Best sounding MP3 Player???

[notnormal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sno1man Is that the new Creative Zen One? When all you need is one tune?

Creative's answer to the shuffle! Just play. no need to shuffle.

 

[chrisfromalbany]

Quote:

Originally Posted by notnormal Creative's answer to the shuffle! Just play. no need to shuffle.

Best Neutral sound = Ipod line out

 

[Amuse]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daba From what I've heard, the Cowon iAudio 5 is definitely a noticable improvement over any iPod.

Is the sound quality of the Cowon iAudio X5 better than the Zen Micro? If so, how much? I like the SQ of my micro.

Creative Zen One: is this for real?

 

[rmx]

Isnt the ipod shuffle supposed to have the best sound output of any player? Under load, it still produces a square wave or something?

 

[mkeroppi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmx Isnt the ipod shuffle supposed to have the best sound output of any player? Under load, it still produces a square wave or something?

No, that's out of all iPods. Ipod's headphone output had been "defective" until the shuffle. Most other players are correct (ok, not most, but some).

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinhobs What ripping/transferring method provides the highest quality of sound? IE MP3, WMA, WAV... And what exactly is lossless? I keep seeing it but don't know what it means!

On a CD the music is in WAV form. This is equal to CD quality, but the files are huge.

When you rip it, you can rip it in WAV form, which is not recommended. Or you can rip it in 'lossless' form. Lossless files are identical in sound to WAV, but are about half the size. They're like ZIP or RAR files (methods of compressing data files) - the size decreases, but all information is retained.

If you want a smaller file, there are many 'lossy' compression formats, where information is lost in order to shrink it from a huge file to one many times smaller. In general, it's a tradeoff of file size vs file quality. Lossless is always better than WAV, but lossy is worse than lossless, and in compensation is much smaller.

Stuff like mp3, wma, aac, ogg, etc. are different lossless formats which employ various differing techniques to try and shrink the file without losing quality. Their quality depends on bitrate, the bigger the bitrate, the bigger the file, but the better the sound quality. Lossy files at 320kbps are probably indistinguishable from lossless, but even at like 192kbps the difference is very small unless you have good equipment. I can't comment on exactly where the difference starts, being a sound newbie who can't even quantify the difference between his Koss UR14c and KSC75

 

[calvinhobs]

I'm curious...

Could I tell the difference between Lossless and MP3 @ 320kbps???

I will be using a bit higher-end equipment with a Zen Touch & Shure E4

I hear the Zen Touch doesn't have lossless support so that's my only concern with getting that particular player...

Should I NOT get this Zen Touch due to this and go for something else? Or will 320 kbps suit me fine for high quality audio?

 

[K2Grey]

According to hydrogenaudio.org forums (from what I know), there's no audible difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3. But some have claimed to hear a difference, thus starting a big fight over whether they need to prove it with blind testing or not, and so on, blah, blah, blah add Internet posturing.

 

[notnormal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2Grey According to hydrogenaudio.org forums (from what I know), there's no audible difference between lossless and 320kbps MP3. But some have claimed to hear a difference, thus starting a big fight over whether they need to prove it with blind testing or not, and so on, blah, blah, blah add Internet posturing.

Not true. There are known samples that are distinguishable between lossless and 320 kbps mp3. It's a limitation of the codec. However, those samples are rarely found in music but they can be found.

 

[Jetlag]

Rio Karma with FLAC encoded files, smokin'

 

[calvinhobs]

I will be transfering music trying to keep the highest quality possible.

Therefore, should I look to a player the WILL provide lossless???

I'll be using Shure E4s so there could possibly be a difference heard I would imagine...

 

[notnormal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvinhobs I will be transfering music trying to keep the highest quality possible. Therefore, should I look to a player the WILL provide lossless??? I'll be using Shure E4s so there could possibly be a difference heard I would imagine...

Usually it's easiest to keep a lossless version on your computer. Then depending on the DAP, convert the files to a lossy format. Any differences heard should be minor and not detract from the enjoyment of the music. Easiest way is to test out and see if you can hear a difference. And if so, determine if the difference detracts from the enjoyment of the music.

 

[bangraman]

I've tried this... keeping a two-library system of lossless and lossy, but it does not work. Too time consuming even with the likes of Mareo, and too much work to keep in sync. Real-time transcodes are also not practical.


I like my players to hold a decent selection of music and IMO, lossless is not worth it if your needs are portable, even if you make use of fairly high quality phones. I'm pretty happy with 256K for the most part. There's not enough problems with that to annoy me on the move, even for transportable use.

 

[TenaciousO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amuse Is the sound quality of the Cowon iAudio X5 better than the Zen Micro? If so, how much? I like the SQ of my micro. Creative Zen One: is this for real?

I personally think the Micro sounds better than the X5. The X5 definitely has a sound signature that many folks would enjoy and might even believe sounds better than a lot of other players out there because it has that "fun" quality to it - think of any "rock" equalizer preset. However, I found from the two instances where I've owned the X5 that, while overall it has great sound quality, there is just something wrong with the midrange that is unforgivable. Actually, it's not so much of a problem with all the eq options turned off. However, at this setting, the sound of the X5 is noticeably muddier than the sound of the ipod so some of the extra settings (bbe, machbass, etc) have to be turned on. Unfortunately, these extra options accentuate the major flaw of the X5 sound, attenuated and harsh mids, which are manifested most clearly with vocals. Instead of nice, full, and rounded vocals of the ipod and the micro, vocals on the X5 are in comparison tiny and jagged. Using the eq to boost the mids helps a little, but then the vocals sound out of place. The whole situation with the X5 sound reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry dates a hot woman who happens to have "man hands."

I've also owned the zen micro on a couple of occasions, and imo, it has one of the best audio qualities I've heard from an mp3 player. The sound of the micro is very full and everything seems well represented and crystal clear. If it weren't for the plasticky feel, I'd probably still have one.

The X5 definitely has a lot going for it with its photo/video capabilities, better fm reception, drag-n-drop, capacity, and build quality, and taking all these factors into account, it is a better value, but I personally would not switch from a micro to a X5 just for the sound quality.

 

[rauer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman I've tried this... keeping a two-library system of lossless and lossy, but it does not work. Too time consuming even with the likes of Mareo, and too much work to keep in sync. Real-time transcodes are also not practical.

I have so far been doing double encoding for my music server, lossy LAME -APS and lossless FLAC. The reason is not that this quality of an MP3 wouldn't be good enough for me, but the wish not to have to do the ripping again in the future. When in the following years I may want to use another lossy codec - for whatever reason - the burden of transcoding from FLAC is certainly the lesser evil compared to ripping the whole collection. And while transcoding from one lossy codec to another could be sufficient for mobile solutions, I'd hate to do it.