|
|
|
Chameleon
Posting Mania
1396 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 12:36:07 PM
|
Katie, you are inconsistent and confused.
Lossless and Gapless are independent.
If the encoder introduced extra padding, but retained every bit of the original audio and could decode that audio to a stream identical to the original, then YES, that IS lossless since it didn't lose anything. The padding would be undesirable, but that does not make it lossy.
However, a "smart crossfader" can make even MP3 audio gapless, yet MP3 remains lossy.
-- 'I switched to Vorbis and saved a bunch on my hard-disk space!' |
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (100%) |
|
|
|
nxg125
Posting Mania
310 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 12:43:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katie
quote:
Originally posted by nxg125
Lossless means that you can decode the file back to its original state and all the bits will be there, i.e. none have been "lost".
According to your definition of lossless, if the FLAC encoder added silent bits to the end of the file like MP3 does, which is considered to be a non-gapless format (LAME being an exception), it would still be considered lossless. After all, all the bits are there, right?
Well, you bring up a good point there. It seems like everybody assumes (maybe correctly so?) that encoders will only remove bits, not add them. The situation you mentioned is not really lossless, maybe it's more like "gainful" I guess what lossless means to me is that you can go from WAV > FLAC > WAV and end up with exactly what you started with, no more, no less.
quote:
Regardless, the FLAC site doesn't need to say gapless because lossless implies exactly that. If you decode a FLAC file back to WAV, it will be a bit for bit copy of the original. If the format wasn't inherently gapless, the way MP3 isn't, then you wouldn't be able to do that. And if silence was added a the end, then by the definition being put forth here in this thread, it would still be considered lossless.
I still disagree with that. I'm not sure how decoding a FLAC file back to WAV has any bearing on whether it's gapless or not. When the Neuros moves from one track to the next, whether it's Ogg Vorbis, WAV, someday FLAC, whatever, there is a pause as the new track is cached. It's not skipping over any information, just delaying it.
--Nick
|
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Katie
Posting is for Closers
44 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 08:29:11 AM
|
| I think what I'm trying to say is that while FLAC (and similar formats) are indeed lossless, that when you add gapless playback they are even more lossless (if that maeks any sense). Ok, maybe I'm crazy (probably). You don't have to agree with me and I don't expect anyone to. What it realy comes down to in the end is that gapless makes a great thing even better. The playback is more "true" to the original with gapless than without. And that's what the concept of lossless is all about, isn't it? Being true to the original. ;) |
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Chameleon
Posting Mania
1396 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 10:44:33 AM
|
Well, there's a simple solution... Encode the entire album without track separations into a single FLAC file. No gaps, guaranteed.
-- 'I switched to Vorbis and saved a bunch on my hard-disk space!' |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Katie
Posting is for Closers
44 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 1:45:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chameleon
Well, there's a simple solution... Encode the entire album without track separations into a single FLAC file. No gaps, guaranteed.
-- 'I switched to Vorbis and saved a bunch on my hard-disk space!'
Yep, that's definitely one possible solution too, especially if cue-sheet support could be added to the Neuros (I'm assuming it doesn't).  |
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Chameleon
Posting Mania
1396 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2004 : 2:14:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Katie
Yep, that's definitely one possible solution too, especially if cue-sheet support could be added to the Neuros (I'm assuming it doesn't).
CUE sheet support is not currently available, but I did just add a new enhancement request to BugZilla, just for you. 
http://bugzilla.neurosaudio.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=282
-- 'I switched to Vorbis and saved a bunch on my hard-disk space!' |
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Ziviyr
Posting Profoundly
129 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 3:54:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chameleon
CUE sheet support is not currently available, but I did just add a new enhancement request to BugZilla, just for you.
http://bugzilla.neurosaudio.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=282
If you can stick that link into the "FLAC support implemented!" thread when it appears. It'll definitely get my vote then. |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Chameleon
Posting Mania
1396 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 6:38:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ziviyr
quote:
Originally posted by Chameleon
CUE sheet support is not currently available, but I did just add a new enhancement request to BugZilla, just for you.
http://bugzilla.neurosaudio.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=282
If you can stick that link into the "FLAC support implemented!" thread when it appears. It'll definitely get my vote then.
Are you voting for Lossless Codec support?
-- 'I switched to Vorbis and saved a bunch on my hard-disk space!' |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Gar Bage
Posting Profoundly
108 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2004 : 6:39:46 PM
|
To my knowledge there is no such thing as a FLAC integer-only C library.
Maybe, I'm wrong, but FLAC makes extensively use of floating-point operations so it could be a really pain to make the Neuros *encode* to FLAC in realtime. Wich, in turn, it's the only use for FLAC i'd recommend for a portable device... taping or live recording.
-- Use the source, Luke |
Your quick response to this post: (3 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (100%) |
|
|
|
fatoldpig
Likes to Post
19 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 3:33:17 PM
|
| any news on FLAC playback support? when it'll be available or be available at all? I've been looking around here for a while but no luck. This is only thing holding me back. I have over 500GB of lossless (flac/shn) music backed up in various harddrived & dvds and I'm tired of burning cds (I mostly listen in my car). I have no intension of converting them to any lossy (mp3) format. |
Your quick response to this post: (3 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
webkid
Posting Mania
1590 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 10:30:58 PM
|
| There are people who are considering working on it... but don't hold your breath. If you'd like to do it yourself, by all means: http://neuros-firmware.sf.net |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Lossless Audio Format?
