comparing mp3 players for SQ
Dec 15, 2005 at 6:13 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 18

Outlaws

New Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
23
Likes
0
Which of those you think is better for sound quality:
- Creative zen micro
- Rio karma
- iRiver H10
- iPod nano
edit:
- Monolith Premium MX-7000
- COWON iAUDIO U3
- iRiver H340
 
Dec 21, 2005 at 9:43 PM Post #4 of 18
"What about Rio carbon, is it better than zen micro for SQ ?"


I really like my Rio Carbon ... but for what it's worth, consensus on these forums is that the Zen Micro has "bigger" (at least more amped) sound. But the Rio Carbon is no slouch. It sounds quite nice through Shure E3C's. Loud and clear, even at the back of a noisy airplane cabin.

Combined with the form factor, navigation and -- especially -- battery capacity, I would certainly recommend it (quite a deal at today's prices).

I noticed you didn't include the Cowon iAudio players in your list. I can vouch for the SQ of their flash players -- very good.
 
Dec 21, 2005 at 9:57 PM Post #5 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by LaBreaHead
but for what it's worth, consensus on these forums is that the Zen Micro has "bigger" (at least more amped) sound.


but as i read on the net the carbon output 8mw per channel, while zen micro 7mw, it's not a big difference but how can zen micro more amped, maybe because the zen micro s/n ratio 98 db and the Carbon 85 db, so the zen will get more power w/o distortion.
 
Dec 21, 2005 at 11:07 PM Post #7 of 18
Anything from AudioCubes is nice. The Kenwood has the first built-in digital amp--supposedly. I've never owned any DAPs...so, whatever.
biggrin.gif
 
Dec 22, 2005 at 3:43 PM Post #8 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by Veggie_Musician
From top to bottom

- Rio karma
- Creative zen micro
- iRiver H10
- iPod nano



I have heard all but the nano, so for first three on this list I can agree with the order that veggie has given.
 
Dec 22, 2005 at 3:57 PM Post #9 of 18
I think one of the big problems with these "which sounds better" threads in the portable forum (and really only here and it doesn't really stand up in other forums) is people just say X sounds miles better than Y. That's not terribly useful unless it was really miles different and it rarely is. It may be better to talk about the signature characteristics of each. Remember one persons lovely warmth and dynamic punch may be anothers muddy bass or screeching highs.
 
Dec 23, 2005 at 3:34 AM Post #10 of 18
Get the U3 and forget the rest. It puts them to shame. Sounds best and even plays FLAC. The video is a cute gimmick, but the sound quality and the FLAC are for real. You put some decent headphones on that and you get your money's worth.
 
Jan 9, 2006 at 7:08 PM Post #13 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oga
Get the U3 and forget the rest. It puts them to shame. Sounds best and even plays FLAC. The video is a cute gimmick, but the sound quality and the FLAC are for real. You put some decent headphones on that and you get your money's worth.


Aren't the specs the same as the iaudio X5?
 
Jan 9, 2006 at 8:52 PM Post #14 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nilsson
So the iAudio U3 puts the Monolith mx-7000 to shame?
Would be nice to see a real comparison between the two.



I would assume the MX-7000 to be the better sounding in the end, it uses a well-reputed Wolfson codec after all (WM8750L or somesuch). That being said, the Sigmatel STMP35xx (I'd guess the U3 uses a newer STMP36xx) certainly is no slouch and is one of the chips that don't require output coupling caps. I can't complain about the sound of my iAudio G3.

EDIT: Seems the U3 uses a Crystal CS42L51 codec. That one looks even better than the Wolfson.
 
Jan 9, 2006 at 9:39 PM Post #15 of 18
The zen micro is kilometers better than the rio karma.

The nano is light years ahead of the iriver.

The iriver is slightly better than the rio karma

The cowon is a fraction better than the monolith

The monolith edges out the nano in precision.

very_evil_smiley.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top