[Sparky191]

My bad. Whats the DAC in the RH1 then?

 

[astranovus]

dunno, hence the proxy post above

is it not enough if the highest profile german hifi mag, tests and establishes that the rh1 sounds better than an ipod?

 

[Sparky191]

I'm sure most people would be interested in the details. Thats all.

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparky191 I'm sure most people would be interested in the details. Thats all.

sorry there isn't any more info,

what you want me to do make some up? lol

try emailing sony for an exact dac description,

as said before i have owned both an apple ipod nano and 30gb,

the rh1 licks both, just the hissless property compared to the ipod makes such a difference,

ace my bithead just arrived!!!!

 

[Tunster]

All through this topic (all 4 pages!) and no-one has mentioned that fact the amp in the RH1 is HD Digital Amp (High-Definition).

I can't do a direct comparison of an iPod vs RH1, but from what I remember of the iPod, the audio sounds like its beginning dragged through a holy bush and then through mud. The RH1 reproduces the quality to such good "clarity", you get a really good representation from the audio file.

The normal bog-standard MP3 LAME -standard test for transparent sounding MP3s..... The RH1 beats my iAudio M3 (which I still consider a superior product to the iPod series, in many ways). Sound reproduction is important and the RH1 does it for me.

At the end of the day, everyone has a different set of ears. So sound is subjective.

 

[dj_mocok]

I wonder whether the RH1 uses the same "digital amp" technology as NH1?

 

[lovebell]

I perfer an IPOD which is more convenient.
you can upgrade a better headphones which can do more noticeable SQ effect.
there're really small diferences among these PAPs,especially they are in the same rank.
well ,just IMO,and my costly experience...

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astranovus dunno, hence the proxy post above is it not enough if the highest profile german hifi mag, tests and establishes that the rh1 sounds better than an ipod?

I remember a high profile german hifi mag posted a list of rankings of various headphones and this list was shot down on head-fi, so I don't think this is a very strong argument.

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2Grey I remember a high profile german hifi mag posted a list of rankings of various headphones and this list was shot down on head-fi, so I don't think this is a very strong argument.

that's a fair point,

but many suggestions in head-fi are just subjective listening tests,

quite a few people think the akg 26p is a nice can for its price, i bought it and its soundquality was crap beyond believe

i also don't like this ksc 75 and px100 worshipping,

i've had the latter and its ok for the price but not an amazing can ,you pay for what you get

 

[astranovus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I wonder whether the RH1 uses the same "digital amp" technology as NH1?

it's an improved version of the older digital amp

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astranovus that's a fair point, but many suggestions in head-fi are just subjective listening tests, quite a few people think the akg 26p is a nice can for its price, i bought it and its soundquality was crap beyond believe i also don't like this ksc 75 and px100 worshipping, i've had the latter and its ok for the price but not an amazing can ,you pay for what you get

Well yes, head-fi impressions are not necessarily that accurate either.

And to a large degree one's perception of SQ is subjective, although I suppose technically SQ is an objective matter and it's merely the perception of it which is subjective.

This being said I would still like to know what kinds of tests were performed and what basis whoever did the review for the magazine had for his conclusion.

 

[TommyTunes]

I just posted this on the MD board yesterday and thought for those who don't visit there I'll post it here. The source was CD.

I did a comparison using the subject criteria recording Miles' So What and then playing both back using Grado RS-1 headphones. Directly out of the headphone outputs then via line out feeding a Grado RA-1 headphone amp.

Using the headphone output, the MZ-RH1 was a clear winner. The sound was open and detailed without any bloatness in the mid range. The iPos sounded like a blanket was over it. However using the line out on the MZ-RH1 and the iPod with a Pocketdock line output adapter it was a differnet matter. The ATRAC3plus encoding made the music lose air, the drums sounded somewhat muted and the overall sound became compressed sounding incomparison.

Now keep in mind we are talking subtle differences but noticable.

I use both, each have benefits and drawbacks. MD is a much more professionally oriented product. When I want to copy something to MD in WAV format with the best possible sound quality, I plug the digital output of my CD transport home deck directly into the MD unit. You can't do that with an iPod. At the same time I keep 200 of my favorite albums on my iPod using Apple Lossless. Now don't everyone get upset but TO ME I can hear when music has been stored using a compression codec. I find the sound fatiguing. The only thing the results of my test proved is that the Sony has a better internal headphone amp.

I personally perfer MD because MD's don't crash. I've been in the computer industry for 30 years. Every harddrive will eventually fail. In 14 years of using MD I've never had a MD "go bad".

 

[astranovus]

strange, in many threads it is mentioned that the sound quality out of the ipod line-out and headphone out are very similar,

it still hasn't been confirmed whether the ipod has a true line-out.

i use my rh1 with a bithead and hd650s, the line.out sounds better than the headphone out.

that's why i am a bit baffled by your analysis,

one thing for sure the ipod hisses and the rh1 does not,

i hate hisses ,with iems like my cx300 hisses are a total no goer!!!

 

[syndrome]

Many players sound better than iPod