[bangraman]

Sweet, I left out the IMO for a simple reason: When the differences are pretty clear there's no need for it. And I think my range of experience pretty much speaks for itself. The tests for Line-Out and Optical-out were my main focus, but as I outlined I did take a detailed look at the headphone out characteristics too. My ears may be mine alone, but you know something? A number of companies pay me to use my ears (and also my other abilities) to help them develop and promote their products (not iRiver or Shure, natch). I must be doing something right.


I tried the E5, ER-4P, K271S and the HFI-650 in addition to the ATH-D1000 and the ATH-W2002... including a direct head-to-head using the W2002. How about you?


As I said, there's a clear difference between the sound quality and the sound flavour of the iHP and iPod. The iHP allows for a much greater degree of adjustment of the sound flavour. The iPod has a higher degree of sound quality than the iHP but much less scope for adjustment of the flavour. Flavour does not equal quality, but it does equal preference in many circumstances... although the two are often confused by the inexperienced. Hope that helps to clarify.

 

[SpacemanX]

There was a review of HDD-jukebokes in newest issue of HIFI-magazine (Finnish).

The verdict was simple:

Iriver had the best sound reproduction.

Ipod was second, but clearly worse.

Those guys have years and years of experiece in subjective, by ear, reviewing and also in *measuring* audio hardware. The sound reproduction curve of Ipod was clearly distorted, the lowest part of the spectrum was several dB weaker. (There goes your bass.)

iRivers' curve was totally flat, which is ideal. It was the only MP3-player they were able to recommend.

I don't have either yet, but I'm going to order Iriver because of the sound quality and battery life.

 

[bodhisattvajr]

Quote:

Originally posted by bangraman Sweet, I left out the IMO for a simple reason: When the differences are pretty clear there's no need for it. And I think my range of experience pretty much speaks for itself. The tests for Line-Out and Optical-out were my main focus, but as I outlined I did take a detailed look at the headphone out characteristics too. My ears may be mine alone, but you know something? A number of companies pay me to use my ears (and also my other abilities) to help them develop and promote their products (not iRiver or Shure, natch). I must be doing something right. I tried the E5, ER-4P, K271S and the HFI-650 in addition to the ATH-D1000 and the ATH-W2002... including a direct head-to-head using the W2002. How about you?

Isn't that like saying that because fashion advisors have years of experience and get paid for what they do, we should all agree with their choices? No offense dude, but this is very much your opinion as I am sure we could find hundreds of guys like yourself with comparable experience who endorse different manufacturers. I think this reply was phrased poorly (even though the underlying argument is a good one).

Regards,

-B

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

Sweet, I left out the IMO for a simple reason: When the differences are pretty clear there's no need for it. And I think my range of experience pretty much speaks for itself.

Wow. I wish you could see what that looks like....The differences may in fact be clear, but my point was that the differences may be viewed differently by different people. As far as your experience goes...that can be a plus or a minus for you...On one hand, your long standing experience will allow you to convey to people in a very coherent way, what YOU are hearing...However, it's also that same experience that may be locking you into some sort of preset notions about what good vs. bad actually is.


Quote:

My ears may be mine alone, but you know something? A number of companies pay me to use my ears (and also my other abilities) to help them develop and promote their products

With all due respect, I'm sure that your position isn't exactly one which couldn't be filled by someone else with your knowledge of said products, and years of experience with such things. In fact, there are many people in this world who have your job, and I'm willing to bet that each one of them would easily have different opinions if their ears were put side to side testing different audio equipment.

And the FACT still remains that this is nowhere NEAR being objective subject matter. Here's a thought that may amuse you...Imagine that a company puts together a player which is fit to your exact specs, (audio wise) and after it is marketed, you find out that half the people who bought it found the sound to be lacking in certain characteristics and preferred player B over yours...while the other half preferred yours. Just why do you think that could be ? It's only logical man....

There is no right or wrong here. What I think you'll find is that people who have sometimes gone out on a limb and picked something up on a recommendation, will most likely keep taking your advice if your recommendation turned out to be a winner. This can be hit or miss, and NEVER %100 accurate. There may come a time when they flat out disagree, but you're still a good reference point for them.

Then there will always be people who feel just the opposite way of course. I've made buying decisions based on peoples comments here, and have been disappointed a couple times, and what I've learned from that is ultimately...YOU decide what is best for you . The rest is only a starting point, and with experience, you can decipher which may or may not be the right way to go.

So with that, I'll state again, that my unpaid musicians ears say that they prefer the IHP's overall sound qualities over the iPods. And that's just the way the cookie crumbles

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally posted by bodhisattvajr Isn't that like saying that because fashion advisors have years of experience and get paid for what they do, we should all agree with their choices? No offense dude, but this is very much your opinion as I am sure we could find hundreds of guys like yourself with comparable experience who endorse different manufacturers. I think this reply was phrased poorly (even though the underlying argument is a good one). Regards, -B

True, very true. That was badly phrased. I'm not disputing things like the falloff in bass which is one of the iPod's problems... And there are a few other issues, just as I can pick numerus holes in the iHP's sound. However, all I can say is that it really does not take some amazing golden ear to hear the difference with a range of what I have in terms of ear gear. I don't usually continue discussing things like this but it's a relatively obvious difference to me so much so that I'm scratching my head if you've actually owned both and can't hear it.

 

[KF777]

Scratch on!! LOL
I have had em both and prefer the Iriver as well but for reasons other than "better or worse" sound quality. I think "hair splitting" is an appropiate term for the sound quality of both compared and is subjective at best and not without biasll. I have E3s and ETY 4P/S . I like the ETY better.

In any case For the Ipod the "bias" might be the GUI, or Itunes, or "style and form" at least thats what I read most of at the forums
For me the bias was features,features, features and the seamless USB and Winamp. interface. The upcoming plaist ,delete on the fly and gapless playback.

I rip cherry picked songs from CDs and remaster them using Sound Forge 7, I ajjust the EQ and add verb to some of today's dry mixed CDs (Norah Jones). I like the added "space" when using phones. I work on a SOny TR2 with an Echo Indigo I/O card (have to use the S cable on that)

I use ETY 4p with the S cable for the re mastering process so I can fine tune to what I will be listening with (4P).

The sound is great and you get many more decent EQ options and DSP to further play with on the DAP.

Because I do not "collect" or download music and rip few entire albums I can spend the time to really get the sound I want from every song. Albeit I have less than 1000 songs. But that will keep me in audio bliss for a long time!!!!

The other thing us alot on the Iriver is the optical IN. I take a PCDP with me when visiting friends and cherry pick their collections to waves on the 120 to uplad and remaster later. And I use it to read text and downloaded emails, take audio notes, and a lot of other things I find useful. It's really an audio Swiss Army knife.

In my opinion neither has the "better" sound. I can make the music sound as good on both. I would not be surprised if both used the same companies DACs.

 

[White Knight]

Quote:

Originally posted by bangraman I'm not disputing things like the falloff in bass which is one of the iPod's problems...

iPod has pathetic lows, lame bass. iPod has got to be the most pathetic sound of all DAPs. It has weak bass, thin and narrow. And it has only one type of sound because its EQ is useless and garbage. Pretty much every kind of music that uses a lot of bass is pathetic listening thru iPod, Rock/Alternative, Pop, Trance/Dance/, Rap/Hip-Hop/ Soul/R&B. Maybe iPod is good with Jazz LOL

or musical

iPod sound is a joke, a big joke.

 

[gloco]

For the original poster:

http://doc.hydrogenaudio.org/wikis/h...o/DownloadPage

Download Exact Audio Copy, then Lame then the ASPI driver (if you need it...you'll know because EAC wont run on your pc when you attempt to use it).

Set up Lame after installing eac and get cracking, i've compressed dozens of albums with it for my Nomad. Try this line option: --alt-preset fast extreme

EAC is pretty easy to fiddle with and figure out, if you want bit perfect copies go with secure mode, if you want to take your chances use Burst mode, i personally do use Burst mode (for faster speeds) and have noticed an occasional click or pop here and there.

Now, personally i've tried the iriver and own the njb3...i found the iriver to be far more enjoyable but the njb3 to sound more authentic to the original source. I wouldn't mind owning a iriver...if they could fix some of the QC issue(s) the iHP-120 has.

I haven't tried the Ipod at length yet.

 

[Slimm]

Quote:

Originally posted by White Knight iPod has pathetic lows, lame bass. iPod has got to be the most pathetic sound of all DAPs. It has weak bass, thin and narrow. And it has only one type of sound because its EQ is useless and garbage. Pretty much every kind of music that uses a lot of bass is pathetic listening thru iPod, Rock/Alternative, Pop, Trance/Dance/, Rap/Hip-Hop/ Soul/R&B. Maybe iPod is good with Jazz LOL or musical iPod sound is a joke, a big joke.

You want to hear a pathetic sound? Try the Iriver with the E5's.

And check your headphones son, use any of the Shures with the iPod and tell me there's a shortage of bass.

And I understand the hair splitting point brought up before, but that's what this site is all about, headphones and how they sound and those pieces that make a difference in your system and how that changes the sound. It's not a forum about the fact that my MP3 player can drive a car or make maps or whatever the case may be, at least it didn't use to be.

Now it's a forum pretty much patroled by bassheads.

Not a bad thing, but sometimes I wonder if I'm reading Head-Fi or IGN.

Edit: WN, If your using the E2's and your mini, as your sig suggests, and find a shortage of bass, you might as well just ratchet a set of subwoofers to your head.

 

[wontanamo]

I recently sold my iHP-140 and bought ipod because:
1. iHP-140 had high noise floor when plugged in with my ER-4P w/o music playing.
2. It had somewhat of a fatiguing sound, with elevated lows and highs. Was fun for pop, rock, etc. but was not so good (unnatural?) for vocals & acoustics.
3. bulk
4. joystick kept on slipping; it would be so much better if they covered it up with non-slip material (like in a eraser head pointer).


ipod seems to have more "toned down" sound that is more neutral to me. I can listen to ipod for longer duration. It's lighter & smaller. Wheel is a mixed blessing; sometimes it's too sensitive and I can't select things i want. The one thing I do miss is the folder browsing capability & 16 hr battery life of iHP. I had to organize all of my mp3 collection!

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally posted by KF777 Scratch on!! LOL

Welcome to Head-Fi, Tombo77. Glad you're enjoying those Etys.

 

[pomegranate]

Quote:

Originally posted by Slimm And check your headphones son, use any of the Shures with the iPod and tell me there's a shortage of bass.

OK:
Using Shure E2s with iPod, there is a shortage of bass.
Yes, there is, at least compared to iHP.

 

[Slimm]

Quote:

Originally posted by pomegranate OK: Using Shure E2s with iPod, there is a shortage of bass. Yes, there is, at least compared to iHP.

Do you consider yourself a "basshead"?

Using the E5's, as well as the E2's, I don't find any shortage of bass. I could almost feel the bass w/ this combo .

 

[pomegranate]

No, not really, but I suppose we might have different perspectives.
To be honest, the bass on the iPod was *almost* there - it certainly thump-thumps enough, but I always felt it was lacking "heart" somehow.

 

[DigDub]

i guess the issue of how 'good' a sound is really depends on individuals. most people agree that the creative nomad zen sounds better than most of the hd players out there, including the ipod, but it sounds horrible to me. a sound that is perfect to you might sound bright to some, and dark to others. for eg, i prefer a bright sound, so anything that is set to flat will sound dark to me.

as i read somewhere, the only 'pure sound' is one that is produced in the an acheonic (sp?) chamber. but it is so 'dead' that no one will like it.