Pictures of Your Portable Rig [Part IX]
Nov 7, 2007 at 2:07 AM Post #256 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by ricthaman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
@ sparda:

I see you had a MZ-RH1... I used to love MD to the max...
But could you explain how the RH1 sounds? I have a Walkman now (NWZ-S516) and love the sound but I miss the good old MD sound.

I'm considering buying one of thos RH1's.....

greetz


Yeah, actually I still have it. The SQ is unsurpassed by anything I've ever heard. Nothing comes even close to the clarity and warmth and 100% noise/hiss free sound. Even if you transcode twice it still sounds better than my new P2. The difference is night and day. However it was very inconvenient for me that I couldn't carry very much music at once. Also treating the RH1 as just an on the go DAP does not do it justice and would only wear it down too quickly. So thats why I got the Samsung. I recommend one only if you don't mind 1GB of music per minidisc. For the SQ it really is worth it though.
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 3:33 AM Post #257 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
the very one!

thanks koike.

its sounds lovely, as you would expect with the work EFN put into its initial creation and marriage of components.

all i have done to it is minor tweaks, added + - volume insignia, and xin and out (silly old me needs prompting) and added some ERS paper in and around the internals to negate any deleterious effects of EMI from my magnetic tape i added as a method of opening/closing the battery cover, rather than relying on friction alone, improved the firmness and grab on the contacts also.

its highly resolving as i use ETY mostly in S mode even with the caps, to give people an idea of how clinical it sounds, when i switch over to my SR-325's (which are thought of as detailed, non bassy anyway), they sound very bass laden and warm in comparison to ER4.
eek.gif


bass heads would simply and utterley hate my rigs sound!

its highlighted for the first time to me, that the equipment in that setup is no longer the bottleneck, its MEEEEEEE!!! i need an upgrade in my percieved listening frequency
blink.gif



How I miss that rig.....

Be WARNED! any bad recordings/mastering will sound utterly awful with those babies - they are THAT resolving.

If you want some warmth, just run ER-4P straight and lose a bit of width, but you'll enjoy them with groovy music. When listening to Classical, Jazz or Instrumental, switch back to ER-4S
etysmile.gif


Oh yes, if you haven't download them, get the Ultrasone Binaural Sampler - freaking AWESOME on that rig - I guarantee your jaw will drop to the floor.
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 5:09 AM Post #258 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceroid /img/forum/go_quote.gif
probably due to the time it takes to ENcode


Then why would he have a mix of both, on different players? Specifically the "worse" encoded songs on the newer player...

And why would he specify the compression level in the first place?
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM Post #261 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Quaddy, why use anything over FLAC 8? It uses the same amount of power to decode, and it takes up the least amount of space.


i always used to use flac-8 @ imod 4G initially, solely because of space issues.

nothing to do with encoding as on my machine there isnt a noticeable difference in time taken from 1 - 8, nothing that bothers me.

nothing to do with decoding on imod either, or is it (see later)

as always, its do with sound reproduction.

What? - i hear you ask, i understand, its meant to be the case that lossless is lossless right? - and essentially it is, but as you know 8 wraps the file up tighter that it wraps 1 up, i am not a scientific person therefore i cant explain why a more highly compressed file has audio artifacts in decoding... i can only guess, and may conclude that the file has more decoding to do on the fly with a higher compressed file than a lower compressed file somehow involving a semi-dereliction of duty at runtime causing slight artifacts and issues.

in this wrapping, and i have meticulously listened to multiple albums encoded in flac 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 - duplicated in all of the levels.

and for me personally there is a occasionally, not even all the time, a noticeable level of 'interference' and distortion that starts to lessen at about flac 5>, for me with my new rig, with etys @ S and V-Cap doing its thing, it vanishes completely at FLAC <4

so i simply chose one less level than i could percieve at, in this case 3 for good measure. and that is why flac-3

sry for boring reply as per usual.

just to say when i had my 4g imod, i could not notice the now apparent issues and thats why it was all about the space on a smallish (60GB drive)

i am sure EFN may be able to attest to this if it is down to the rig combo.

@EFN - listened to the binaural cd, as you say amazing spacial world out there! and i am a switcher, i flit between P and S to suit!
etysmile.gif
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 10:20 AM Post #262 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by lisnalee /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just the person i was looking for. I take it you very happy with the setup
icon10.gif
.

I am i right in thinking that you can use a std alo dock cable from the imod to the P v-cap, as i have the silk dock and would like to use it if possible and get the supplied cable changed to a mini - mini one.


Yes you are correct. You need a regular iPod dock to connect an iMod to the P-Vcap.
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 4:56 PM Post #263 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
i always used to use flac-8 @ imod 4G initially, solely because of space issues.

nothing to do with encoding as on my machine there isnt a noticeable difference in time taken from 1 - 8, nothing that bothers me.

nothing to do with decoding on imod either, or is it (see later)

as always, its do with sound reproduction.

What? - i hear you ask, i understand, its meant to be the case that lossless is lossless right? - and essentially it is, but as you know 8 wraps the file up tighter that it wraps 1 up, i am not a scientific person therefore i cant explain why a more highly compressed file has audio artifacts in decoding... i can only guess, and may conclude that the file has more decoding to do on the fly with a higher compressed file than a lower compressed file somehow involving a semi-dereliction of duty at runtime causing slight artifacts and issues.

in this wrapping, and i have meticulously listened to multiple albums encoded in flac 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 - duplicated in all of the levels.

and for me personally there is a occasionally, not even all the time, a noticeable level of 'interference' and distortion that starts to lessen at about flac 5>, for me with my new rig, with etys @ S and V-Cap doing its thing, it vanishes completely at FLAC <4

so i simply chose one less level than i could percieve at, in this case 3 for good measure. and that is why flac-3

sry for boring reply as per usual.

just to say when i had my 4g imod, i could not notice the now apparent issues and thats why it was all about the space on a smallish (60GB drive)

i am sure EFN may be able to attest to this if it is down to the rig combo.

@EFN - listened to the binaural cd, as you say amazing spacial world out there! and i am a switcher, i flit between P and S to suit!
etysmile.gif



I am an anal and I will tell you guys this, FLAC V4 is about the highest compression I would use on an iMod 4G Rockbox. On a 5G iMod it has to be V3 or lower. Why? it has nothing to do with losing any data. Lossless is lossles but take into consideration that it will take more effort for the decoder to decode higher compression FLAC and my experience told me that a V3,V4 FLAC is more faithful to the original WAVs. In fact I didn't even use FLAC on iMod 5G because I find them to be a bit (a bit mind you) brighter sounding than the original WAV. ALAC on the other hand is completey transparent and I could not differentiate them from WAV (on iMod 5G)
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 6:29 PM Post #264 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by EFN /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why? it has nothing to do with losing any data. Lossless is lossles but take into consideration that it will take more effort for the decoder to decode higher compression FLAC and my experience told me that a V3,V4 FLAC is more faithful to the original WAVs.


This is very true. In fact I think the highest compression you can find supported for any DAP is FLAC Level 5. Besides, the higher the compression you use, the smaller the difference in file size gets.
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 7:21 PM Post #265 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by cmirza /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is very true. In fact I think the highest compression you can find supported for any DAP is FLAC Level 5.


i dont quite follow, do you mean to say no DAP can decode/play anything higher than FLAC V5?

rockbox for instance decodes/plays any level of flac file.

sry for being slow!!
confused.gif
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 7:27 PM Post #266 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
i always used to use flac-8 @ imod 4G initially, solely because of space issues.

nothing to do with encoding as on my machine there isnt a noticeable difference in time taken from 1 - 8, nothing that bothers me.

nothing to do with decoding on imod either, or is it (see later)

as always, its do with sound reproduction.

What? - i hear you ask, i understand, its meant to be the case that lossless is lossless right? - and essentially it is, but as you know 8 wraps the file up tighter that it wraps 1 up, i am not a scientific person therefore i cant explain why a more highly compressed file has audio artifacts in decoding... i can only guess, and may conclude that the file has more decoding to do on the fly with a higher compressed file than a lower compressed file somehow involving a semi-dereliction of duty at runtime causing slight artifacts and issues.

in this wrapping, and i have meticulously listened to multiple albums encoded in flac 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 - duplicated in all of the levels.

and for me personally there is a occasionally, not even all the time, a noticeable level of 'interference' and distortion that starts to lessen at about flac 5>, for me with my new rig, with etys @ S and V-Cap doing its thing, it vanishes completely at FLAC <4

so i simply chose one less level than i could percieve at, in this case 3 for good measure. and that is why flac-3

sry for boring reply as per usual.

just to say when i had my 4g imod, i could not notice the now apparent issues and thats why it was all about the space on a smallish (60GB drive)

i am sure EFN may be able to attest to this if it is down to the rig combo.

@EFN - listened to the binaural cd, as you say amazing spacial world out there! and i am a switcher, i flit between P and S to suit!
etysmile.gif



Quote:

Originally Posted by EFN /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am an anal and I will tell you guys this, FLAC V4 is about the highest compression I would use on an iMod 4G Rockbox. On a 5G iMod it has to be V3 or lower. Why? it has nothing to do with losing any data. Lossless is lossles but take into consideration that it will take more effort for the decoder to decode higher compression FLAC and my experience told me that a V3,V4 FLAC is more faithful to the original WAVs. In fact I didn't even use FLAC on iMod 5G because I find them to be a bit (a bit mind you) brighter sounding than the original WAV. ALAC on the other hand is completey transparent and I could not differentiate them from WAV (on iMod 5G)


No. Lossless is lossless, that FLAC encoding of that WAV are the same thing, they cannot sound different, and ALL levels of FLAC take the SAME amount of power to decode. 1 is just as hard to decompress as 8. There is no reason to use anything over 8 unless your computer can't handle the encoding.
 
Nov 7, 2007 at 8:46 PM Post #268 of 1,051
Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No. Lossless is lossless, that FLAC encoding of that WAV are the same thing, they cannot sound different, and ALL levels of FLAC take the SAME amount of power to decode. 1 is just as hard to decompress as 8. There is no reason to use anything over 8 unless your computer can't handle the encoding.


forgive me for my findings
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top