Featured Sponsor Listings

E5 vs E3c: Part 2

Jan 29, 2004 at 4:28 PM Post #31 of 52
Ok, i offically call 'No Fair!' ...bangraman has too much cool stuff!
wink.gif
 
Jan 29, 2004 at 4:29 PM Post #32 of 52
I really would like to see this last exchange of opinions on APS at Hydrogen forums... on those forums everybody swears by APS... meanwhile, I'll go back enjoying my E3 and my music
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jan 29, 2004 at 6:09 PM Post #33 of 52
Well I use LAME 256K High encoding and using double-blind test, couldn't tell the difference between mp3 and WAV on the Ipod out using ER-4S with a PPA and also hd650's/Zu with the PPA.

When not using the double-blind, I thought there was a barely noticeable difference but you had to really listen and not worth the inconvience. Just adding the Zu cable to the hd650s such a big difference that didn't involve re-encoding or buying more hard drives.

This is my current opinion but I'll be meeting with lindrone soon, so maybe he can convince me of the importance of WAV files or even how a better source than the Ipod sounds. I'll also be able to compare the ER-4S to the E5c. I don't really care about the E3c but maybe I'll give it listen too.
 
Jan 29, 2004 at 6:54 PM Post #34 of 52
Quote:

Originally posted by bangraman

I'm very interested to see if my impressions change with the XP-7 instead of the META / PIMETA. This will be addressed shortly.


I also plan to address that same issue shortly (XP-7)
tongue.gif
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 2:38 AM Post #35 of 52
Crap, I just did some more test of the mp3 vs WAV and noticed a big enough difference to upgrade to WAV. Basically the WAV has just a little more punch and the treble has more zing. The songs just sound a little bit more lifelike. This was just using the etys, I can't wait to hear them on the hd650s. Looks like a got a lot of work ahead of me and a new hd drive to buy but this saves me getting a real source just a bit longer.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 3:29 PM Post #38 of 52
Quote:

Originally posted by Halvie
how did you get these for $389. There listed as 499.99. You got my hopes up....
smily_headphones1.gif


Use the coupon code F389E5. I'd highly recommend it if you're interested.
smily_headphones1.gif


Update: I ended up loading my iPod with WAV files from an album that I already have loaded on there (LAME encoded). While the differences are not quite as drastic as I initially mentioned, there are still differences. In the end, I think it was a combination of the iPod vs PCDP issue and the formats themselves. Still, the E5 picks up these differences unlike any phone I've heard before. In comparison, I had a very difficult time distinguishing the MP3 vs the WAV file with both my E3c (which are going back today) and my V6.

On a side note, while my E5's sound exceptional now, it's nice to know that when I upgrade my source and buy a decent amp, the E5 will have the ability to improve and keep up with that higher end gear. I like the fact that there's a high ceiling of potential with the E5's.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 3:32 PM Post #39 of 52
Quote:

Originally posted by Shurenuff
Update: I ended up loading my iPod with WAV files from an album that I already have loaded on there (LAME encoded). While the differences are not quite as drastic as I initially mentioned, there are still differences. In the end, I think it was a combination of the iPod vs PCDP issue and the formats themselves. Still, the E5 picks up these differences unlike any phone I've heard before. In comparison, I had a very difficult time distinguishing the MP3 vs the WAV file with both my E3c (which are going back today) and my V6.


Ok, so I was at least partially right. I would suggest you really ABX the samples and if you get good percentages... you should help LAME development!
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 4:39 PM Post #40 of 52
Well after re-ripping almost 40 GB of music in WAV and transfering them to my Ipod, I noticed a bigger difference than I thought I would. Even though it now can only hold about a 1000 songs vs the 5000 I had before, I think it's worth it. At least now those 1000 songs are in there highest format and it shows. One of the biggest differences is the soundstage and the nice little details in the background. The soundstage has a much more open feel to it. The mp3 give you a sound alike effect but resticts the music so on a quick listen it might sound almost the same but after extended listening the WAV is just some much more pleasureable.

I always loved U2's "Unforgetable Fire" but with 256k mp3, it didn't start to sound good until using the PPA and the hd650s. I just thought it wasn't recorded that well. Now after listening to it in WAV with the PPA and the etys, it sounds so much better than I remember it. I'll get to try it out on the hd650s tonight. I'll be sure to test this album on the E5c too when I get the chance next week.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 4:46 PM Post #41 of 52
Why don't you try ripping them in FLAC or some other lossless format? It would cut file sizes in half while still maintaining the same exact quality. The reason i choose to stick with my LAME encoded Mp3's is strictly due to battery life. I use my iPod alot and the current 5-6 hours is barely enough for me, so WAV or FLAC files are not for me. Although they don't sound quite as good as the WAV files with the E5's, I can definitely put up with them for the sake of function.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 4:54 PM Post #42 of 52
Well, FLAC doesn't work with iPod directly.. man.. they really should implement some sort of lossless compression on the iPod soon. We've been complaining about that for eons now..

You can rip everything in FLAC, but since they won't work with iPod directly.. you'd have to convert FLAC into WAV and then place them into the iPod.. just an unnecessary step anyway. If you keep the WAV file around, then you got 1.5 times the file size, right? (FLAC + WAV stored at the same time somewhere on your hard drive)

Also, if you use iTunes, it can rip WAV files and keep a corresponding database for ID3 tags, even though WAV files on their own don't really have ID3 tags at all. So you can use all the database functions on the iPod.

If you did a FLAC => WAV conversion, you'd have to import them into whatever software you're using (EphPod, iTunes...whatever) and re-enter all the database infos so you can navigate them properly.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 5:06 PM Post #43 of 52
OK..... scratch that FLAC idea
mad.gif
tongue.gif
BTW lindrone, how much battery life do you typically get with WAV files? I get 5-6 hours with MP3's (with my E5's, just to keep this post on topic
tongue.gif
), so I'd imagine 3-4 hours with WAV's which is unacceptable for me.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 5:08 PM Post #44 of 52
Also if Ipod does support a lossless format in the future, you can always convert the WAV files to that format without any loss of sound quality without having to re-rip from the CD. And if Ipod gets updated, iTunes will too so the tagging will not be lost.
 
Jan 30, 2004 at 5:11 PM Post #45 of 52
Hmm.. I get 5~6 hours as the way it is... with WAV and my E5.. I really didn't think you get that much difference between using WAV files & MP3 files, it really depends on how much more you seek and skip songs, I think.

I'm usually at work when I'm listening to my iPod, so that means whatever song that's coming up in my playlist, is usually just playing.. I skip between every two or three songs when I hear something I really don't like, but I'm definitely not constantly cycling through songs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top