Let's Cut to the Chase- S:Flo2 - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darksyde 

Fixed.

 

So,rry, I h,av,e a, co,mm,a ,fe,ti,sh.

 

 

It made my day

Well, kind of bad news: iPod nano 1G HPO to T3 versus S:Flo LO to the same thing then volume matched... not much a difference. The Nano does get RB on it which is killer support. If it was smaller I'd buy it, but dear me, the size and navigation and lack of gapless isn't worth it IMO. 

Nice idea, but not nice enough to bowl me into Teclast camp. Even if size was fixed, I'd likely pass it up in favour of a DAP that can do rockbox. Even if the S:Flo could do rockbox... hmmm not sure about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo 

Well, kind of bad news: iPod nano 1G HPO to T3 versus S:Flo LO to the same thing then volume matched... not much a difference. The Nano does get RB on it which is killer support. If it was smaller I'd buy it, but dear me, the size and navigation and lack of gapless isn't worth it IMO. 

 

Nice idea, but not nice enough to bowl me into Teclast camp. Even if size was fixed, I'd likely pass it up in favour of a DAP that can do rockbox. Even if the S:Flo could do rockbox... hmmm not sure about it.

What amp/headphones were you using?

Yeah, Im bit confuse choosing to buy T51 or a Sony X series..

Sony has a pretty good UI compare to T51.. 

Which one has a better sound quality..? The only thing that matter with me is sound quality, I don't care the other things..

So which one got a better sound quality?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young Spade 

What amp/headphones were you using?

Any headphone I've used and the amp is the T3D with or without LOD suprisingly. volume matched versus and iPod and I don't think the S:Flo's LO offers anything at all. The HPO, as I've said, is great for loaded driving, but otherwise, the somewhat polite signal isn't my thing. I can see why people like it, but it doesn't offer anything really special. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo 

Any headphone I've used and the amp is the T3D with or without LOD suprisingly. volume matched versus and iPod and I don't think the S:Flo's LO offers anything at all. The HPO, as I've said, is great for loaded driving, but otherwise, the somewhat polite signal isn't my thing. I can see why people like it, but it doesn't offer anything really special. 

Interesting, but I found the same thing back when I used my iPod Nano through the T4. IMO the LO on the T51 is a lot better than the HO but you need a good amp to make use of this. I sold the T4 shortly after I got it because for me, it wasn't doing anything but adding bulk to the rig. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darksyde 

51% of people voted "yes" on my poll, and 48% opted for "no".  It does provide me with a feeling of consulation to know that I'm not the only one that finds it difficult to add two numbers with a total of a hundred.

 

It's consolation, not consulation, but I'll cut you some slack since you're 14, lol.  Sorry, no contribution here, but I'm amused by this thread. We now take you back to your regularly scheduled programming...

Hum.. I have the Clip+ and S:Flo2, and I think the S:Flo2 simply wins through LO. The player itself gave my quite a lot of problems though: (

Still,.. I can't believe some of the senior members really don't find the LO in S:Flo2 to be better. I truely respect the Clip+ for it's price and performance ratio, but I really do hear better detail, headstage, and timber with just about any headphone I put in.

But honestly, I never did a blind test with volume match between these players.

^^Through LO makes no sense though as the output stage then is controlled by external equipment. Through the HPO, it is good, holds up well under stress, but overall, is a much better line out player than a HPO. But, its LO isn't really better than the iPod. 

Of course the LO to an amp would wreck havoc on the Clip which: 1, doesn't have a LO, and 2, has just an excellent FR, but nothing really special otherwise. Not sure how it's even possible to compare the two, or why the LO should be compared to the HPO of another device. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo 

^^Through LO makes no sense though as the output stage then is controlled by external equipment. Through the HPO, it is good, holds up well under stress, but overall, is a much better line out player than a HPO. But, its LO isn't really better than the iPod. 

 

I don't understand. That's the point of having the LO: To get a clean, "unedited" signal that can be controlled by a higher quality amp rendering better sound than just the HO. Having that clean base current from the LO plus the added amplication from the amp to give the phones the current they need is what makes stuff sound better.... right? 

Correct me if I am wrong, but must all analog signals go through an amp of any kind? That being said, the LO signal is already amped?

Right, but when you compare the LO from the S:Flo to the clip, what are you comparing? It is the HPO to the LO and I presume the HPO of the Clip would be amped with the same amp. But still, it is not an even comparison as the clip doesn't have a LO. What the Clip and the S:Flo have in common is a HPO and that is where the comparison should go.

Plus, the LO is and should be pretty neutral. It shouldn't sound really like much. So, the character of the S:Flo: its smoothness, its space, is lost because whatever amp you choose (and that makes a difference) is the final word on sound, not the S:Flo.

I like how the votes are 50/50 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo 

^^Through LO makes no sense though as the output stage then is controlled by external equipment. Through the HPO, it is good, holds up well under stress, but overall, is a much better line out player than a HPO. But, its LO isn't really better than the iPod. 

 

Of course the LO to an amp would wreck havoc on the Clip which: 1, doesn't have a LO, and 2, has just an excellent FR, but nothing really special otherwise. Not sure how it's even possible to compare the two, or why the LO should be compared to the HPO of another device. 

Well when you are comparing the clip to the SFLO:2 you have to consider the total package, not just Headphone out to Headphone. Why handicap the SFLO:2 just because it has a good LO unlike the clip? I mean if someone is looking and choices of players to buy they should consider every feature that the players has against other players. And even when you bring in cost it's not like the SFLO:2 is priced like the HifiMan or anything it is priced very reasonably compared to other players with the same features it just so happens to have some really good hardware in  it that produces a great sound that can drive almost any head phones with no need for an amp. However if you do want to pair it up with a really good amp it has a great LO. Sorry but the clip may be cheaper but it does not have the features nor sound quality of the SFLO:2 and it's not terribly expensive either I'll take the headphone out on the SFLO:2 over the clip even  if the clip is paired with any medium priced portable amp any day of the week.

I personally do not see what so ever why everyone is so gaga over the sansa players. I had a V2 fuse I got on woot for 25$ just to play around with and after a week of using it I honestly thought it did not even sound as good as my old Zune30. I think people are pushing the sansa players to the moon just because they are cheap and measure flat but in real world use I simply did not think they were all that and ended up just giving it to a co worker. The sound was nothing special at all to me unlike the SFLO:2 which clearly sounded better than the fuse or my zune30 I had been using for almost 4 years. This difference was pretty instant and I retired my  Zune and my XM5 amp because of how well the SFLO:2 sounded just using the Head Phone out.

So for me the SFLO:2 replaced a 300$ zune and a 300$ portable amp for just 150$, that to me is great bang for the buck and trumps anything the fuse or clip could have done.