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 6  

post #76 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

If you look at the measurements for 32 ohms, every graph  for the sansa clip are worse than  the cowon J3, except the flat frequency response. I guess , the gap is even worse when using my 42 ohm headphones.

My conclusion from these graph is the sansa clip have great sq, with a 16 ohm or lower impedance headphone only.

A flat frequency response isn't enough to ensure a better sq.

 


A flat FR does ensure accuracy and that to me is better, what is "better" is entirely up to you. You may fancy all those sound effect features from Cowon players; I personally left everything off and as unprocessed as possible when I had them.

 

I think you should do some googling for "sansa clip+ measured" if you really want to know if your conclusion is even close to the truth.

 

Hardware analyzers are far better than RMAA if you truly want an accurate picture. The only reason why we always see RMAA results is because most people refuse to spend over $10,000 for such analyzer if not using it as a purpose for design.

 

 

post #77 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Head Injury View Post

Stereophile measured it. I'm sure ASUS publishes it somewhere.

 

Yes, it has different gain settings. Those don't actually depend on headphone impedance, it's just a way of increasing the volume if needed. They don't change the output impedance of the card, only the amount of voltage available. You can set Highest gain for a low impedance low sensitivity headphone like the HE-6 and you won't damage it or anything. You'll get more distortion and more available volume with higher gain settings, that's about it. 

The tests were flawed. If they said the Clip+ is awesome, they'd still be flawed, I probably just wouldn't point it out tongue.gif



You only need to look at the HM-801 that was also tested at low volume to see what the problem was in that particular comparison. Apples to oranges due to bit compression of the V control. Noise and DR for a clip+ is also in the 90db range under 'normal' test conditions. Unfortunately there's more to sound than these measurements but a clip+ dark sounding? I don't think so unless a mismatch. It is a low voltage device due to it's size and may not be optimum for some cans.

 

post #78 of 467

Have stopped using my Clip+, really..

 

It is a good budget player, though.

post #79 of 467

It's a bit odd but I'm not a fan of Rockbox since I'm just not an EQ, crossfade kinda guy and prefer the overal sound of the stock firmware. I like ...09 the best with my current on hand IEMs. I find it great for it's intended purpose of easy portability with good sound. The micro sd card is just icing on that cake and allows flac to be a viable option.


Edited by goodvibes - 10/10/11 at 7:33am
post #80 of 467

I forgot - I do use mine indoors; I have it connected via aux in to my PURE Sensia which is a lot better than streaming music wirelessly from my PC, at least for me, and it's good that I have 24Gbs or so on there.

 

When the battery does die, I'll probably get a Clip Zip to replace it, but Rockbox I've no use for anymore.


Edited by Dreamnine - 10/10/11 at 8:32am
post #81 of 467


I agree 100%. I have been saying all along that rockbox does not really sound good. It must be the codecs that they use. Everything through rockbox ends up sounding low fi.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by faichiu View Post

The clip is mediocre in sound quality.  Rockbox de-grade the sound even more to digitalized and robotic sound. 

 

The headphone out has poor power output due to it's size.  You might be good with low impedance earphone.



 

post #82 of 467

I must say I did not like much the rockbox interface. It is cluttered, and when I enable recording accidentally for instance, the only way to stop it is to shutdown the sansa clip. Often I have to shutdown when I can't change something. I didn't bother with the eq, I just used a global bass setting I've boosted.

I also used a slight "setereo expand" setting.  I found that the crossfeed  option sucks, it just muddy up the sound.

post #83 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

I agree 100%. I have been saying all along that rockbox does not really sound good

Well , maybe I should revert to stock firmware. Everyone saying elsewhere that rockboxing is worth it.

Anyway, I have a dual boot option, so I'll experiment an other time with the stock firmware.
 

 

post #84 of 467

Once you've messed around with Rockbox for a while you can save all the settings, EQ, theme etc. and it is pretty easy to use - and good if you have different types of iems or 'phones..but I just got tired of that whole interface..

post #85 of 467
I didn't find that there's that much difference between the original firmware and Rockbox, but I really prefer the RB interface.
post #86 of 467

man, i picked up a clip+ for my woman, and i think it is amazing. the sound quality beats the crap out of my ipod nano (the second to newest generation, with the camera but still has the scroll wheel) and it can adequately drive headphones that the nano can not. plus, the sound signature was amazing in my opinion, though i also love the ath-es7 which a lot of people hate. guitars and vocals POPPED a lot more than through my nano. plus, since you can add a 16gb microsd card to it, it has more storage. only downside is you have to put work into tagging your songs correctly using metadata, or your library will be a jumbled mess. also, the screen is REALLY nice IMO.

 

like i said, i like the ath-es7, which a lot of people hate. the clip+ has very forward mid-trebble (right between the mids and the highs, yeah i made up a word) and punchy midbass if i remember correctly. which means that voices, guitars, etc sound very forward, and this sound might not be for everyone. i never listened to the es7 on the clip+, but i think it might be a little too much harshness even for me, since they share the same strengths.

 

i just picked up two more of these players, one for me and one for my friend, as well as a fiios e5 amp which i have been curious about for a while. i also have an alo audio MK2 amp on the way, as well as ath-esw9 headphones. if anyone wants to listen to any of these things (i have a feeling the fiio e5 and the clip+ will make a great jogging team) and lives in southern california in the vicinity of ventura/thousand oaks area, hit me up. however, i dont think that the <$30 price for a refurbished one is much to drop on something i think sounds fantastic. if someone gets one and doesnt like it, ill take it off their hands (pay for it of course). i have another friend that will appreciate a little mp3 player.


Edited by Skoobs - 10/10/11 at 11:13pm
post #87 of 467

I can't say the SQ of the Clip+ is any different than my latest gen. Nano.

 

Rockbox, of course, offers much better sound enhancements.

post #88 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamnine View Post

I can't say the SQ of the Clip+ is any different than my latest gen. Nano.

 

Rockbox, of course, offers much better sound enhancements.

Great, as long as Clip+ is as good as, or better than the ipod nano, it's good to me.
Just ordered one, btw :)

 

post #89 of 467

Does anyone know how the Clip Zip compares to the Clip+?

Thinking about getting one of them, or the current iPod shuffle.

post #90 of 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by feteru View Post

Does anyone know how the Clip Zip compares to the Clip+?

Thinking about getting one of them, or the current iPod shuffle.



Here is your answer......

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64913

 

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?!