[Skylab]

Quote:

Yes well there will aways be some collectors. Collectors are a different breed.

Vinyl is about a lot more than collectors. I was in a used record store a few weeks ago looking at LPs, and there were about 8 teenage girls in there buying LP's. And I LISTEN to LP's. A lot.

Quote:

the trend is and will continue to be that all music and media will be distributed electronically and listened to on personal DAP type players. The only thing we have to wait for is for all of the old dinosaurs within the RIAA and other similar organisations to die, so that a new generation who understand this can finally take over.

This I agree with completely. I am all about getting digital music via download. BUT only if I can get it lossless. I get lossless downloads from MusicGiants, the Grateful Dead, and other places. Lossy downloads are a bummer, and why I still buy CDs. I would buy only LPs and downloads starting NOW if there were more places to get Lossless downloads.

 

[hwanmeister]

raid517, if by chance you are not interested in amps or cables or any other enhancing head-fi equipments to go along with your portable DAP, then I recommend without reservation Kenwood HD20GA7 as a great choice. But the problem is that the price is very prohibitive (over 400 bucks for 20GB) and it's not widely available. However, I think straight out of the headphone jack it sounds better than anything else out there - certainly better than X5s, Gigabeats and, dare I say it, iPods.

 

[Quado]

Into everything new, huh! Ha ha, just messing around: I think you will be satisfied with the portable selection from audiocubes (they update DAPs in stock a lot, so you should find something neat over there).

Come to think about it...Uh: I guess if I were to get a DAP RIGHT NOW, I would consider getting something nice and fresh (less mainstream than Ipod: I DO believe Ipods have much quality, but the majority of Ipod owners are unfortunately not even REALLY into high quality equipment -- excluding people from places like Head-Fi that is...this is a bit of a let down since I like to stray from the norm...). On that note a new and interesting player has just arrived this month (supposedly: don't know the real release date though) -- the Kenwood HD20GA7 is this player (besides this, I would also strongly recommend into looking at Toshiba players... Heh heh, I guess I'm a fan of more foreign stuff (don't know if you're interesting in buying these players though...).

 

[D555]

Now if we only had portable, 100GIG flash players......

I wouldn't too quick to kill off the CD. The billions that are out there have full resolution and no copy protection.

Paul

 

[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517 Those amps you mentioned. How much are they and where can I buy them? GJ

60 GB Photo: You got it.

RSA Hornet: $300
From Ray Samuels on this website or from his website:
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=150199
http://www.raysamuelsaudio.com/index2.html

Red Wine Audio iMod: $200
From his website:
http://www.redwineaudio.com/iMod.html

Good IC: $50-100
It can be purchased right here on the forums:
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57

So, about $600 after shipping and everything, not bad for the BEST PORTABLE AUDIO PLAYER.

 

[Quado]

There is a reason why the very best systems out there use CD (or record) players: the CD just sounds more analog because of the physical actions being involved in reading them -- it's more similar to how vinyl is read, which I think I read on the internet somewhere that vinyl has tiny imprinted frequency related grooves in the disc that cause mechanical vibrations in the underlying equipment to convert the mechanical energy created into electrical and analog signals -- something like that; heh heh I also read that vinyl can be slightly played if you spin it on a cup with a needle running along the grooves.

Honestly there will probably NEVER be super expensive big decks that ONLY plays digitally from a hard drive -- there's just too much size limitations involved to call that great -- this is why the most expensive systems use more physical formats (CD/Vinyl/Tape) to their full advantage (a computer might be the best digital player in a way -- yet compare that to more analog setups that use CDs and Vinyl; tape). In a portable setup... I guess there's not much use in arguing over whether a DAP or portable CD player is better... It's just too hard to tell, seeing as how the market forces companies to make products too small (with stuff so small nowadays, companies should at least put in a digital amp...) -- anyways I'm really surprised to see that so many people in the world are saying such bad things about portable CD players...

All I know is that the next generation in the portable market will finally make better use of digital amps -- what is perhaps the biggest mistake is making all types of amps too small in the product to make it look all small and "special" (that should be interesting...especially if the player is not forced to be too small). All I REALLY know is that if the amps and other stuff in the players don't get better, then that would be...wrong.

 

[Quado]

For all you DAP owners out there, I would get a player that slowly puts the music on it (a slower transfer is higher quality -- not quite sure why, but that's how it is). The same thing goes when converting bitrates (this is how a converting program figured...).

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Honestly there will probably NEVER be super expensive big decks that ONLY plays digitally from a hard drive

Well, I guess strictly speaking that is true, since the "super expensive big decks" that play primarily from a hard drive mostly have a CD player in them for ripping purposes.

But this is one example of what is clearly a high-end audio device that is mostly a hard drive based product, and there are many others like them:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/pr...ribute_1=Black

 

[LFC_SL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quado For all you DAP owners out there, I would get a player that slowly puts the music on it (a slower transfer is higher quality -- not quite sure why, but that's how it is). The same thing goes when converting bitrates (this is how a converting program figured...).

Expand, or link plz

First I heard of this

 

[Quado]

Actually, that was just a clumsy guess... It is most likely the OPPOSITE of what I said (the slower conversion is better only when ripping CDs actually -- the bitrate type stuff, like 320kbps...). I just confused the two -- here's a site that explains the USB transfer for DAPs http://www.retailaccess.com/tech_training/usb.html Here's a quote that will be of interest to you -- "The USB standard specifies two kinds of cables and two variations of connectors. Hi-speed USB cables are better shielded than their less expensive USB counterparts to minimize noise coupling that could interfere with data transfer."

Sorry about that, I'm definately not as smart as I would LIKE to be... Oh, well. So slower CD rips are higher quality (go to mp3 converting related sites for info on this), and Hi-speed USB is better for quality from what I quoted. I believe that more a expensive USB cable would most likely be better for transfers -- and a nice CD burner and speedy computer would help for a more steady transfer -- something like that. Sorry for messing up, heh heh.

Edit Note: Uhm, by the way -- if you DAP owners didn't know already, you get higher quality audio if you buy the original CDs and rip them ONLY from the CD to the computer to DAP or even better from CD to DAP(with choice of bitrate, etc.) -- changing bitrate through files created with the CD and not FROM the CD is worse for quality (change bitrate or keep the same from RIPPING THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL). Edit Note 2: Hhmmm... But then again (about the speed of transfer), maybe hi-speed cables are better, but with a low speed transfer (DAP, computer/usb ports) -- after all, I WAS talking about transfer speed of the player, not the USB cable -- I was just assuming it was similar to how slower CD rips (better conversion -- I'm not saying slow burner, but better conversion in general is slower to make) sound better. You guys will just have to experiment with this kind of stuff if you're interested -- I have no DAP to play around with : ). Please tell if you get any good or interesting results! You guys know what I'm trying to say...right?

 

[Quado]

Oh, I didn't know a hard drive player like that existed... Oh, well: they look interesting and all, but most of us here would consider those to be less practical than DAPs, etc. No one really talks about those players much here.

Edit note: mainly less practical compared to computers though; must have better quality than a computer for audio though...interesting.

 

[LFC_SL]

Well I've already painstakingly put my music through EAC+Lame...

I always buy CDs. Damn DRM to hell!!!

Never heard of USB transfer having an potential impact before. And I've browsed this cursed forum long enough!

 

[Quado]

I was really only speculating... Seriously: I have NO proof at all that usb gives at least a notable change in quality (I've never even used a DAP or any USB for audio before) Hhmmm.. I doubt that any possible change would even be noticeable, if there was a change. Please test it out on a few familiar tracks instead of your whole collection (so you will you know if it's worth it or not...I seriously say it wouldn't be worth it unless you buy a new model DAP for a fresh transfer).

 

[raid517]

Transferring files (music or otherwise) via USB has no effect whatsoever on sound quality.

That is like saying any music transferred electronically is automatically degraded.

Which it isn't.

If that were the case, there would be no lossless audio recordings on the Internet either.

GJ

 

[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raid517 Transferring files (music or otherwise) via USB has no effect whatsoever on sound quality. That is like saying any music transferred electronically is automatically degraded. Which it isn't. If that were the case, there would be no lossless audio recordings on the Internet either. GJ

I believe the idea behind it was how data is lost in a USB cable causing pssoble incomplete files. However, this is not an issue since computers automatically check for all data to be on the disk once transferred and if not
will add another copy. This is why you actually get various data rates with various USB 2.0 cables. This is also why people feel Firewire is superior because while it has a slower maximum transfer speed; its average transfer speed due to less lost data is higher. So, I believe you are both right.