Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Clip+'s Normal EQ is not flat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clip+'s Normal EQ is not flat? - Page 6

post #76 of 105

You're not wrong. It's ok if you aren't as enthusiastic about audio / gear as many other people are around here. If you combine enthusiasm with not having or wanting to spend too much money (for portable) isn't it logical to go for the device with the best performance/$ ratio, i.e. the best in that scenario?

I do prefer my equipment to reproduce music well and also be designed well. It don't think it's a secret that some people can enjoy music more with equipment they like, even if it doesn't sound much different with technically worse equipment.

But if we all were just looking for a player that just plays music... what are we doing here then? You cannot say people don't care about transparency, else we'd all be listening to 128 kbps mp3s.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread, but the last couple of posts about Clip's eq sucked anyway. :P


Edited by xnor - 5/27/10 at 6:45am
post #77 of 105


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

You're not wrong. It's ok if you aren't as enthusiastic about audio / gear as many other people are around here. If you combine enthusiasm with not having or wanting to spend too much money (for portable) isn't it logical to go for the device with the best performance/$ ratio, i.e. the best in that scenario?

I do prefer my equipment to reproduce music well and also be designed well. It don't think it's a secret that some people enjoy music more with equipment they like, even if it doesn't sound much different from technically worse equipment.

But if we all were just looking for a player that just plays music... what are we doing here then? You cannot say people don't care about transparency, else we'd all be listening to 128 kbps mp3s.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread, but the last couple of posts about Clip's eq sucked anyway. :P


 

Yeah, best to end it here. But I thought that the new guy was refreshing. And, it might be a firmware bug, but on my View when I start it up and the EQ is reset and I start playing a song and then change to the "normal" setting, it is not the same. The "normal" setting is a tiny bit louder and has some more lower end and feels a bit more muddy than the "reset" setting. I find this very peculiar, but the View is a peculiar DAP. A bit like the Dodo bird...

 

Actually, while I am not interested in high end gear, "mid fi" interests me. You can look in my signature at how many DAP:s I have. 3 of them bought after visiting this place and Anything but iPod and reading about them. Not because they was supposed to be the best, but because they seemed interesting. Also with over 90GB of music with just MP3-files between 192-320 kbps, and not wanting to keep changing albums on the DAP all the time and not liking what iPod offers, I had to go with multiple DAP:s. (For me the absolutely lowest acceptable encoding is LAME CBR 192, lower than that the artifacts even get to me. Mostly things like cymbals in rock music are mutilated at lower bitrates. So I suppose that means that my "transparency level" is a bit above 200 kbps mp3?)

They all give a slightly different sound signature which is interesting. So I have two with progressive rock, one with progressive metal, one with thrash and speed metal and so on. I decide which music mood I am in and choose the DAP after that. I think that all my DAP:s are fascinating and have their quirks, and I have a special affinity for older models. I don't buy them for their performance, I prefer to read a bit about them and then buy "a pig in a poke" and get to know the player myself.

The last new DAP I bought, the Cowon S9 was very nice, but not amazing. I think that older models have more "personality" and I am curious in lesser known brands, like the Kenwood HDD DAP:s. With 6 DAP:s that I currently use, I have the space I need for music and video, but I am curious about the JVC Alneo XA HD 500 which was released in 2005, so I might buy one of those used as well before I leave Japan in December. So I might a bit of a DAP collector...

 

Well, I think that many people might be happy with 128kbps mp3 files. Unfortunately, that is. But on the other hand, if it sounds good to them... However, none of them comes here I think.


Edited by Danneq - 5/27/10 at 7:03am
post #78 of 105

I've done some measurements:

 

Clip++ firmware V01.02.13P

White noise, volume is not normalized like in the previous graph I posted (obvious):

 

clip_vol2.png

 

Blue = custom EQ +6, +6, +6, +6, +6

Yellow = "Normal" = custom EQ with all sliders untouched (0, 0, 0, 0, 0) = flat = 

Purple/Cyan = custom EQ 0, 0, 0, 0, +1 (shows that the automatic attenuation to have some equalization headroom)

Green = custom EQ -6, -6, -6, -6, -6 (eww)

Red = custom EQ -12, -12, -12, -12, -12 (yuk, somebody said this sounds flat... deaf? )

 

 

 

 

And to show what single EQ sliders do (this is normalized in volume again!):

 

clip_eq3.png


Edited by xnor - 5/28/10 at 8:03am
post #79 of 105

Interesting!

 

Could you try all sliders set on +4 in the custom EQ and then compare that to the "normal" normal setting. I think that is what some people were talking about.

 

I wish you could test my View. That firmware bug is really bugging me, i.e. when the View is shut off the current EQ setting is reset. When I play music after starting and then change to the "normal" setting it sounds differently (edit: from the "reset" EQ, that is).


Edited by Danneq - 5/28/10 at 8:41am
post #80 of 105

All sliders +4 looks, in terms of volume, like normal/flat but also shows similar dips like all sliders +6. Definitely not flat.

 

Like comparing a flat line to the +1, +1, +1, +1, +1 line in the second graph, just worse.


Edited by xnor - 5/28/10 at 9:10am
post #81 of 105

Thanks for the conclusive measurements.

 

 

post #82 of 105
Thread Starter 

Wow.. As the OP, I regret the fact that this thread I started has become a battleground where people belittle other people and say hurtful things.

 

I mean, really. We're talking about audio here. Means to enjoy music which we love. That's all. No need to get serious or offended by other people's opinions, even their ignorance. Not everyone has the time and/or devotion to read and learn from each and every thread before they voice their opinion (nor should they be required to). Just voice your opinion, give a strong basis/proof for your opinion, and let the truth be known.

 

 

I personally thank the people who made technical measurement to prove that indeed it was ME who heard UNcorrectly: the normal setting is indeed flat (enough), and not warm as I had first heard.

 

@ventilator: you have the same opinion and/or impression I had when I first started this thread, and I can see your point. Thank you too for your participation here, it really did balance the opinions. However, in the end I cannot argue with the measurements :-)

post #83 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max F View Post

Thanks for the conclusive measurements.

 

 

 

Conclusive? They're not really conclusive, because he didn't include the very setting that was being debated: +4.


 

I'll be glad to take him at his word, however, when he says:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

All sliders +4 looks, in terms of volume, like normal/flat but also shows similar dips like all sliders +6. Definitely not flat.

 

Like comparing a flat line to the +1, +1, +1, +1, +1 line in the second graph, just worse.

 

Like I said all along: "Normal" is ***NOT*** true flat. He also just said it right there: "Definitely not flat." Those are his words, not mine - although they agree with what I said all along, that Normal is not flat. Like I said in the other thread, if the volume is pretty much identical to +4, then obviously that's not flat.

 

There might be peaks and valleys like +6 or the other boosted frequencies, but those are pretty much indistinguishable between Normal on the original Clip at least. I sold my Clip+ after I got my Fuze, so I can't check that, but on the Fuze you can detect those subtle differences between +4 and Normal. So maybe there are further difference between Clip, Clip+, and Fuze. But regardless, the volume level of Normal and +4 is basically the same on all of them, so Normal is therefore not true flat regardless of which player it is. As I said all along, just not having the benefit of the advanced measuring equipment that xnor apparently has.


Edited by ventilator - 7/12/10 at 11:00am
post #84 of 105

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

I have a clip+ and the EQ is not "broken." Some people just aren't capable of understanding that "Normal" not set for flat. "Normal" is just Sansa's word for one of their presets. That's all it means. It doesn't mean "flat."

 

Which I've said all along.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DKaz View Post

I love the individuals who join the forum and start spouting off at the mouth without researching and using their critical thinking skills (maybe they have none).  They can take years of research from other members and piss it down the drain with their own comments.

 

Max F and JaZZ have the EQ figured out correctly.  The "Normal" setting is the equivalent of a flat EQ.  Boosting all 5 frequencies should not give you the exact same response because the entire frequency range would not be boosted in linear fashion.  There would indeed be some curve.  I am sure doing a sweep with these settings would reveal it.

 

That being said, I beleive the EQ of the Clip to be sub-par. Depending on how the EQ is implemented, then it is possible that boosting each frequency could still yield a "flat" response.  That is NOT how an EQ should work however, and I do beleive that their is still some curvature to the response curve.


See, notice how this person and all the others who think they know what they're talking about are wrong. The measurements show that the volume level of "Normal" is basically the same as +4. So that is not truly flat. The volume has been boosted by +4. The settings might be "flat" in the sense that they're all the same, but that's not what "flat" means. As I quoted elsewhere in the thread, true flat means flat at ZERO. "Normal" is not at zero, so therefore it's not true flat.

 

Like I also said earlier, if sansa merely CALIBRATED +4 to actual, true flat, then obviously it *is* truly flat. But it wouldn't really make much sense to make +4 = true zero, because then +3, +2, +1, and 0 would be -1, -2, -3, and -4 respectively, which doesn't really seem to be an intelligent way to design something. It's possible they did do it that way, but it doesn't really seem likely. What is more likely is that they just boosted the amplitude of all the frequencies to +4, smoothed it out a little somehow, and then made a special preset for that setting that they call "Normal."


Edited by ventilator - 7/12/10 at 11:21am
post #85 of 105
Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

The measurements show that the volume level of "Normal" is basically the same as +4. So that is not truly flat. The volume has been boosted by +4. The settings might be "flat" in the sense that they're all the same, but that's not what "flat" means. As I quoted elsewhere in the thread, true flat means flat at ZERO. "Normal" is not at zero, so therefore it's not true flat.

 

That's a crude definition of «flat». Flat is related to frequency response and nothing else. The measurements tell that it is flat with the Normal setting. The volume has nothing to do with flatness.

 

 

Like I also said earlier, if sansa merely CALIBRATED +4 to actual, true flat, then obviously it *is* truly flat. But it wouldn't really make much sense to make +4 = true zero, because then +3, +2, +1, and 0 would be -1, -2, -3, and -4 respectively, which doesn't really seem to be an intelligent way to design something. It's possible they did do it that way, but it doesn't really seem likely. What is more likely is that they just boosted the amplitude of all the frequencies to +4, smoothed it out a little somehow, and then made a special preset for that setting that they call "Normal."


That's a truly absurd theory, which speaks volumes about your technical expertise. On the other hand, it would be so simple to accept the measurements and the purpose of the lower volume for the Custom EQ after some EQ-band activation, which is obviously to create headroom for EQ-band increases. Technically it doesn't make sense to increase the volume for the Normal setting by means of EQ-band increases (and some additional frequency-response smoothing, as you see it). A simple linear gain change is the logical way.
.


Edited by JaZZ - 7/12/10 at 4:29pm
post #86 of 105

Somebody lock this thread, too much egos floating around                    

Hobbies anyone??


Edited by High_Q - 7/12/10 at 6:15pm
post #87 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by High_Q View Post

Somebody lock this thread, too much egos floating around                    

Hobbies anyone??


Can I make your avatar my hobby?

post #88 of 105

It's not a crude definition at all. It's actually a very sophisticated definition based on the acoustical research of the Canadian National Research Council in the 70s and 80s, which first quantified the elements of good sound related to frequency, dispersion, low distortion, etc.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

 

That's a crude definition of «flat». Flat is related to frequency response and nothing else. The measurements tell that it is flat with the Normal setting. The volume has nothing to do with flatness.

 

 

Like I also said earlier, if sansa merely CALIBRATED +4 to actual, true flat, then obviously it *is* truly flat. But it wouldn't really make much sense to make +4 = true zero, because then +3, +2, +1, and 0 would be -1, -2, -3, and -4 respectively, which doesn't really seem to be an intelligent way to design something. It's possible they did do it that way, but it doesn't really seem likely. What is more likely is that they just boosted the amplitude of all the frequencies to +4, smoothed it out a little somehow, and then made a special preset for that setting that they call "Normal."


That's a truly absurd theory, which speaks volumes about your technical expertise. On the other hand, it would be so simple to accept the measurements and the purpose of the lower volume for the Custom EQ after some EQ-band activation, which is obviously to create headroom for EQ-band increases. Technically it doesn't make sense to increase the volume for the Normal setting by means of EQ-band increases (and some additional frequency-response smoothing, as you see it). A simple linear gain change is the logical way.
.

 

There's nothing "absurd" in that at all. +4 is an increase in volume over true zero (the "Normal" setting is not true zero, as we know and as the measurements prove). So the only question is whether on the Sansa products +4 is an ACTUAL increase of +4 from true zero, or whether Sansa calibrated true zero to be +4 - which as I said and believe seems unlikely.

 

But regardless of any semantics or terminology, the reported measurement results of xnor prove that +4 across the board increases volume over what is likely true zero, which potentially therefore also increases distortion, and regardless of distortion is not an accurate representation of the source material anyway. It therefore should be obvious to any so-called (or self-declared) "audiophile" that from the standpoint of true neutrality, +4 is to that extent undesirable.

post #89 of 105

God not this thread again. Talk about bashing heads against brick walls.

post #90 of 105
Originally Posted by ventilator View Post

It's not a crude definition at all. It's actually a very sophisticated definition based on the acoustical research of the Canadian National Research Council in the 70s and 80s, which first quantified the elements of good sound related to frequency, dispersion, low distortion, etc.
 

 

What?

 

 

There's nothing "absurd" in that at all. +4 is an increase in volume over true zero (the "Normal" setting is not true zero, as we know and as the measurements prove). So the only question is whether on the Sansa products +4 is an ACTUAL increase of +4 from true zero, or whether Sansa calibrated true zero to be +4 - which as I said and believe seems unlikely.

 

But regardless of any semantics or terminology, the reported measurement results of xnor prove that +4 across the board increases volume over what is likely true zero, which potentially therefore also increases distortion, and regardless of distortion is not an accurate representation of the source material anyway. It therefore should be obvious to any so-called (or self-declared) "audiophile" that from the standpoint of true neutrality, +4 is to that extent undesirable.


«True zero» is a useless hypothetical term with no value. And there's no reason for the signal to have higher distortion from higher gain in the digital domain. It's rather the opposite, in that the lowered gain for EQ headroom might come with lower bit depth, but this scenario doesn't necessarily apply.

 

 

Clip+'s Normal EQ isn't flat...

 

...is definitely proven wrong by the measurements. I think there's nothing more to add.
.


Edited by JaZZ - 7/13/10 at 1:45am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Clip+'s Normal EQ is not flat?