A new high end player: Colorfly - Page 3

I've personally stated that I've never listened to the s:flo2 OR the hifiman - and I'd love to. If there's a head-fi meet in NYC again I'm there, same as if a member has 1 that I can try. I'll pass judgment after I test these players out - but I won't be so ignorant and pushy as to turn every single discussion into a constant worship of a device.

I personally hate the Fuze and clip/clip+, some love them. Same goes for some other players that we suggest here. I don't constantly push my opinion on others, then criticize them when they disagree - a few here do. You figure out who they are,..................

Now, any release date on the ColorFly? And please keep the fanboi'ism out of thread - the topic is:

A new high end player: Colorfly

Is it actually possible to stay on topic???

Quote:

Originally Posted by nywytboy68 

 

Is it actually possible to stay on topic???

Sansa products > Penicillin.  Nuff said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swanlee 

 

 

Test data simply has no bearing on how something sounds to a particular person using particular headphones. I'd rather go through a thread of dozens of people describing how they think a player sounds to them using various headphones then look at a freaking graph. Graphs and Data simply cannot tell me how something sounds. All the tests and data in the world won't change how something sounds to my ears using my headphones listening to my music. I can accept any test data look it over and say yeah awesome so how does it actually sound?

 

What am I supposed to do when a player that tests great but sounds bad to me? How about when a player tests like crap but sounds good to me? No test or graph is going to make me put down or pick up a player just because it tests a certain way.

 

The fuse tests great but sounds like crap to me, there is nothing to accept, no scientific data can over ride my enjoyment or lack of enjoyment of a player.

At the end of the day, this is exactly how I feel about the issue.

Let's just assume for a moment that I am actually deluding myself into thinking a particular player is better than another. Why should I take the word of a graph over what I am hearing (or, in this case, thinking I'm hearing)? If I was feeling cold and, scientifically speaking, I should be feeling hot, is that revelation going to make me change my mind about what I'm feeling? No. I'm still going to be feeling cold because that's what my body is telling me. The same principle applies to music reproduction as far as I'm concerned. As many purely technical explanations exist for why I should be hearing something a particular way, nothing is going to change the way I'm hearing my music through a player.

Now, back to the topic at hand. I'm liking the retro aesthetic that Colorful is going for with the Colorfly but it's not enough to convince me that it's a player that I need to add to my collection, especially not for the price they're asking for it. That money is better spent on a good DAC for my laptop and a better pair of headphones for home listening. My Rockboxed Sansa Fuze and iPod Touch will satisfy my portable playing needs nicely and are infinitely more portable than the Colorfly can ever hope to be.

All in all, it's an interesting concept but not one that I can see myself buying, realistically.

It is always interesting to see how a player compares, this includes graphs etc. But in the end all that matters is the sound of the payer and I am sure that the Colorfly will be just as good or better than a 602.

Ps guy on ABI was banned for all the right reasons. Defending the Flo is okay... hay it makes for some great reading material but you should keep it civilized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LevA 

I think a few people (including myself) were interested in the colorfly when it was first mentioned here in head-fi, but that was when the price was thought to be around 250 euros. 

at 499 Euros, I think it is way to much for what is relatively an unknown player (and maker) for now. 

 

 

 

While I agree 500€ price is a bit too high, lets face it for 250€ you can hardly get a good portable player with a good amp that can compete with Head-Direct's players and with digital output. And its made of wood not plastic, that counts too. 400€ is the price they should be looking at imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by .Sup 

While I agree 500€ price is a bit too high, lets face it for 250€ you can hardly get a good portable player with a good amp that can compete with Head-Direct's players and with digital output. And its made of wood not plastic, that counts too. 400€ is the price they should be looking at imo.

They should make "premium" versions with large capacity as well IMHO.

32GB in a premium product sounds just ridiculous in 2010.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penartur 

They should make "premium" versions with large capacity as well IMHO.

32GB in a premium product sounds just ridiculous in 2010.

well since 32gb is twice as much as I will get in my 602, when I get it, it sounds about right if that is premium. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by .Sup 

well since 32gb is twice as much as I will get in my 602, when I get it, it sounds about right if that is premium. 

Considering that price for such amount of memory is about 40EUR (and 16GB is about 20EUR), it is really ridiculous.

Why all this manufacturers of expensive premium players for EUR500 and more can not put enough of flash memory inside?

Look at this from another side: Colorfly with 64GB would cost about 540EUR and Colorfly with 128GB would cost about 620EUR; 602 with 32GB would cost 400USD and 602 with 64GB would cost 460USD. The difference in price is subtle; the difference in usability is huge.

I can understand why they're not putting large capacity memory chips in an ultra-compact players (because of the size); i can understand why they're not putting large capacity memory chips in a relatively cheap players (ipod touch with 128gb would cost $470, as opposed to current 64gb model for $350), but why they're putting so low capacity chips in so high-priced bricks?

Looks ugly, too big, and probably doesn't sound good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bricolage 

Looks ugly, too big, and probably doesn't sound good.

Look depends on taste. Let's not kill it before it has been tested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penartur 

 but why they're putting so low capacity chips in so high-priced bricks?

its made of wood for one. Tbh this is impossible to answer until the player is reviewed. If this becomes the best portable player ever then I think the price is justified. But I agree with you that they should make them of larger capacities, there seems to be limitations in max capacity of flash ram, I would guess that 64bg costs a lot more and doesn't justify the asking price, even Apple's top of the line players are limited to 32Gb of storage. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by .Sup 

its made of wood for one. Tbh this is impossible to answer until the player is reviewed. If this becomes the best portable player ever then I think the price is justified. But I agree with you that they should make them of larger capacities, there seems to be limitations in max capacity of flash ram, I would guess that 64bg costs a lot more and doesn't justify the asking price, even Apple's top of the line players are limited to 32Gb of storage. 

There is a 64GB iPod Touch.....

At last, a DAP that makes the HM-801 look small and modern.

-Ed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achmedisdead 

There is a 64GB iPod Touch.....

True, but we all know iPod Touch can't really compete with any of the best portable players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by .Sup 

True, but we all know iPod Touch can't really compete with any of the best portable players.

I wasn't implying that it did....