[adamofwales]

Well,

the ifp-190t arrived today from amazon.com

Can you say musical nirvana? Ever since my old Samsung Yepp got stolen out of my car in Vegas, about 3 years ago, I've been hurting for some really portable tunes.

They come with supposedly Sennheiser mx300s I believe... either 200s or 300s, but there is no labeling on them stating such, just the "iriver" logo.

So far, the mids are decent... Highs ain't too bad.... Lows.... blow.

I'm gonna give them a FULL burn in, say 60+ hours, and then report back....

At any rate, these buds should suffice until I can scrounge up for some er6i's.

I've got a 256mb player now, I'm thinking wma is probably the way to go, because it's smaller, and supposedly higher sound quality in the wma codec. I can rip my entire cd collection in say 64kbps, and then fit 8 hours on this bad boy.

Then again, I could just go with 128 mp3's.....

Either way, I'm happy as a pig in dog **** right now

Listening to right now, over and over on repeat: Eminem - Lose Yourself.

 

[adamofwales]

You know what, I may just crack this thing open one day and see if I can't build an amp into this puppy, just switch out a few transitors here and there....

Someone has had to have tried this already.

 

[crazyfrenchman27]

Xin actually prefers MX400/MX500 to ER4P/S for portable use, just FYI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamofwales You know what, I may just crack this thing open one day and see if I can't build an amp into this puppy, just switch out a few transitors here and there.... Someone has had to have tried this already.

I've already posed this question on the DIY forum regarding the ipod...I didn't seem to get any useful responses

.

It's much easier to build a small, dedicated amplifier with it's own power supply than to fiddle around with the included internal amplifier.

I've opened up my ipod before...there isn't much space for dramatically improving the internal amplifier...you can change the lithium battery, but that's about it.

Currently Listening to: "Train Wreck" by Sarah McLachlan on my ATH-A900s.

 

[Ojjorz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamofwales Well, the ifp-190t arrived today from amazon.com Can you say musical nirvana? Ever since my old Samsung Yepp got stolen out of my car in Vegas, about 3 years ago, I've been hurting for some really portable tunes. They come with supposedly Sennheiser mx300s I believe... either 200s or 300s, but there is no labeling on them stating such, just the "iriver" logo. So far, the mids are decent... Highs ain't too bad.... Lows.... blow. I'm gonna give them a FULL burn in, say 60+ hours, and then report back.... At any rate, these buds should suffice until I can scrounge up for some er6i's. I've got a 256mb player now, I'm thinking wma is probably the way to go, because it's smaller, and supposedly higher sound quality in the wma codec. I can rip my entire cd collection in say 64kbps, and then fit 8 hours on this bad boy. Then again, I could just go with 128 mp3's..... Either way, I'm happy as a pig in dog **** right now Listening to right now, over and over on repeat: Eminem - Lose Yourself.

I think you are a low budget-noob (just as I am) so I won't trash your set-up totally, but...

The Iriver 190-t is one of the oldest Iriver models you can buy, after that it was the 390-T and the 790/890-T. So you haven't really bought something that is state of the art. Second, the sound quality of this SOURCE is really bad. I can compare them with my Cowon Iaudio CW300 (just as old) and they sound far better than this Iriver manufactured unit. So much for your source.

Second are the headphones. They are Iriver/Sennheiser Mx-200 which are the worst ear-buds Senn ever created. They have a over-whelming bass with highs that are so harsh I couldn't listen to them for 15 mins. Get a decent pair , Mx-400 or so, right away, don't botter about burn-in.

Third, Why rip your CD-collection in 64kbps? Better change your songs more often and encode them to mp3 192 or higher. Sounds much better imo!

 

[Taurui]

Etys and mp3s lower than 192kbps don't mix, really.
(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Secondly: The iRiver is a kickass portable source, no matter what other people say.
My reference for unamped portable use is my Sony D211 and it's barely (if at all, I never compared them long enough) better than my ifp-390, which is pretty much the same as the 190 except for a few features and design.

Enjoy!
-Taurui

 

[Ojjorz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurui Etys and mp3s lower than 192kbps don't mix, really. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Secondly: The iRiver is a kickass portable source, no matter what other people say. My reference for unamped portable use is my Sony D211 and it's barely (if at all, I never compared them long enough) better than my ifp-390, which is pretty much the same as the 190 except for a few features and design. Enjoy! -Taurui

He doesn't use etys now in the first place, so why do you bring this up? IMO it's better to change songs once every two days and have high quality (mine is all 400kbps+ VBR) than use 64 kbps...

The Iriver might be a kick-ass portable to you, but I know various players that produce better sound than the Iriver. Both in flat sound AND with equaliser (Iriver isn't using high-quality source equalisers like BBE (Iaudio) or SRS (I-bead/EZ-AV). My opinion is that he better could've looked elsewhere for a mp3-player. And change his headphones with cheap ones right away, although he's changing them into er6's when he has the cash.

 

[Kirosia]

Guys, let him be happy with his purchase. I had the IFP 190 for 2yrs with the stock buds. Touting your DAP is better isn't gonna help him any. It's a freakin' portable, he doesn't need audiophile sound. Besides, I find the IFP less-colored than the IHP, but because of so, a less full sound (or falsification, don't know). Lay off, and let him get to his tunes.

Also, I think mp3 would be better. I'm not a fan of wma. (my personal opinion only)

 

[Lisa]

Got the Ifp-180T and I think the sound is pretty decent. Got those buds and with the foamies they aren't that bad.

As for WMA. As long as you use the supplied buds it's best if you go with WMA9 and use VBR. It is pretty decent when you encode in 50-95kbps (I believe) and much better than 64kbps.

When using ETYs this might not be such a good idea.

 

[adamofwales]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ojjorz I think you are a low budget-noob (just as I am) so I won't trash your set-up totally, but... The Iriver 190-t is one of the oldest Iriver models you can buy, after that it was the 390-T and the 790/890-T. So you haven't really bought something that is state of the art. Second, the sound quality of this SOURCE is really bad. I can compare them with my Cowon Iaudio CW300 (just as old) and they sound far better than this Iriver manufactured unit. So much for your source. Second are the headphones. They are Iriver/Sennheiser Mx-200 which are the worst ear-buds Senn ever created. They have a over-whelming bass with highs that are so harsh I couldn't listen to them for 15 mins. Get a decent pair , Mx-400 or so, right away, don't botter about burn-in. Third, Why rip your CD-collection in 64kbps? Better change your songs more often and encode them to mp3 192 or higher. Sounds much better imo!

This entire post was comical to me. Sheer comedy.

First off cool guy, the ifp-190t has the same firmware as most of the other players once you upgrade it, so other than the usb 1.1 connection it's just as good as the more expensive iriver players.

Second, Cowon Iaudio CW300????? What????? I've got 2 words for you: T-E-C-H-N-I-C-A-L S-U-P-P-O-R-T I guess you could always take it back to CompUSA and see if they'll exchange it for an iriver mp3 player.

Third, what kind of earbuds did your Cowon Iaudio CW300 come with? Let me guess, the true audiophile choice, KOSS. Sure, when you're using low end phones, and any truly portable player without amplification, it's gonna make the player sound better than it actually is.

Fourth, I would never EVER buy sennheiser earbuds..... EVER The only earbuds/plugs/canalphones I'm buying are Ety er6is, maybe 4S instead.

Fifth, what's the mW output of your Cowon Iaudio CW300? Can you even find out? Does the factory even know?

EDIT:

6th, WMA at 128kpbs crushes mp3 at the same bit rate sound-wise and is smaller.

 

[Lisa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamofwales EDIT: 6th, WMA at 128kpbs crushes mp3 at the same bit rate sound-wise and is smaller.

No it doesn't. They should be the same size but strangly enough in my experiance the WMAs turned out to be slightly bigger files

About the sound, at that bitrate I like mp3 better. So that's up to personal preferences.

 

[Ojjorz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamofwales This entire post was comical to me. Sheer comedy. First off cool guy, the ifp-190t has the same firmware as most of the other players once you upgrade it, so other than the usb 1.1 connection it's just as good as the more expensive iriver players. Second, Cowon Iaudio CW300????? What????? I've got 2 words for you: T-E-C-H-N-I-C-A-L S-U-P-P-O-R-T I guess you could always take it back to CompUSA and see if they'll exchange it for an iriver mp3 player. Third, what kind of earbuds did your Cowon Iaudio CW300 come with? Let me guess, the true audiophile choice, KOSS. Sure, when you're using low end phones, and any truly portable player without amplification, it's gonna make the player sound better than it actually is. Fourth, I would never EVER buy sennheiser earbuds..... EVER The only earbuds/plugs/canalphones I'm buying are Ety er6is, maybe 4S instead. Fifth, what's the mW output of your Cowon Iaudio CW300? Can you even find out? Does the factory even know? EDIT: 6th, WMA at 128kpbs crushes mp3 at the same bit rate sound-wise and is smaller.

It seems like you never heard of Cowon Iaudio before, so I must mention the Iaudio4. This is one of the best flash-based players out there. The base behind this player is the older CW300 (I brought this one up, because your player is from the same previous century). Allthough Iriver is the best-known brand in flash-players, this doesn't mean they make the best.
The Cowon CW300 had 2x8mW out-put, compared to 2x10Mw for the Iriver. Not much difference if you listen to normal volumes with comparable headphones/earphones (like ER6i). Second, the chip used in the CW300 is much more sophisticated than the one used in the Iriver, this makes the real difference in sound quality. My previous post might be utter humour to you, I guess you better start a live test between the Iaudio and the Iriver. I already know the outcome, only you have to. The stock earbuds that come with the Iaudio are Cresyn AXE-599 which can be compared to the Sennheiser Mx400's SQ-wise.

I agree with you that any stock earphone is rubbish, including all the Iriver/Sennheiser earbuds. But I must confess that the Mx200 are too much **** to listen to, do yourself a favour and get MX400 for 10 bucks, they sound at least listenable.

Third, you first talked about 64kbps wma, now you already made that 128kbps, slight difference, but still crap. 128kbps with ANY codec is terrible for your ears, especially with Etys. That's why I said you should get 192kbps at least, wma or mp3, thats your choice.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT? I heard Iriver has a very good one, you might wanna trade...

 

[AudioNoob]

ermm, if youre listning to 64 kbs wma, and like mx300 sound, you needn't buy etys.
i listen to 192 vrb and i don't think i can stand mx300's for long,
first of all theyre earbuds
i lost foams so they don't stay on
they go crackle and pop on extremes

 

[NeoPoe]

Hey, better or not it all boils down to what you prefer.
Now why it is you prefer such things... well, no one cares

So take it easy, it's hard being a lurker and seeing these forums get all hostile.

 

[adamofwales]

*Sorry, had to go out to dinner with my parents.*


School of Adam 101

All right, this is for all of the non-believers:

Go ahead and pull out your Lenny Kraits 5 cd.

Fire up Windows Media Player 10. If you don't have it, get it off of windows update. If you have a mac, get version 9 here

Rip a WMA of "I Belong to You" at 128kpbs. *make sure you check your settings so you're not burning at variable bit rate or windows lossless

Now, go back to your desktop, and fire up Exact Audio Copy version .95 prebeta 5 from 8 March 2004. If you don't have it, get it here/

If you've got a mac..... sell it quickly on ebay. jk

Now, also, make sure that you're using LAME 3.96 Final for your ripping codec. If you don't have that, here it is...

Now, go ahead a rip the same song, "I Belong to You", it's track #3 in case you can't find it. Make sure you rip it using the LAME codec, and make sure you rip it at 128kbps.

Now, download both songs into your favorite portable unamped mp3 flash player. Not an ipod or some other hard drive player. I said a "flash player".

Now, I like to test to two different sets of cans.... One shiet set, and one good set. In my case, it's the iriver buds and the Grado SR-80s...

Now go ahead and actually listen to the songs, not once, but many times over.

Here's what you will find:

During the first :10 seconds of the song, during the drum entry... you will notice that the mp3 version of the song has slightly more bass, however, you will also notice that it's that little bit "more" bass which is bloated.

You will also notice that the wma version of the same first :10 seconds is more detailed than the mp3 version. I was going to say "far" more detailed, but that's a stretch.... It's very close. But, there is definitely more detail in the wma version of the song. Specifically listen to not the drum beats themselves, but instead try and listen for the tapping of the drum sticks between beats of bass. You'll notice on the wma version of the song, you can hear them very distinctly and can even hear reverb off of each tap.

The mp3 version just bloats you out with bass, and the detail of the sticks is simply lost. Now, go ahead and listen to the soundstage. Wow, you actually get a soundstage in the WMA version. The mp3's again, is slightly diminished. Now remember, on any headphone except for the ones that cost a lot of money, you really aren't going to get a great sound stage. That's what regular speakers are for.

Anyhow, my Grado SR-80s, being the open-aire mongrels that they are, really show you how little of a soundstage you get on the mp3 version.

In case your wondering is called "over production". That's what happens when you start over coding a codec. This happens with GPL stuff sometimes, but it's rare considering, half the time you can't even find good coders.

Now, go ahead and rip the song using the above tools, in 128kbps both wma and mp3lame, for "White Wedding" by Billy Idol off of the Star Lounge 2001 Collection track#7 if you can even find the disc. Here's a post 2000 live studio recorded by super freak radio geeks, so you know they're going to be tweaking old school style.

Once you get the ripping done with, you're going to notice the following things:

Listen to the first :10 seconds again.

First thing you'll probably notice, is that the mp3 version seems to sound "louder".... Then, you'll realize it just over bass that you're hearing.
Once you're past that part, go ahead and listen to the actual plucking of the string after the initial two chords. In the wma version you can distinctly hear the pluck of the string, the force that was used to pluck the string, and the angle upon which the string was plucked. You'll notice a weak pluck on the second pluck, because it's a hard string to reach on the fret board. You'll also notice nice reverb coming off of each string, especially the ones plucked at a right angle.

The mp3 version of the song is good, and can hear the strings being plucked, but the detail just isn't as distinct as in the wma version. And again, you'll hear with the mp3 version of the song that the soundstage is basically just right on your ear except muted a little bit. The wma version gives you a better sense of soundstage, but again, remember that headphones of any kind aren't going to give you a great soundstage, so it's not all mp3's fault. However, the wma soundstage *is* better than that of the mp3.

Now, go ahead and listen to 2:21-2:34 of the song. Pay special attention to the second time Billy Idol sings "nothing", its right at about 2:28. The first "nothing" is at 2:21. With the wma version of the song, on the second "nothing" at 2:28 you'll be able to totally feel the inflection in Idol's voice, you'll be able to hear the awesome tonality coming straight from Idol's diaphragm. It's a beautiful rolled higher pitch, as the air is spinning nicely through Idols vocal chords, creating an almost opera-like sound. That's what makes him a superstar. The mp3 version simply robs you of hearing this. You just get a flat tone.

It's because the mp3 coders are focusing too much on bass dimension. If you want more bass dimension, amp your music. That's what head-fi is all about for crying out loud.

That's it for your first lesson of the semester

-aow

 

[adamofwales]

One thing I will say, 192 does sound a little better overall than 128.... I mean in a noticeable way, enough for me to burn at 192 even for the flash player. I'll have to examine the changes more and provide a diagnosis.