Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is Sansa Clip + really that good?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Sansa Clip + really that good?! - Page 30  

post #436 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barra View Post

QUALITY ISSUES: Is anyone else having the severe quality issues that I have been having? I have tried both the Clip+ and the Clip Zip and have ended up returning four in the last month due to freezing issues and bad batteries that will not charge. They sound great when they work, but I have never been able to get one to work for more than 2 hours without freezing up or the battery completely draining from a full charge.

Will Rockboxing correct the freeze issue? Has anyone got one with a battery that lasts anywhere near the 15 hour claim?

Battery runtime in Rockbox: you can get some idea at http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/SansaRuntime

It is very dependent on whether you use Eq or other sound effects such as crossfeed, the codec chosen, the volume and the amount of time you have the screen on. It's a test you can easily do yourself after you install Rockbox.

Players freezing: this can happen both in Original Firmware and in Rockbox. If you hold the power button down for 20 seconds the player reboots and normality is restored....until the next time.

"They sound great when they work" is a very decent assessment imo, or at least it accords with my experience of the Clip+. I wrote a review of my 8GB Clip+ here on Head-Fi and concluded it with
Quote:
It is very, very cheap. It can be terrible, it can be brilliant. But it's always cheap. So am I, and that's why I bought it. If you're cheap you'll probably like it too.
post #437 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

Yes I have been adamant in not making a judgement where I have no means to form a judgement. It's unclear how this can be held to be a failing.

You accused me of having "unwavering faith" three times, even after I have repeatedly pointed out that I have made no claims of any kind about the player. A bit of give and take is normal but if you repeatedly make accusations after they are shown untrue then that is perfectly reasonably described as repeating an untruth.

If you like to make unpleasant, untrue or unfounded personal remarks to and about people that is up to you, but try not to act innocent and surprised when met with a frank rebuttal.

No you have been adamant in calling me biased when there are obvious and legitimate reasons as to why I would think the Tera is ridiculous with good reason. Funnily a conclusion which I reached via the graphs you posted as well as contacting the maker himself. Unaware of the latter, you proceeded to make some derogatory comments on how I am telepathic etc. So no, YOU have been the one with all the bias and assumptions to begin with. Funny how you say I am unpleasant. Why don't you go back and read what you wrote regarding shoving battery acid in your eyeballs and so on. You are accusing me of making untrue/unfounded/personal remarks when I haven't and you are doing just that yourself.

 

 

I said Charles Altmann would be biased. I don't think anybody on this forum who reads what he wrote and has sense would disagree to the former statement. In your eyes that is somehow both unpleasant, untrue and unfounded when obviously, it is most likely to be the case. Have you not read his stupendously grandiose descriptions of his DAP? You even said so yourself, that he is aware of the market forces. So tell me honestly, if I asked the man to perform ABX or DBT on the Clip+ and Tera that the Tera would not come out on top? Conflict of interests anyone?

 

You are astounding on how you spout all the offensive and disturbing stuff right from the beginning and at the end you take the moral high ground and accuse me of making untrue, unfounded and personal remarks when it isn't even the case. 


Edited by uchihaitachi - 5/29/13 at 4:50pm
post #438 of 467
If you offer judgements on the sound quality of an audio player without actually hearing it then you are indeed expressing bias. This is self evident.

If you believe yourself able to assess the sound quality of a product that you have never heard then you are indeed claiming extraordinary powers akin to telepathy or remote viewing.

You have repeatedly claimed that I have "unwavering faith" in Mr Altmann's product despite me not having made even one qualitative comment about it, either negative or positive. I have pointed out that I have made no such comment or assessment but you repeat the ad-hominem assertions even while knowing them to be untrue. You do this while telling me I am offensive, disturbing, biased and apparently so stupid that I "will forever miss the point".
Quote:
You seem to mistakenly believe that no informed decision can be reached without actually hearing the object itself.

There is no mistake. If you didn't hear it then you cannot determine how it sounds.

So far you have used someone else's RMAA results to make some judgements, despite considering those RMAA results flawed or incomplete.

In doing so you have asserted two entirely contradictory conclusions:

that the player with a non oversampling DAC has a low pass filter but this doesn't affect the sound
Quote:
seems to have a second-order filter, which may make nice looking square waves, but has to break way down into the audio band to be rolled off enough by the sampling frequency. The FR plots don't quite go high enough, but it looks like 12dB/octave breaking at 12KHz or so. ..

Hence no audible difference.

and that the player
Quote:
will simply sound more dull than the clip+ as there is treble roll off.

Apparently we are witness to a remarkable new phenomenon - remote hearing that includes the ability to perceive simultaneous difference and non-difference without contradiction or embarrassment.

I prefer not to offer an opinion on the player because I haven't heard it. I apologise if this strikes anyone as offensive, disturbing, biased, pedantic or evidence of some kind of cheap conjuring trick.

edit: typo: qualititititititative
Edited by julian67 - 5/29/13 at 5:37pm
post #439 of 467

If you offer judgements on the sound quality of an audio player without actually hearing it then you are indeed expressing bias. This is self evident.

 

There is evident treble roll off. It wouldn’t be wrong to assume that if anything the Tera will lack treble detail at fixed volume levels compared to say a clip+. Not a bias, I am just using the empirical data which you provided which the creator of the Tera ran himself. And again you miss the point. The sound quality of the Tera is meant to be that of 'unparalleled clarity and transparency'. An audibly transparent player will not be any different from another audibly transparent player. Therefore I expressed my discontentment (which you perceive as bias) at the way it is marketed with its ridiculous price tag which inevitably leads to people to believe that the Tera is indeed a DAP with magical qualities that is 'universes and galaxies' above all other DAPs. This statement is obviously completely false. No bias there. Or do you believe that the absence of the magical qualities can only be proven as being non existent if I listen to it?



If you believe yourself able to assess the sound quality of a product that you have never heard then you are indeed claiming extraordinary powers akin to telepathy or remote viewing.
 

Yes I can ascertain the sound quality of a product to a certain degree, again with the results you provided.  

 


There is no mistake. If you didn't hear it then you cannot determine how it sounds.
 

Yes you can. Of course there is variability to an extent, but yes you can. That is why people often refer to graphs. And yet again you miss the point. Even arguing from the perspective that the Tera measurements are all screwed up, the Tera is supposed to be an audibly transparent player. It is not going to be any better than any other audibly transparent player. No bias, just a simple scientific fact. So yes, audible transparency is achieved to a degree in the clip+ therefore I believe the Tera is a joke. Bias? No. Simple reasoning backed up by countless empirical data. Even if the Tera player is audibly transparent, it will still remain a joke as you can find audibly transparent players with much MUCH smaller price tags with many more extra offerings, like a screen...

 


So far you have used someone else's RMAA results to make some judgements, despite considering those RMAA results flawed or incomplete.

 

RMAA results have margins for error. Does not mean the results are to be completely discarded. But again, I find myself repeating, with the link you provided you can evidently see treble roll off. If the RMAA results have no meaning why were you debating about the square waves at the start in the first place? IF ANYTHING the Tera is just an audibly transparent DAP. The data you provided seems to refute this. But even if the data is putting the Tera in a bad light, it is still a ridiculous product.

 


In doing so you have asserted two entirely contradictory conclusions:

that the player with a non oversampling DAC has a low pass filter but this doesn't affect the sound

Quote:

seems to have a second-order filter, which may make nice looking square waves, but has to break way down into the audio band to be rolled off enough by the sampling frequency. The FR plots don't quite go high enough, but it looks like 12dB/octave breaking at 12KHz or so. ..

Hence no audible difference.


and that the player

Quote:

will simply sound more dull than the clip+ as there is treble roll off.


Apparently we are witness to a remarkable new phenomenon - remote hearing that includes the ability to perceive simultaneous difference and non-difference without contradiction or embarrassment.
 

Not contradictory at all. If anything, there is evident treble roll off. But I am hypothesising that there probably exists a second order filter which creates the symmetrical square waves. However the effects of the second order filter are not clearly visible in the graphs you provided. If you have problems understanding this, ask any engineer in the science of sound forums. They too attributed the existence of symmetrical square waves to the second order filter and thought IF ANYTHING, the Tera player will have less clarity in the higher frequencies due to the roll off. 

 

I prefer not to offer an opinion on the player because I haven't heard it. I apologise if this strikes anyone as offensive, disturbing, biased, pedantic or evidence of some kind of cheap conjuring trick.

 

You are the biased one. Hypocritical much? The act of you remaining neutral of your judgement with respect to the player does not make my opinion biased. Without realising that I have also contacted Mr Altmann himself, my opinion has more grounds to be valid than yours. 

 

Your tone, style of writing and analogies such as putting battery acid in your eyeballs is not pleasant to say the least. It comes off as rather bizarre, disturbing and derogatory. Other people have commented in this thread enquiring as to why you express yourself the way you do. That is a different matter all together and has nothing to do with your opinion of the player so don't try to deflect that issue onto something completely irrelevant. 

post #440 of 467
Thread Starter 

 drop it people.


Edited by nicholars - 5/29/13 at 6:49pm
post #441 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

 drop it people.

Agreed. Sorry for this.

post #442 of 467
I stand corrected.

I had, through stubbornness and bias, failled to understand the following:

It is possible to assess sound quality without the inconvenience of hearing.

When assessing sound quality an exchange of emails is a valuable substitute for hearing.

Price is a significant factor in measuring sound quality.

The manufacturer's RMAA tests of an unloaded player are at least as useful as some emails when asessing sound quality.

The manufacturer's RMAA tests can be associated, by using the phrase "your data", with someone who didn't perform the tests and hasn't used the tests to make any claims about the sound quality of the player.

Sometimes unverifiable data is a good thing and sometimes it is a bad thing.

Hypothesising is at least as good as hearing in judging sound quality.

Hypothesisng also allows one to see low pass filters that cannot be detected by mere measurement, and this makes for informed analysis.

There is nothing hypothetical about hypothesising.

Negative personal characterisations make a useful diversion from matters of fact.

If a person judges sound quality without hearing this can be summarised as follows:
Quote:
No bias, just a simple scientific fact.

Edited by julian67 - 5/29/13 at 7:06pm
post #443 of 467
Thread Starter 

Deleted


Edited by nicholars - 5/29/13 at 7:06pm
post #444 of 467
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

Agreed. Sorry for this.

 

lol was more julian167 who has repeated himself about 15 times now.

post #445 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

I stand corrected.

I had, through stubbornness and bias, failled to understand the following:

It is possible to assess sound quality without the inconvenience of hearing.

When assessing sound quality an exchange of emails is a valuable substitute for hearing.

Price is a significant factor in measuring sound quality.

The manufacturer's RMAA tests of an unloaded player are at least as useful as some emails when asessing sound quality.

The manufacturer's RMAA tests can be associated, by using the phrase "your data", with someone who didn't perform the tests and hasn't used the tests to make any claims about the sound quality of the player.

Sometimes unverifiable data is a good thing and sometimes it is a bad thing.

Hypothesising is at least as good as hearing in judging sound quality.

Hypothesisng also allows one to see low pass filters that cannot be detected by mere measurement, and this makes for informed analysis.

There is nothing hypothetical about hypothesising.

Negative personal characterisations make a useful diversion from matters of fact.

If a person judges sound quality without hearing this can be summarised as follows:

For the last time. Lets drop it. You are still missing the entire point. I expressed discontentment at the product. I don't need to hear it to know that it doesn't have magical qualities. Maybe you do or maybe you equate audible transparency to magic. Also, you are still accusing me of something I didn't do and not addressing your behavioural issues. But anyways whatever floats your boat. 


Edited by uchihaitachi - 5/29/13 at 7:09pm
post #446 of 467
Thread Starter 

It appears you have really hit a nerve there uchihiatachi haha

post #447 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

It appears you have really hit a nerve there uchihiatachi haha

I didn't know that pointing out a BS product was a sin of such gravity. Clearly a forum is the wrong place to do such a thing as discussing. I might go buy a Tera player now to bathe myself in a world of sound quality that is 'galaxies and universes' above all others. After all, I haven't actually heard it so who knows? Quite amusing really, to see so many TPs appearing on Trade and Sales. Maybe the SQ was so good that people have suddenly become super altruistic.

post #448 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisenhower View Post

 

But in any event, as others have noted, that qualitative test isn't a valid measurement of sound quality, because perfect square waves don't exist in music, and even if they did, an actual headphone isn't going to reproduce them.

 

That's a little like saying 300kmph driving on a square-waved track doesn't exist in real traffic, so testing any car at above 150kmph, outside of normal highways, is fairly useless.

 

I can see your overall point though, that normal complex musical impulses should be sent to a PMP or DAC and then zoomed in on, which isn't done.  The reason it isn't done is the labs think square-waves are more difficult to produce, so they don't need to test normal music as the square-wave performance is sufficient, akin to a car which would make perfect turns on a square-waved race track.

post #449 of 467
Thread Starter 

I am suprised that the tera player doesn't advertise the lack of any type of screen as a feature to improve sound quality.

 

Seriously have people ACTUALLY bought one of those? Has anyone actually paid 1600 euros?!?!?

post #450 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholars View Post

I am suprised that the tera player doesn't advertise the lack of any type of screen as a feature to improve sound quality.

 

Seriously have people ACTUALLY bought one of those? Has anyone actually paid 1600 euros?!?!?

The Tera appreciation thread has A LOT of people. It's not as bad as 2000 3000 dollar USB cables and mains cables :p

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Is Sansa Clip + really that good?!