[lewislink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Teclast T39, Sony NWZ-A72x/82x series, RAmos RM850 In the meanwhile, I'll stay with my microHDD iRiver E10.

The RAmos is an excellent choice for sound quality, purely outstanding. I don't know about the T39, though. My only experience with one that was branded by MobiBlue, the T10, is very negative. The MobiBlue T10 looks identical the the Teclast T39 and I'm wondering if the T39 uses different guts. The T10 version is a horrible player. The touch screen should actually be called a hammer screen because you have to hammer a response from it.

The Sonys, with a tweak to the service menu, will sound great also. And they perform wonderfully all around.

Oh, and your choice of the iriver E10 is also outstanding. It has a very capable internal amp section.

 

[babya]

Samsung and Sony's are my choices-havev a K3 and a 2007 A815 and find these 2 are great all-rounders.

 

[dnewhous]

I'm going to make this a little harder,

which of these players supports WMA lossless?

Obviously, nothing but an Ipod supports Apple lossless.

Do any of them support WMA 10 professional? (Mild interest, I supposed I might buy something from the Zune store in this format.)

And I'm still curious about flv files, although I don't hold much hope.

Doing some of my own homework - it appear Meizu is the only recommended brand that supports WMA lossless. The Wikipedia says that Sony is supposed to support it but I looked up their most expensive player and WMA lossless wasn't listed.

Interestingly, there is a cell phone Samsung designed with Bang and Olufsen that supports WMA lossless. But there's no Verizon version of it.

 

[HipHopScribe]

The Toshiba Gigabeat T400 supports WMA Pro & WMA Lossless, and personally, it's the best sounding flash player I've used, better than the Clip, Fuze, and Cowon D2 to my ears.

 

[starscream]

Sony A82x

 

[majkel]

Why care about the WMA lossless? Convert it to FLAC, APE or ogg Q10 aoTuV which sounds like lossless, and be happy with a better player. Sticking to lossless is kind of bad approach for the portable players as the majority of them doesn't even reach the mp3 320kb/s or ogg Q8~Q10 quality level, and this is why many people report mp3 -V0 or 192kb/s CBR as transparent while it's not. For instance - you'll get better sound quality from iRiver E10 loaded with ogg Q10 files than from the Cowon D2 loaded with lossless. The file format is not the bottleneck each time. More often it's the player, we're not entering the hi-end theritory with these toys however they can provide very satisfying SQ level.

 

[dnewhous]

I care about WMA lossless because there's no car stereo head unit that supports FLAC. I want a lossless codec that is supported by both a portable music player and a head unit There are head units that support AAC and WMA, but it isn't clear that any lossless codec is supported by any head unit.

 

[majkel]

There is an option of a CD transport reading FLAC for Volvo cars. At least in Europe.

 

[dnewhous]

My target vehicle is a Toyota Tacoma Access cab.

 

[wavoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majkel /img/forum/go_quote.gif you'll get better sound quality from iRiver E10 loaded with ogg Q10 files than from the Cowon D2 loaded with lossless..

That is an amazing conclusion that has my head spinning (since I have a Cowon i7 loaded with lossless). Are you saying that the processor of the E10 can simply handle the Q10 files better than the i7 can handle WAVs, so that the outgoing analog SQ is better with the E10?

That is certainly possible, it just never crossed my mind that it might be true. But your point is perfect -- it's not what's stored in flash memory that matters, it's the analog signal that appears on the HP jack that counts.

I would have thought there is more processing to do to uncompress, then D-to-A, than there is to simply D-to-A, but clearly there are more bits to read from flash when processing WAVs, and that could be more of a problem when faced with hard real-time constraints than uncompressing in RAM ... is I/O with flash slow compared to in-RAM manipulation? I have no idea. Flash is RAM, but slow RAM I suppose. I am totally out of my depths here, obviously.

Fascinating point, majkel.

 

[E.B.M.Head]

No... probably it's only placebo or another case "my toy is always teh best".
FLAC puts less load on the CPU than MP3, Vorbis and AAC. It's just more heavy on memory usage. Vorbis on the other hand is famous for introducing artefacts in the 18 kHz range. Not that most people over 25 years would notice it, especially not in a moving car, but it's bull to say that vorbis has a better quality than FLAC. I just guess majkel doesn't like the WM8995 of the D2, as it's quiet flat. If you like euphonic sound (emphased bass and trebble) then other players will fit you better.

 

[lewislink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is an amazing conclusion that has my head spinning (since I have a Cowon i7 loaded with lossless). Are you saying that the processor of the E10 can simply handle the Q10 files better than the i7 can handle WAVs, so that the outgoing analog SQ is better with the E10? That is certainly possible, it just never crossed my mind that it might be true. But your point is perfect -- it's not what's stored in flash memory that matters, it's the analog signal that appears on the HP jack that counts. I would have thought there is more processing to do to uncompress, then D-to-A, than there is to simply D-to-A, but clearly there are more bits to read from flash when processing WAVs, and that could be more of a problem when faced with hard real-time constraints than uncompressing in RAM ... is I/O with flash slow compared to in-RAM manipulation? I have no idea. Flash is RAM, but slow RAM I suppose. I am totally out of my depths here, obviously. Fascinating point, majkel.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Most players can handle the processing of all those WAV bits rather easily. It's the battery power that is compromised with the higher bit rate files. The CPU will have to deal with a lot more 1s and 0s than with a compressed format and as such the CPU will be more active. But it will be plenty capable of doing the task, whatever it is, if it supports high bit rate formats.

The main thing with the E10 is the powerful amp section. It has the same effect as connecting a low powered DAP to an amp. The sound almost always improves to a WOW effect.

 

[HipHopScribe]

I took majkel's point to be that there is greater difference in perceived sound quality between different players than there is between lossless and high quality lossy played on those players, which I would agree with.

 

[tottiflames]

if the price is no issure, I bet the Beosound 6 would be the best.

 

[dr13zehn]

$600... Really???

I cannot see it being worth that much at all... The sound better be nothing less than spectacular, especially considering the serious lack of features.
Those earbuds it come with seem to be worth quite a bit though.