Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › SQ - iRiver Clix2 vs Sony NWZ-A8xx vs Teclast T39 or iAudio D2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SQ - iRiver Clix2 vs Sony NWZ-A8xx vs Teclast T39 or iAudio D2

post #1 of 21
3/28/08 at 2:52am
Thread Starter 
Want to buy a new player , i had Cowon G3 then Mcody MX700 but with these models a ihave big problems so can you advice which model has the best sound quality that i only prefer , i found some sound comparison here :

12 baladeurs MP3 classés suivant leur qualité audio, par GMP3 | Generation MP3 : le blog des baladeurs MP3

what do u think about this comparison?
Reply
post #2 of 21
3/28/08 at 11:16am
i think this comparsion is not based on SQ.
Reply
post #3 of 21
3/28/08 at 11:22am
You can hardly find Teclast T39 now. So you might take it off from your list.
Reply
post #4 of 21
3/30/08 at 7:47am
Thread Starter 
I am from czech rep. and no probelm for me to get Teclast T39 but cant find any good review based on sound quality so is it risk buy it?
Sony 8xx and iriver clix2 has good SQ warm an detailed... but teclast ? ¨
Found here on this forum that it sounds like iaudio d2 but warmly near to iriver clix2 ?
Reply
post #5 of 21
3/30/08 at 11:28am
I did not hear clix2. So I cannot say anything with it.

T39 is extremely good with playing lossless (flac). With playing flac, it completely beat sony 8xx. When T39 plays flac, you will feel like you are listening to md or discman.

But if you compare both with playing mp3, Sony wins.

Also, you will find Sony has hiss.
Another good thing about T39 is the hardware EQ, it is strong and natural.
T39's sound is not cold and warm. It is in the middle.

However, T39's firmware has tons of bugs, if you like it's sound, you got to live with the bugs like me.

If you going to play alots of mp3 and like bass, go for sony.
If you going to play lossless and want no hiss, you may want to go for T39, it sounds so awesome.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackfear View Post
I am from czech rep. and no probelm for me to get Teclast T39 but cant find any good review based on sound quality so is it risk buy it?
Sony 8xx and iriver clix2 has good SQ warm an detailed... but teclast ? ¨
Found here on this forum that it sounds like iaudio d2 but warmly near to iriver clix2 ?
Reply
post #6 of 21
4/4/08 at 9:48pm
second the t39 option, despite the bugs and problems with equalizer ( on high levels, you simply get distorion)

On the other hand I suggest Iriver e10 - it may be hdd based, only 6gigs, but when it comes to sq it sounds like t39 just with little more bass and little less highs, the mids are, however, the same - coloured, beautifully and naturally presented

What is more, e10 has got a much better firmware than t39 and is not so buggy, eq works well too.

The only drawback is that it cannot play lossless - not a problem for me because I cannot distinguish ogg q8 and higher from flac/wav


Personally , I ended up keepin both of them - teclast t39 and iriver e10
Reply
post #7 of 21
4/5/08 at 10:58am
if the teclast plays flac and mp3 completely differently, then it has obvious problems in the firmware to decode mp3. they should not sound night and day different from any player. on that review alone, it would be hard to use the teclast as i use mp3 - too much space to waste with flac on a small flash player. glad it sounds good though.
Reply
post #8 of 21
4/5/08 at 4:04pm
the problem is T39 is too good at detail on upper frequency.

I don't know if you understand that mp3 files is a destroy compressed format that destroy upper frequency and lower frequency.

When T39 plays mp3, you can hear the destroy upper frequency.

This is same like if you put low bit rate video on a big 52 inches TV.
The problem is not the TV. Problem is the low bit rate video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
if the teclast plays flac and mp3 completely differently, then it has obvious problems in the firmware to decode mp3. they should not sound night and day different from any player. on that review alone, it would be hard to use the teclast as i use mp3 - too much space to waste with flac on a small flash player. glad it sounds good though.
Reply
post #9 of 21
4/5/08 at 4:10pm
by the way, flac and mp3 suppose to sound night and day.
If not, the player has problem because it is not showing up the details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post
if the teclast plays flac and mp3 completely differently, then it has obvious problems in the firmware to decode mp3. they should not sound night and day different from any player. on that review alone, it would be hard to use the teclast as i use mp3 - too much space to waste with flac on a small flash player. glad it sounds good though.
Reply
post #10 of 21
4/5/08 at 7:49pm
The difference between V0/320kbs Mp3 and FLAC is not supposed to be night and day, and certainly not easy to show with whichever DAP.
Reply
post #11 of 21
4/5/08 at 8:52pm
I need to disagree. Just nowaday DAP not build to tell the difference.
This does not mean 320 and flac not supposed to be night and day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antonyfirst View Post
The difference between V0/320kbs Mp3 and FLAC is not supposed to be night and day, and certainly not easy to show with whichever DAP.
Reply
post #12 of 21
4/5/08 at 8:55pm
I am thinking the word night and day may be too serious which bring up by shigzeo.
Good DAP suppose to tell the difference between flac and mp3(320). If not, the problem is the DAP.
This is what I am trying to say.
Reply
post #13 of 21
4/5/08 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by faichiu View Post
I need to disagree. Just nowaday DAP not build to tell the difference.
This does not mean 320 and flac not supposed to be night and day.

Seriously? "Night and day"?! You're way off, man. Of course there is a theoretical difference in sound between 320kbps LAME MP3 and lossless, but when you actually hear it it's incredibly hard to notice. 99.9% of all people probably couldn't tell any difference at all. What's removed when encoding to MP3 at high bitrates is mostly stuff you can't hear anyway. "Night and day" is what I would call the difference between 64kbps and 320kbps MP3, but definitely not what you're talking about.
Reply
post #14 of 21
4/5/08 at 9:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by faichiu View Post
I am thinking the word night and day may be too serious which bring up by shigzeo.
Good DAP suppose to tell the difference between flac and mp3(320). If not, the problem is the DAP.
This is what I am trying to say.
You have interesting measure of good, heh. Btw, difference between flac and mp3(320) is so minute, that unless you have a substantial home rig, you won't be able to tell a difference.
Reply
post #15 of 21
4/6/08 at 2:53am
I don't have a substantial home rig. I have subwoofer in my car. The bass produce by mp3(320) is just less and not firmly enough...........
I don't know if you ever have a car subwoofer..........
I found if the source is good, the bass just shake though your body...........


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaloS View Post
You have interesting measure of good, heh. Btw, difference between flac and mp3(320) is so minute, that unless you have a substantial home rig, you won't be able to tell a difference.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › SQ - iRiver Clix2 vs Sony NWZ-A8xx vs Teclast T39 or iAudio D2