Amp3 - Page 37

150+ Hour burn in update

With a little over 150 hours on the amp3, I thought I’d post my observations. I’m pleased to report that the player opened up a little since my last update, however all is not perfect.

Some of the differences since last time:
1] A blooming of the sound. I find this hard to quantify… it’s almost as if the range from mids up through the treble has become more focused and tactile.

2] The mids have come forward. Vocals are very nice on this player. Thom Yorke’s vocals are very clear, and it’s easy to pick up on the lyrics.

3] Soundstage may have widened a bit.

Some things that didn’t change:
1] Bass is still lacking. For example, on Radiohead’s ‘Down Is The New Up’, at a little over one minute into the track the bass drum starts to hit in a much deeper fashion, and this is better portrayed on the Sony X than the amp3. The depth and volume of the drum is just not communicated with the amp3. You feel it more with the Sony. With less bass rich material, you don’t notice this as much, but when the material demands it, I find the amp3 disappointing in this regard.

2] The cold, bright sound signature is still there, and hasn’t softened at all.

3] While having improved a bit, the soundstage is still on the narrow side.



I find the amp3 definitely a treble/detail tipped player. Perhaps this is more noticeable because of the weaker bass presence, and the narrowish soundstage (although it has improved), which could shift attention to these areas of the frequency band. Because of this, I would think that the amp3 excels more at jazz/acoustic, and perhaps classical (although I know classical can have extraordinarily deep bass sometimes, so it wouldn’t be very well suited for these passages). For my musical preferences, I just don’t find it suitable. It kind of reminds me of how I remember the Kenwood hd10- detailed, crisp, but with a narrow soundstage. However I think I remember better bass on the Kenwood.

The much more extended and articulate bass presence of the Sony X makes my music collection more satisfying and alive by comparison. Also, the soundstage contributes to a greater sense of air around the instruments. Things just seem more open, and resolved in space. An example of this is on ‘Diablo Rojo’ by Rodrigo y Gabriella. At about 2:30 there is a passage with bongo drums, where I imagine the mic placed right in the midst of the drum kit, because you can literally hear the player’s hands whirling around the mic side to side. With the amp3, the spatial portrayal is literally about half that of the X. It’s a very dramatic difference.

The amp3 presents things a little more ‘bunched together’, for lack of description, because the stage is just simply narrower. I think the amp3 is a decent DAP for certain genres of music, and fans of those types of music will certainly revel in its sound signature. So, the amp3 has closed up the gap somewhat, but the differences are still noticeable.


INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS:

Amp3-
+ Mids/treble focused
+ solid on vocals
+ bright, detailed
+ strong for acoustic/jazz/classical, and vocals
+ somewhat narrow soundstage
+ weak bass

Sony 1060X-
+ very wide soundstage
+ equally detailed
+ great resolution within the soundstage
+ natural presentation
+ very deep, extended bass

Thanks Chris for the detailed comparison I'm familiar with that Rodrigo y Gabriella track and must say the X does the 3D positioning just perfect. Sounds like the Amp3 is a pretty capable little niche dap like the X.

I know without a doubt the Amp3 sound sig. wouldn't be for me, as it sounds on line with the D2.

So far, first one to say the bass is weak on the Amp3 after burn-in. I'd say it's more a preference for overdone bass, then that the Amp3 lacks accurate, clean bass, definitive ... the bass that the recording actually offers. To my ears, with the right phones, the Amp3 bass is not weak at all, just accurate and amazing.

I also believe the Amp3 is not phone-agnostic, and not a good match with treble or mid-forward phones. The Grado SR-80s display an amazing synergy with the Amp3, while the RE3s, which are mid-forward, not so good, for example. With the Grados, the bass is rich, full, right on the money.

You didn't mention the phones you are using at all. So it could be as much a mismatch with your IEM collection as anything else.

In the end, comparing the Amp3 to the Sony X is really apples to oranges, since it's doubtful that many HFer's will choose between the two for their go-to player. The Amp3 is a niche player, while the Sony is an expensive mass-market piece of gear.

To head off any fireworks, I am entitled to voice my counter-opinion on the Amp3's specific characteristics, even if I don't own the Sony X. I am judging it simply by my observations/ears. I agree that the Sony X and the Amp3 are very different players, and one could favor one over the other...But the bass on the Amp3 is not weak, far from it. Could be the Sony's bass is over-accentuated by design.

I will be interested to see if any other Amp3 owners feel the bass can be described as weak.

Thanks very much for the amazingly thorough and objective review Chris

I did wonder how much it would change after burn in, and it seems it improved quite a bit... but not enough for you to prefer it over the X with regards to your own listening preferences.

And of course I know that R and G track very well, lots of tapping, lots of atmosphere, and that particular part you're referring to, it's just WOW on the X! Looks like it was a good track to test for difference in spatial portrayal between the two daps.

Anyway, I'm with Poppy on this one. It doesn't sound like I would care for the sound signature either, especially if you don't think it's at least on par with the Kenwood, which I also had. In fact, it was your Kenwood to begin with

Thanks for the effort you put into the comparisons, well worth it in my opinion

Thanks for your review

I got my hand at sony style to audition x series for like 2 mins today, as it just didn't put demo player outside, so I had to ask for it and I didn't expect to play around too long as the salesman already stared at me all along.

I don't know there is big difference about mp3 format or wav, but from what I heard in person(non eq setting), the soundstage did not as big as I thought of. My korg mr-1 has better imagination than it. Anyway,, it is just brief audition. Again, mr-1 lack of bass and analytical sound signature would not be good for all people.

I may take advantage of 30 days return policy later. the problem is price of X series is very hideous price in Canada, around 560CAD for 32gb.

Regardless of whether Chris is the only one out of a handful of amp3 owners to feel the bass is weak... it's his opinion and it's valid. Other owners have expressed their own views without being contradicted, so the same courtesy should extend to everyone else. It was a well-written unbiased comparison which highlighted the strengths of both daps, and clearly a lot of thought went into it. As for the bass, I don't see anyone of the fifty or so owners in the X thread saying the bass is 'overblown', so I would assume it's safe to say that isn't how people hear it.


gameboy-
I wasn't impressed with the demo tracks on the X at all.

If you can demo one and put your own music on it, I think you'll find it a lot better.

Thanks cn11 for the reviews and comparisons. I appreciate your efforts to bring out this comparison .

tstarn06.
Yes, the X1000 vs AMP3 is an apple to orange comparison, but still it is fun to know it also. I like apple and others like orange, or sometime I want to eat orange. What I am trying to say is, we have our own preferences. Eventhough we like the X1000 sound, but sometime we also can try the AMP3 for a change.

Thank you.

I listened to bunch of MJ songs in the demo player. Agree that the loseless format would change a lot though

I agree that the bass on the AMP3 is different from my Sony players. The difference sounds to me like the sound of the same musical group recorded outside, (AMP3) vs in a studio with room acoustic effects (Sony)

I would hesitate to say which is the more "correct". I do find that the soundstage is quite headphone-dependent on the AMP3. The best soundstage and imaging is heard through my G1A and Sony F1 phones. Buds and IEMs are definitely narrower.

I also have found that the bitrate seems to affect the AMP3 soundstage more than in other players. It does seem as though it was optimized for 192kbs. I am going to re-rip some of my 320kb recordings to 192 just for the sake of comparisons. I also find some of my 320kb recordings to be overly bright in transients, such as finger-snaps, etc, while some of the lower bitrate recordings sound much more realistic.

Nice write up cn11!!! I'd still like to get a listen to the Amp3 someday, but my interest in other players has been curbed after fully acclimatising to the sound signature of the X. There must be some significant upgrade in SQ for me to upgrade from my X to another player. By the way which of the two players did yiu find to be the more transparent?

Here we go again, I merely countered that based on my listening experience with the Amp3, I DO NOT BELIEVE "weak" bass is a fair description. If that is "contradicting" someone, people contradict each other all the time on Head-Fi.

This is getting silly, really. Someone posts a comparison about two pieces of gear, makes some subjective assessments, and a single one I disagree with (that bass is "weak" in the Amp3), and I am treating the person unfairly?

Many, many people love the Phonaks, yet a few people say they have no bass, none, and were cold and harsh. That's okay, right?

Disagreeing on a characterization of a certain aspect of a piece of gear is part and parcel of the Head-Fi experience. So it's my right to disagree on that point. Otherwise, I don't really care about the Sony X comparison with the Amp3, because, as noted, they are very different beasts. Nor do I own the X or intend on buying it (in fact, I ordered it, but decided it was not worth the money, especially based on feedack by a couple of owners who returned it. So I rejected it when it arrived from Amazon).

Nowhere did I comment on the specifics of the X, I only disagreed about the description of the Amp3's bass as being weak. My right, I believe.


The win-win here is that Sony X owners who were wondering can now feel that their wallets are safe from the temptation to buy the Amp3. And Amp3 owners will continue to find more ways to enjoy themselves listening to the player.

It's over, time to move on.

Agree 1000 percent. I didn't say anything about comparing the two is wrong or unwarranted. I just said I don't believe the bass is weak. You can buy cn11's Amp3, cheap, is my guess. Different, as HiFlight noted, would be a more appropriate characterization, for sure.

Hmmm, well it's close, but I think I'd have to go with the X, simply because of its greater resolution through the wider soundstage. This makes you notice the instrument separation more. The amp3 sounds more closed in, yet still pretty detailed. And thanks for the props on the review.... I really gave the listening sessions many hours, and back and forth comparisons.... and I took my time forming my opinions while making notes along the way. I'd consider that pretty unbiased....

I want to chime in for a few words,

Don't know much about amp3. But my experience tell me that the most obvious difference between 320k and wav format is soundsatge and instrument separation.

The better your player is , the more obvious the difference would be. Like iphone, I don't thnik the gap is that big when I jump from mp3 to wav.

I am sure x series would not be better iphone a lot. I am hoping I can audition with X series again with lossless format.

I am really a little confused here, is the comparison on sound quality between the sony and the AMP3 for buyers?? I hardly think so, there would hardly be someone who is thinking of buying a sony who would give it up for an AMP3 due to the complete lack of any facility save for music playing on the AMP3. As for bass I must agree with the reviewer who said that many players have been tuned for bass, music listeners have been made to expect bass and large quantities of it, but it was not in the original mix and the recordings were not done to sound that way, the bass is there but just an instrument not a domination, it's rather like owning Audio Technica earphones , which many don't like, because they reduce the bass ti where for some it is where it should be , a part of the mix not the main instrument. Forgive me for my opinion!!!
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.”
Bertrand Russell