[blawhh]

how do you open it? rename the file??

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bakhtiar /img/forum/go_quote.gif FYI, the manual is in Microsofof Word format . Open it with Word or Open Office, or any apps which can read Word format. TQ.

Thanks Bahktiar, Craig emailed me a word version direct, which is in much better shape. I may take the time to edit it (after all, that's my business), and redo it so it's much easier to understand. It will take time, but I have no problem doing that. Once it's done, anyone who wants it can PM me. I will send it to Craig as well, so he can use it with those he sells. But it will take time, since I have real work to do.

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blawhh /img/forum/go_quote.gif how do you open it? rename the file??

Open what?

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ulsanman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do not put lots of files into a single folder, it really doesn't like that at all, lots of folders is no problem, lots of files is, if they're flac!!

Thanks for that. I was creating large folders with tracks inside (like jazz/vocals, acoustic, etc), but you say that's not good. Or is that only for flac. If you want to use regular mp3 or wma, does it matter? I've decided I don't need flac. I had a Holly Cole track (Alley Cat) on last night, and its 192k WMA and it sounded fantastic with the buds. So I think it's really more about good mastering/production than bit rate with this machine. It's almost like a niche player in that sense. I won't be putting on tracks such as oldies (Motown, for example) because it's just not the best way to enjoy the Amp3. Just a sense I get. Garbage in, garbage out, and the Amp3 will reveal it. I don't mean old Motown is garbage, I mean on balance t's just not mastered like jazz, vocals, classical, acoustic music, etc. Same with older pop songs or rock, depending on the artist.

If I want to listen to the older, less polished stuff, I will use one of my other daps. But that's just how I feel now. It could change.

What do you think?

 

[blawhh]

the file you download is rar

 

[tstarn06]

Yes, but I have the word doc. PM me your email, and I will send as an attachment. This is the one Craig sent today. The .rar file opened with a special app I got for free on the Web, but no need for that since I have the Word doc.

 

[soozieq]

Chris, you had the Kenwood for a while. Can you make any comparisons between that and the amp3 from memory? I liked the Kenny, but I did not like the small soundstage! And although it was incredibly detailed, I found the detail got very tiring at louder volumes due to the small soundstage. What are your impressions re: Kenny/amp3 at this stage of burn in? Thanks.

 

[cn11]

24 hour burn in update:

I decided to pull the amp3 off the charger and have a listen, especially after average_joe’s 24 hour impressions. Well first thing I noticed is that the hiss has definitely diminished, which is a nice development. Using the FX500’s now is not so distracting in quiet musical passages. However I don’t really hear much, if any, evolution in the sound sig. It still sounds cold and rather clinical to me. Detail remains great of course, about the equal of the Sony X.

Currently I’m actually hearing a difference in soundstage with the X, despite my original post. I guess I’ve run through a wider variety of music, with better mastering, and there’s a difference noticeable with the Sony. It seems wider and more 360-degree. But the biggest area the amp3 is still falling short is the bass. The level of impact and extension is just not there by comparison. I REALLY hope this opens up as burn in gets closer to 100 hours. I'll let it run in now through early next week, and then give an update as that should be the 100 hour mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soozieq /img/forum/go_quote.gif Chris, you had the Kenwood for a while. Can you make any comparisons between that and the amp3 from memory? I liked the Kenny, but I did not like the small soundstage! And although it was incredibly detailed, I found the detail got very tiring at louder volumes due to the small soundstage. What are your impressions re: Kenny/amp3 at this stage of burn in? Thanks.

Soozieq-
Sure… From what I remember about the Kenwood, it was a little bit more akin to the Sony X, with its level of detail while having that similar kind of mellow sound sig. Its soundstage was definitely narrower though. Comparing my memory of it to what I’m hearing now with the amp3 I’d say it was warmer, with similar soundstage size. The amp3 is noticeably colder. Both the Kenwood and the amp3 hiss more than the X too…although the amp3’s hiss is going down with burn in. I think I remember a deeper bass response from the Kenwood as well.

 

[average_joe]

@cn - I have tried most of my HPs with the AMP3 and for me the best match is the IE8, and the worst is the UF-30 which has treble that can be kinda "hot." I actually think the IE8 has a better balance than the buds just due to the treble, but the rest of the spectrum is very good.

So, if the FX-500 is hot in the treble, I don't think it would be a good match for the AMP3, but then I don't have that IEM so I don't really know.

On another note, the AMP3 gives my Philips SHE9500 new life! And I don't think the NE-7 is a good match.

But I am only half way through the burn in so everything can change

 

[cn11]

average_joe-
I hear you... I tried the IE8's this morning with the amp3.... should have mentioned that. Sorry, forgot to include that bit. They are a decent match for sure, with the amp3's detail helping out the IE8's sound sig. But when I went back and listened to the X with the IE8's, I still hear the same shortcomings of the amp3.

X2 on everything can change! I hope the amp3 opens up since I still have 75% of the burn in to go though.

 

[tstarn06]

Deleted

 

[cn11]

Of course as in so many cases it comes down to preference, and this player may suit bright detail freaks (such as Ety lovers, as you note). But to my ears at this point, the X just seems more 'right'. If anything, the amp3 is showing more coloration toward the cold side. I don't think I've personally called the X 'warm', I've said it's more mellow and natural. To me that's a different thing than 'warm'. Also as I noted (and despite my initial review's premature comment about soundstage) with the X the stage is definitely wider on well recorded material, and the bass is much more extended. To me, these things constitute shortcomings with the amp3. But again, burn in will hopefully help rectify these issues.

 

[soozieq]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cn11 /img/forum/go_quote.gif However I don’t really hear much, if any, evolution in the sound sig. It still sounds cold and rather clinical to me. Detail remains great of course, about the equal of the Sony X.

Cold and clinical, hmmm. I know numerous people have described the D2 in the same way (without effects applied), and you think the D2 is cold too. So I think it's safe to assume that those who didn't care for the D2 sound might not care for the amp3 either?

Unless it burns in and becomes less clinical of course, that's a possiblilty, so I'll still be interested in how it sounds at the end of burn in. But your description so far is somewhat less than inviting

Thanks for the updates

 

[tstarn06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cn11 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course as in so many cases it comes down to preference, and this player may suit bright detail freaks (such as Ety lovers, as you note). But to my ears at this point, the X just seems more 'right'. If anything, the amp3 is showing more coloration toward the cold side. I don't think I've personally called the X 'warm', I've said it's more mellow and natural. To me that's a different thing than 'warm'. Also as I noted (and despite my initial review's premature comment about soundstage) with the X the stage is definitely wider on well recorded material, and the bass is much more extended. To me, these things constitute shortcomings with the amp3. But again, burn in will hopefully help rectify these issues.

Deleted.

 

[cn11]

@ tstarn06-

I will be happy to continue debating this with you when you have listened to both DAP’s and can offer your own comparison. Until you have heard the X for yourself and don't have to rely on one person's opinion who PM'd you to complain about it, there is nothing else to discuss, and the whole debate is futile. Therefore I have nothing more to say to you until you have heard both. I don’t criticize your comparisons between the different phones you own, so how about allowing me to have my own opinion on two DAP’s that I have first-hand experience with, and which you don't.

Cheers.