Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Sansa Clip Zip or Clip+ ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sansa Clip Zip or Clip+ ? - Page 18

Poll Results: Sansa Clip Zip or Clip+

 
  • 43% (79)
    Sansa Clip Zip
  • 56% (103)
    Sansa Clip+
182 Total Votes  
post #256 of 359
It might just be a question of compatibility. Clip+ works best with highly sensitive 'phones with impedance 32 ohm or lower. The JVCs have 48 ohm impedance. Maybe what you actually need is some amplification or to use only IEMs or similarly sensitive and low impedance headphones with it. I like my Clip+ with dynamic IEMs but it hasn't the power to drive higher impedance headphones nearly as well as some other players or an amp.
post #257 of 359
Im using 32 ohm Philips SHL9600's.... SQ is so much better with E6 thru the PC...as opposed to Clip + > E6 > SHL's The detail just seem greater.... E10's sound MAGIC thru the Clip+ lol
post #258 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

It might just be a question of compatibility. Clip+ works best with highly sensitive 'phones with impedance 32 ohm or lower. The JVCs have 48 ohm impedance. Maybe what you actually need is some amplification or to use only IEMs or similarly sensitive and low impedance headphones with it. I like my Clip+ with dynamic IEMs but it hasn't the power to drive higher impedance headphones nearly as well as some other players or an amp.

 

That depends.  ER4S is 100ohm and the clip sounds excellent with them.  An amp doesn't really help much.  Granted, it could have more power for very quiet music, but so could a lot of things you plug them into.  For portable use you probably could get away with never needing an amp.  I'm not saying it doesn't help, but the clip is very high quality even though it isn't the most driving force for volume.

post #259 of 359
But my crappy PC beats it...really crappy PC The Philips are a different phone altogether
post #260 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanjent View Post

But my crappy PC beats it...really crappy PC The Philips are a different phone altogether

 

Beats what?

post #261 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

 

Beats what?

 

My Clip+ and E6
post #262 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanjent View Post

 

My Clip+ and E6

Oh. yeah.  definitely. :)

post #263 of 359
Which player will give me similar SQ?
post #264 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by luisdent View Post

That depends. ... it isn't the most driving force for volume.

Yes it depends, but to sound good, or even to just attain a reasonable level, some headphones need a lot more power than the Clip+ can offer. Sound quality in terms of fidelity may be good, bad or indifferent but if the desired level can't be reached then the sound quality is compromised.

If Tanjent is using Clip+ and relatively high impedance 'phones of known high quality and is dissatisfied then the obvious thing to look at to remedy that is amplification or an IEM that is more sensitive and with lower impedance i.e. more compatible with the source. Maybe it is something else but starting with the obvious is not so silly.

As to what player currently available might be better I can't say except it is going to cost lots more than the humble Clip+. My other players which can drive slightly more demanding 'phones are really old. I would hate to be buying a new player these days because beyond the well specified, low price players like the Clip+/Fuze range there is an awful lot of unappealing fashion-victim crap until you spend really big or give in and buy an iPod and let Apple dictate your file formats, metadata schemes, software choices etc etc. Perhaps the exception is the Fiio X3, not sure.
post #265 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by julian67 View Post

Yes it depends, but to sound good, or even to just attain a reasonable level, some headphones need a lot more power than the Clip+ can offer. Sound quality in terms of fidelity may be good, bad or indifferent but if the desired level can't be reached then the sound quality is compromised.

If Tanjent is using Clip+ and relatively high impedance 'phones of known high quality and is dissatisfied then the obvious thing to look at to remedy that is amplification or an IEM that is more sensitive and with lower impedance i.e. more compatible with the source. Maybe it is something else but starting with the obvious is not so silly.

As to what player currently available might be better I can't say except it is going to cost lots more than the humble Clip+. My other players which can drive slightly more demanding 'phones are really old. I would hate to be buying a new player these days because beyond the well specified, low price players like the Clip+/Fuze range there is an awful lot of unappealing fashion-victim crap until you spend really big or give in and buy an iPod and let Apple dictate your file formats, metadata schemes, software choices etc etc. Perhaps the exception is the Fiio X3, not sure.
Yes. But i'm just saying i have the er4s, and the clip powers them plenty and sounds as good as my c5 amp doing it. At least 99% and those are 100ohm earphones. But sensitivity is more than just impedance....
Edited by luisdent - 8/15/13 at 6:27am
post #266 of 359

Hey, all.  Just got a 64GB card for my rockboxed (3.13) Clip Zip.  Formatted to FAT32 with 4k clusters (not a quick format) and filled with HQ VBR MP3s.  However, now it is markedly less responsive when browsing the database.  The card is a Sandisk Ultra card Class 10.  I have set it to automatically update the database and to store the database in RAM, but no change.  Any ideas?

post #267 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foldedpencil View Post

Hey, all.  Just got a 64GB card for my rockboxed (3.13) Clip Zip.  Formatted to FAT32 with 4k clusters (not a quick format) and filled with HQ VBR MP3s.  However, now it is markedly less responsive when browsing the database.  The card is a Sandisk Ultra card Class 10.  I have set it to automatically update the database and to store the database in RAM, but no change.  Any ideas?

 

I would not auto update.  That will make it scan the card more often wasting access time you could be getting for loading songs, etc.  Unless you add music to the player or card there is no need to update the database ever.  If you add music just choose to do an update manually then...  This may not fix your problem, but it should "technically" increase access times.  I have a 64gb sandisk card and have no problems.  I have it completely full with 256aac files.  I can browse the database instantly.  Only when I play a song is there a momentary delay, but it's no more than about 1-2 seconds max.

post #268 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foldedpencil View Post

Hey, all.  Just got a 64GB card for my rockboxed (3.13) Clip Zip.  Formatted to FAT32 with 4k clusters (not a quick format) and filled with HQ VBR MP3s.  However, now it is markedly less responsive when browsing the database.  The card is a Sandisk Ultra card Class 10.  I have set it to automatically update the database and to store the database in RAM, but no change.  Any ideas?

 

Like luisdent said.....don't use the automatic update to the database. When you make a change to the contents of the player, select "initialize database" and that will do a fresh database.

post #269 of 359

Yeah, thanks guys.  With auto update off and load to RAM on, the delay went away.  My problem was that I was not restarting it between changing those options so they didn't really go into effect.

post #270 of 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foldedpencil View Post

Yeah, thanks guys.  With auto update off and load to RAM on, the delay went away.  My problem was that I was not restarting it between changing those options so they didn't really go into effect.
Woohoo! Fast music! :-)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Sansa Clip Zip or Clip+ ?