or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Wow! Sansa Fuze- color me impressed- Fuze appreciation thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow! Sansa Fuze- color me impressed- Fuze appreciation thread - Page 17

post #241 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by javertim: I loaded a FLAC file onto it and am not impressed at all by the player's lack of highs and muddy-sounding mids/lows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post
all of us fuze fans went through that.
Lack of highs and muddy-sounding? Umm, no. Indeed, IMHO muddy-sounding has no business in a Fuze thread*. And I think there some consensus that the Fuze has fairly even, clean/crisp reproduction through all sound ranges (i.e. no roll-offs).

Now a number of us have commented on what I call a "soft" soundstage, particularly compared to (what I understand is) the Sony's "bolder" sound. To my ear, it's kind of like the difference between sitting in the studio listening to the player's output vs. listening to an amped line-out master recording. Both are "true" reproductions but with different sound signatures.

* No disrespect javertim, you may well have a defective unit. I also wonder which firmware you have V1 or V2. If it's V2 is sure hope this isn't a sign of compromised SQ on new editions of the Fuze.
post #242 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post
all of us fuze fans went through that.
So, was it a matter of exchanging a not-so-good unit for a new one or just getting used to the sound?
post #243 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by javertim View Post
So, was it a matter of exchanging a not-so-good unit for a new one or just getting used to the sound?
Member justaguy suggested that maybe the unit needs some burn in. I remember when I got my fuze that I did not like the sound. I say, let it play overnight and then try again in the morning. Is the EQ on? The EQ just sucks on the fuze. Make sure the EQ is off.
post #244 of 767
Adding to what DJGeorgeT just said, due to the "soft" sound signature some people were under-impressed on first listening, as though something was 'missing' even though everything was there, but have grown to appreciate the flat/true sound after longer listening. The first few days I had it I distinctly remember thinking that people who listen to metal/loud/hard-driving music won't like this player. And maybe that's correct. However, again, I don't think anyone described it as "muddied" or "lacking in high end" or lacking in clarity of sound at all.
post #245 of 767
No, as stated in my original post, EQ was turned off when I compared the Fuze to the Nano. I did try the EQ on the Fuze and you're right -- it does indeed suck. It's just that (and, please understand, I cannot believe I am saying this) playing the same track in AAC through my Nano sounds closer to the sound I get from my AKG K601s through my Little Dot Amp than does the FLAC via the Fuze. Granted, I used my IEMs (Shure SE420s) to test the Fuze v. Nano, so the sound in and of itself is obviously going to be quite a bit different from a higher-end setup with open cans.

Still, I just cannot understand why I prefer the sound as produced by an "inferior sounding" (at least compared to the Fuze) device playing a a lossy codec file. I just found the sound from the Fuze to be overly distant, small, and too warm (there is such a thing -- at least to me). The same track as played by the Nano in AAC sounds more immediate and lively.

Btw, the track in question is the Previn 1990 recording of Strauss' "Eine Alpensinfonie" on Telarc, so there is no question that the recording itself is the culprit. I listen to classical about 97% of the time.
post #246 of 767
Is is definitely a more laid back sound signature, at least in my current experience.

As DJGeorgeT stated, this type of thing is rather controversial, but I do think the Fuze sounds better after a break in. I remember my very first player, the Zen Nomad NX, sounded terribly thin and I had to run the headphone out volume rather low to avoid distortion in my car setup. Then after a couple of weeks I was running it close to max volume and it sounded great, no distortion at all. I don't know the physics behind it, but apparently some part of the player just needed some running time to sound its best. I've warmed up to the sound of my Fuze, but I also am pretty sure it sounds better now than it did when I first fired it up.
post #247 of 767
I apologize for missing the fact that the EQ was off. My experience is quite the opposite. I find the fuze to sound very alive. The sound has excellent body and depth. The highs are not as accentuated as my cowon d2 or sony s639, but everything on the fuze sounds balanced, the lows, the mids and highs. Try few other headphones if you have other headphones. Maybe you need to find synergy.

I have a brand new clip. I may be able to verify if burn in really occurs with the sansas.
post #248 of 767
Okay, I'll try burning it in and get back to you guys. And no worries about the EQ thing, DJGeorgeT. I had to go back and make sure that I had typed it myself.

By the way, is it considerably strange that I prefer the GUI of the Fuze to that of the Nano (which I always thought was just way too flashy)? I guess it may be because my first player was the Sony HD5 and the Fuze is closer to that than the Nano is. ... Damn, I really miss using my HD5!
post #249 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by javertim View Post
No, as stated in my original post, EQ was turned off when I compared the Fuze to the Nano. I did try the EQ on the Fuze and you're right -- it does indeed suck. It's just that (and, please understand, I cannot believe I am saying this) playing the same track in AAC through my Nano sounds closer to the sound I get from my AKG K601s through my Little Dot Amp than does the FLAC via the Fuze. Granted, I used my IEMs (Shure SE420s) to test the Fuze v. Nano, so the sound in and of itself is obviously going to be quite a bit different from a higher-end setup with open cans.

Still, I just cannot understand why I prefer the sound as produced by an "inferior sounding" (at least compared to the Fuze) device playing a a lossy codec file. I just found the sound from the Fuze to be overly distant, small, and too warm (there is such a thing -- at least to me). The same track as played by the Nano in AAC sounds more immediate and lively.

Btw, the track in question is the Previn 1990 recording of Strauss' "Eine Alpensinfonie" on Telarc, so there is no question that the recording itself is the culprit. I listen to classical about 97% of the time.
I liked the Fuze from the moment I first turned it on. It's definitely not muddy nor thin and imo it has a very well balanced sound signature which is slightly to the warm side. It does not display bass or treble roll off but it doesn't have very forward or agressive treble. It does have a pretty big soundstage with good placement and separation.

Except for your qualification of warm I don't hear any of the things you describe. I really think you must have a defective unit or you're not plugging the IEMs all the way into the Fuze. (Don't laugh, the net is full of complaints about bad sounding Fuzes because the socket on the Fuze is quite tight. The plastic of the jack plug should really be flush with the player, no metal showing.)
post #250 of 767

Fuze vs 160GB Ipod

I'm debating between keeping my 160GB Classic or my 8GB Fuze. These are the differences I've found between them so far using my er4p out of the headphone jacks on both (lossless on ipod, v0 mp3 on clip, tried to volume match as close as I could). All tracks were ripped with EAC at the same time, and I use a script to encode the ALAC and mp3 v0 simultaneously as well. MP3s are album-gained to 92db and so I turn it up just a bit to try and volume match compared to the original lossless files on my Ipod Here's what I found today:

Ipod Classic 160:
  • punchier bass
  • more of a "veil" on the sound
  • more analytical
  • bass/midbass less warm
  • vocals seem less present

Sansa Clip 4gb (Fuze is on its way, but same amp right?):
  • warmer bass
  • less punchy bass, or maybe since it's warmer just less "isolated" from surrounding frequencies?
  • more realistic vocals
  • more presence and soundstage on percussion (even using v0 mp3)
  • and the kicker, it just seems more REAL to me

I just AB'd about 5 tracks on both and honestly I just prefer the Clip's sound I think because it's a little easier to listen to and on certain tracks I feel like I can reach out and touch the singer's face or the cymbals being played. The iPod seems more distant and therefore isn't as fun, and keep in mind this is with ER4p which a lot of people seem to hate here. I'm wondering that it's just the synergy between a "cold/analytical" pair of headphones with a little bit warmer source that works so well. Unfortunately I can't test a pair of warmer headphones with the iPod to see if the reverse is true. I'm seriously considering selling my iPod and just using the Fuze/FiiO e5/er4p combo exclusively and using the iPod money to start investing in a home/computer rig.

Any thoughts to help me out?
post #251 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoNtO View Post
it just seems more REAL to me...

...I feel like I can reach out and touch the singer's face or the cymbals being played.
That's what I'm meant when I said it sounds like you're 'in studio' rather than listening to a recording.

~~~

To javertim - FWIW, on the occasional times I've listened to classical on the Fuze I haven't been overly impressed. Some pieces require a symphonic 'bombast' that's lacking and it was hard to find a volume setting that satisfied at all levels of the dynamic volume changes in classical music. In fairness, I've never been a big fan of classical through headphones -- it really needs space and room to breathe from speakers in an open room. (Or maybe I don't have the right cans for classical music.)

...Adding, there's no right or wrong on this sound question -- it's really a matter of personal preference/taste.
post #252 of 767
Fuze & FiiO E3 & ER4S = extremely detailed audio. I can hear recording defects, editing mistakes, poorly chopped samples, etc.
post #253 of 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post
Fuze & FiiO E3 & ER4S = extremely detailed audio. I can hear recording defects, editing mistakes, poorly chopped samples, etc.
How does the Fuze sound through the ER4S's without the amp? Can it be pushed to produce reasonable listening volume without rolloffs? With the E3 any hiss problems?
post #254 of 767
I too was somewhat underimpressed w/ the fuze upon first exposure. But now that it's been 10 days I really like it. It sounds just like my older clip now but perhaps didn't at first if I remember accurately. I dunno. I tend to think all the burn in stuff is psychosomatic. But maybe it works on me too?

I find that the fuze is pretty intolerant of poor recordings. Multi-track recordings from the 70s sound pretty bad. Jamiroqua sounds terrible like he wanted his records to sound like compressed 70's recordings.

But well recorded jazz and chamber music sounds great! I'm using C751s. There is a lot of potential for low frequencies w/ this combo and the highs aren't too insistent like they tend to be w/ the nwz-818 + C751s. It's fun.
post #255 of 767
I have an 8gb Fuze in the post.

For like 2 years of head-fi'ing I've been tempted to buy a portable amp.

Now RaySamuels P51 "Mustang" looks really tempting.

Do you think Fuze will benefit from amping?

And, since, LO-cable is possible, has anybody heard of LO-cables for FUZE for sale??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Wow! Sansa Fuze- color me impressed- Fuze appreciation thread