[bangraman]

I've been having doubts about these in-ear phones for some time. I've been considering custom earpieces but not yet being that enamoured of the sound, I was beginning to think I'd bought a dud.


Today, I had just the MZ-E900 minus remote, and the E5. I had some classical music in SP mode. I was also trying some slightly doctored silicon earpieces which sacrificed some degree of isolation for a better in-ear comfort and less crushing of the tips in the ears.


I was sitting down and waiting for the train, and I have to say I had a huge grin playing across my face as the first strains of Stravinsky hit my ears. These really are like a speaker experience: Bass is weighty and almost tangible, fantastic mids, superb sense of space and excellent extension without sibilance.


I'm now hugely impressed... And the tips make all the difference. Moreover the E900, the N10 or the NW-MS70D and the E5 all fit comfortably in my pocket when not in use. Consider me converted to in-ear hardware. There's a lot of effort to customise the tips for your needs but once done, it's great.

 

[hawkfire]

Indeed,

Nice to hear you are using the E5 for ATRAC instead of MP3 usage with an ipod or nomad.

You should try them with the sony mp3/atrac with your solid state mp3 player as well. (PDA I believe?)

The Shure E5 and E1s are well suited for use with minidisc portables.

Enjoy

 

[lindrone]

Try wav files with iPod & compare it with the MD when you get a chance...

wav files are definitely better than even ATRAC compression (well, any lossy compression is worse by default)... but there's a lot of questions regarding if iPod, with even WAV files, is not as good of a sound source as MD with ATRAC compression...

Good to see that you've finally gotten all the sound out of the E5

 

[uoods]

Bangraman, have you heard/owned Ety's, and how would they compare?

 

[KellDammit]

yeah, that is pretty wild...when i was deciding on which portable to go for (before i found this place), i tried all the formats i could, and mp3 @192 sounded much better to me than atrac (any setting) did, hence ruling out md as an option...i just couldn't stand it! are you using sonicstage to convert to atrac as i did (or is that the problem)? now, i prefer aac@192 as the least of viable evils, compression-wise...but now i'm curious enough to check out atrac again!
those md's must have hellaciously good (or synergistic) outs, and the ipod's must be equally as bad. of course, i don't recall ever reading that the ipod's hp out was ever stellar by any stretch, so has anyone ever compared the ipod line out (with an amp) against a good md?

kell

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally posted by lindrone wav files are definitely better than even ATRAC compression (well, any lossy compression is worse by default)... but there's a lot of questions regarding if iPod, with even WAV files, is not as good of a sound source as MD with ATRAC compression...

I don't think anyone can compare the iPod against all MD's (unless they have all MD players). Also a lot of questions concerning the formats. Is ATRAC better than LAME MP3's at comparable higher bitrates (I'll give it the low end easily - though for quality who's ever going to use it)? Outside of MD boards this is in no way universally agreed on and there seems to be more technical support for the opposite (though this may be because MP3's are easier to test without all the protection hoops to go through). The few comparisons I've seen supporting MD rarely list the MP3 encoder and I haven't seen one yet that delt with equal kbps. I believe ATRAC tops out at 292 kbps. Has anyone seen a test against LAME --ape (smaller file sizes) or --api (slightly bigger)?

Sorry for the side note. Without starting #3482 of the MP3/ATRAC Wars, I just wanted to point out once again ATRAC isn't universally accepted as inherently superior.

 

[Lando]

IMO, the hoops you have to jump through are exactly what keep me from trying MD. The idea of having to either transcode mp3s, keep wavs of everything on my harddrive, or copy everything from cds (every time I make a disc!) is not attractive. If I could audition an MD player, and it sounded very good to my ears, I might consider it.

I might also consider switching to the dark side if some kind person gave me an MD recorder/player to try out. (Where's Team MD when you need them?

)

 

[KellDammit]

that was pretty much the other thing that killed it for me...
it's a shame, if you own the license, that you can't move it as you please...but i can see the rationale, anyway.

insofar as the quality thing...i'll definitely have to compare again. i consistantly got the "phased cymbals" thing with all the settings i'd tried with atrac, just like lower bitrate mp3's, so i MUST'VE missed something somewhere...

kell

 

[lindrone]

I still can't speak for any MD players.. I just don't use them, because how painful it is to deal with them, and at the end of the day it still doesn't carry as much music as a hard-drive portable player...

However, I have tried the line-out from the new iPod's dock with a super-mini....

I don't think the signal quality any cleaner.. but the thing is LOUD!!!... Almost blew up my headphones... The line-out is designed to plug directly into speakers, without anything else in between.

I guess you can take that as a sign of the power output... but doesn't mean the source is any cleaner.

 

[KellDammit]

aren't you using uncompressed (wav) source on the ipod? and you still get yucky signal? it's dirty, as compared to...?
none of this will be likely to change my mind about getting an md player, either...i just enjoy chasing these things...

btw, bang...glad to hear you're lovin' life!

 

[lindrone]

Well.. okay.. let me clarify my post.. so people don't start running around and say "iPod's got a dirty signal!!!".. heheeh

Yes Kell, I am using uncompressed WAV, and they do sound terrific on the iPod. However, I'm not clear about how the output itself (and not the file format) compare to a MD player, since I never had one (and don't plan to get one). My point of comparison for the output quality is against a Sony D-25S (a PCDP).

So the signal output quality isn't better than the PCDP, even though it is using uncompressed WAV files. However, would the signal quality be better than a MD player when playing WAV files?.. That I don't know...

And the line-out doesn't give you a better "quality" output... it just gives you a louder output.. IMO. So to revise what I said earlier.. the signal could still be not as good as a MD player, it could be better... I can't say either for sure. What is for sure, is that the line-out of the new iPod isn't any better than the headphone port when it comes down to quality.

 

[bangraman]

One of the tests I must do is a comparison between a (non-Euro) iPod and N10. Once I've done that, I'll get back to you regarding relative sound quality.

 

[fureshi]

I'd have to agree with Lindrome. Line out on the 3g ipod doesn't sound any better or worse than the hp out, just louder. I haven't tried any of the eq settings to see if it affects the line out signal. If it's a true line out then it shouldn't be affected by the eq at all. Has anyone tried this?

As far as comparison to MD's, I haven't listened to them in a long time since I got tired of real-time cd copying. Obviously this was before the days of NetMD. I love the form factor of them but the ipod is pretty compelling for its size and ability to hold hundreds of cd's. That being said, If anyone can prove that ATRAC sounds better than even WAV on the ipod, I'd be willing to give MD's a second go.

 

[KellDammit]

that's actually the problem i think i had...rather than real-time recording, i ripped stuff in, so i don't think it let me use the highest quality setting...
i did some looking over in the portables forum, and there have been ipod/md comparisons...dunno if they were at equivalent bitrates, though i would assume so.

kell

 

[redshifter]

when throwing around the term "atrac" (adaptive transform acoustic coding), remember that the latest md codec from sony (~292 kbps) is literally "atrac1 type r", usually shortened to "atrac type r" or "atrac r".

atrac r (~5:1 compression) is the highest sound quality, and allows 74-80 minutes per md. "atrac1 type 4, or type 3" md recorders use the older codecs and can suffer from "burbly" artifacting.

atrac3 is the latest "long play" codec, allowing lp2 (160 min stereo ~132 kbps) and lp4 (320 min stereo ~66 kbps). compression is higher here, and quality is lower.

also keep in mind that md can either be ripped digitally or via analog, and quality can vary depending on if a deck or portable was used.

all md players use a similar decoder, so even an older player like the mz-r50 can PLAY BACK atrac type r, even though it records in atrac 4 (an older codec).

to make it even more confusing, sony also has "atrac3 plus", which is used in their newest cd/mp3/atrac players. one can burn a cd using atrac3 and choose the bitrate, etc.

there is also a mysterious atrac2 (note no space) data-based md format that sony is rumored to use in a satellite digital music scheme.

so, for comparison reasons with md, please keep in mind that the recording should be using atrac r, and done digitally, preferably with a md deck. also keep in mind that in general, the playback hardware for md (portable players, etc) is superior to most mp3 players, as they have been in development for much longer.