Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files (Read 3665 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

I have a Colorfly ck4 DAP (made in 2011) that has issues playing certain APE files (these play fine in Foobar and other devices). Not sure what's going on ... might be some sensitivity  in the CUE sheet. Have a look ...
Plays fine:

Code: [Select]
REM DISCID 3C12DA04
REM COMMENT "ExactAudioCopy v0.99pb5"
CATALOG 0000000000000
PERFORMER "Suitner"
TITLE "Bruchner-Symphony No.8"
FILE "Bruckner - Symphony No. 8.ape" WAVE
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    TITLE "I.Allegro moderato"
    PERFORMER "Suitner"
    FLAGS DCP
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    TITLE "II.Scherzo.Allegro moderato"
    PERFORMER "Suitner"
    FLAGS DCP
    INDEX 01 15:36:10
  TRACK 03 AUDIO
    TITLE "III.Adagio.Feierich langsam,doch nicht schleppend"
    PERFORMER "Suitner"
    FLAGS DCP
    INDEX 01 30:26:05
  TRACK 04 AUDIO
    TITLE "IV.Finale.Feierich,nicht schnell"
    PERFORMER "Suitner"
    INDEX 00 57:21:60
    INDEX 01 57:26:23

"File ERROR!!" fault (does not play):
Code: [Select]
REM DATE 1996
REM DISCID 9C0AC50C
REM COMMENT "ExactAudioCopy v0.99pb4"
PERFORMER "Lush"
TITLE "Lovelife"
FILE "CDImage.ape" WAVE
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    TITLE "Ladykillers"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    TITLE "Heavenly Nobodies"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 03:14:12
  TRACK 03 AUDIO
    TITLE "500"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 06:11:72
    INDEX 01 06:13:17
  TRACK 04 AUDIO
    TITLE "I've Been Here Before"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 09:41:65
    INDEX 01 09:43:02
  TRACK 05 AUDIO
    TITLE "Papasan"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 14:17:10
    INDEX 01 14:19:30
  TRACK 06 AUDIO
    TITLE "Single Girl"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 16:55:27
  TRACK 07 AUDIO
    TITLE "Ciao!"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 19:29:27
    INDEX 01 19:30:37
  TRACK 08 AUDIO
    TITLE "Tralala"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 22:59:40
    INDEX 01 23:01:10
  TRACK 09 AUDIO
    TITLE "Last Night"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 28:33:00
    INDEX 01 28:35:52
  TRACK 10 AUDIO
    TITLE "Runaway"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 33:59:20
  TRACK 11 AUDIO
    TITLE "The Childcatcher"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 37:34:10
    INDEX 01 37:35:57
  TRACK 12 AUDIO
    TITLE "Olympia"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 40:49:60
    INDEX 01 40:53:15
Refs:
https://penonaudio.com/colorfly-ck4plus.html
!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #1 –
Are both CUE sheets encoded the same way? (On Windows 10, Notepad shows the encoding in the bottom right corner in the status bar. It's not 100% accurate but it should be good enough to tell if this is the problem.)

Are both APE files compressed with the same settings? Your DAP might not be powerful enough to decode Monkey's Audio at higher compression levels.

(I looked on the manufacturer's website to see if they had a user manual, but all I found was a poorly-encrypted firmware update, with nothing particularly interesting inside.)

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #2 –
Octocontrabass made a good call as the encoding can affect how players interpret cue sheets.

I would've said maybe it doesn't like the INDEX 00 lines, but the first cue has it and you say is played fine.

It shouldn't affect it, but maybe remove the exclamation mark in track 7 just to see.

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #3 –
The two files were made on different PCs, and most likely different OS's (version).
Sensitivity to compression sounds plausible. But the ck4 NEVER has issues with flac or mp3.
Not sure how different compressed file structures are BETWEEN the formats . Eg. FLAC vs. APE ? ? ? ?
!!!!!!!!!!
 

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #4 –
Quote from: jaybeee on
Octocontrabass made a good call as the encoding can affect how players interpret cue sheets.

Quote from: oh_no on
Sensitivity to compression sounds plausible. But the ck4 NEVER has issues with flac or mp3.

I think they intended character encoding - byte order, Unix/Windows style line feeds, etc - not audio codec. If so, try the below and see if it plays.
If the problem is ".ape", then try to convert the .ape image and change suffix in the FILE line.

Try to copy/paste this one into a new cue sheet and open it. Does it play?
Code: [Select]
REM DATE 1996
REM DISCID 9C0AC50C
REM COMMENT "ExactAudioCopy v0.99pb4"
PERFORMER "Lush"
TITLE "Lovelife"
FILE "CDImage.ape" WAVE
  TRACK 01 AUDIO
    TITLE "Ladykillers"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 00:00:00
  TRACK 02 AUDIO
    TITLE "Heavenly Nobodies"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 03:14:12
  TRACK 03 AUDIO
    TITLE "500"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 06:11:72
    INDEX 01 06:13:17
  TRACK 04 AUDIO
    TITLE "I've Been Here Before"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 09:41:65
    INDEX 01 09:43:02
  TRACK 05 AUDIO
    TITLE "Papasan"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 14:17:10
    INDEX 01 14:19:30
  TRACK 06 AUDIO
    TITLE "Single Girl"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 16:55:27
  TRACK 07 AUDIO
    TITLE "Ciao"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 19:29:27
    INDEX 01 19:30:37
  TRACK 08 AUDIO
    TITLE "Tralala"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 22:59:40
    INDEX 01 23:01:10
  TRACK 09 AUDIO
    TITLE "Last Night"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 28:33:00
    INDEX 01 28:35:52
  TRACK 10 AUDIO
    TITLE "Runaway"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 01 33:59:20
  TRACK 11 AUDIO
    TITLE "The Childcatcher"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 37:34:10
    INDEX 01 37:35:57
  TRACK 12 AUDIO
    TITLE "Olympia"
    PERFORMER "Lush"
    INDEX 00 40:49:60
    INDEX 01 40:53:15

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #5 –
Notepad++ allows you to set / change the encoding. So, ANSI, UTF-8-BOM etc. I always use the latter with cue sheets.

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #6 –
Didn't work!!!
I also removed the cue file (and all other files), keeping only the single large ape ( I can play cue and culess single flac's and other ape's just fine) . Still get "Play Error!!!"
!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #7 –
What does the foobar2000 properties say for the files that do play compared to the ones that don't?

Wouldn't it be easier to just convert all your Ape files to Flac?
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #8 –
From Foobar, the Bruckner file  notes a "Tag type" listed (apev2) while the Lush file does not.
Also from Foobar  ...
BRUCKNER: Codec profile: Normal
LUSH: Codec profile: Extra High
!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #9 –
It probably can't play the "Extra High" compression level of monkey's audio. try re encoding as normal or ditch Monkey's Audio and move to FLAC which is much easier CPU wise (and maybe battery wise) to decode.
Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #10 –
Quote from: oh_no on
Sensitivity to compression sounds plausible. But the ck4 NEVER has issues with flac or mp3.
APE requires significantly more CPU power to decode than FLAC or MP3, and higher compression levels increase the requirements. I agree with A_Man_Eating_Duck here: you'll have to re-encode it. (And yes, using FLAC may improve the battery life.)

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #11 –
Yeah ... when I rip, I use EAC and flac it. The ape files were ... ahem ... gifted to me, so I have no control over orig. rip.
Interesting that APE is more compressed (??) "per pound" than flac. Matter-o-fact ... dunno much about diffs between various lossless compressed formats .... just that I've used FLAC for going on 20 years.
DAPs act weirdly ... even latest high-end models. I own the Fiio M-11 Pro, a 2020 model. And  -- like the ape issue above -- this latest n' greatest DAP sometimes "Errors" out on certain 24/192 vinyl rips in *.wv format. Sucks when you're on the road and find that the SD card full of vinyl albums you were going to enjoy are useless!
!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #12 –
Just convert them to Flac with foobar2000 and update the Cue sheets to point to the Flac file. File size maybe a little bit bigger than the Ape file but that's down to the different compression format. The quality will be the same going from Ape to Flac (lossless to lossless).

Who are you and how did you get in here ?
I'm a locksmith, I'm a locksmith.

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #13 –
So why does APE (Monkey Audio) even exist?
BTW: The FLAC file was about 4MB larger.
!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #14 –
High compression, especially in the old days when bandwidth and HDDs were smaller.  Problem is that the high compression requires extremely high CPU time to decode (~1 GHz ARM for higher levels with a well optimized decoder), which not all portable devices can handle. 

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #15 –
Monkeys in its time and even now offers very efficient compression at default and 'high' setting. The 'fast' setting will probably outdo flac -8 .  The only expense is the decoding. But that is not too bad at these settings .  I had and P3-550mhz that played them with < 10 % cpu 15 yrs back.  I had a samsung S5830 phone with ARM and it played these modes easily.

Even the extra high mode is competitive when compared to Optimfrog and LA.

Re: Colorfly DAP vs. ape files

Reply #16 –
Quote from: oh_no on
So why does APE (Monkey Audio) even exist?

Because someone made it?

And why? Out of the needs at the time.  The first version was released a year before FLAC, so at that time there was not that much competition. WavPack was already around, though, but I think the main ground was held by Shorten which didn't even support tagging.

Edit: more about the formats at https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison .
Performance comparisons: http://www.audiograaf.nl/losslesstest/Lossless%20audio%20codec%20comparison%20-%20revision%204.pdf . Relevant is page 6, compression and decoding speed. (Decoding is done all the time, encoding not so often.) Notice how FLAC was optimized for decoding speed - and how much WMA Lossless sucks. Why does WMAL even exist? Because Microsoft wanted everyone to do their thing whether it was good or bad ...