[Podtweaker]

Quote:

 
 
 
Not to knock shig but I have noticed he is super hyper sensitive to hiss in a player. Most people wouldn't notice the hiss he hears on most players but even him being hyper sensitive to hiss does not mind the hiss on the SFLO:2. Me personally I hear no actual player produced hiss on the it.
 
Also .wav support is really not needed and is a relic.
 
.wav files do not support ID tagging and are much bigger than .flac files even though both file types are completely lossless. You can simply take your .wav fiels and transcode them  to .flac
 
I only listen to lossless audio but even I think .wav files are a huge waste of  space and offer no advantage over .flac at all.
 

Yeah, I guess I'm just being a little lazy as I don't care for compressed files in any shape or form & all the music I put on my DAPs(I hate calling these things MP3 players because I wouldn't use it if that's all they would play) is from my CDs or Higher Rez music files! I tried using the flac encoder in the EAC rip program but I didn't care for bit rate reduction that was being applied so I decided to just bring the wav files over to my Flac Frontend program & encode the files using a level 5 setting which does'nt appear to be as aggressive in its bite rate reduction. Conservation of player storage space will always be a secodary consideration compared to any amount of playback resolution retrival & I do mean any. The best feature of any new DAP (to  myself ) is the ability to physically remove music storage as desired . Now you truly have the ability to have as much of your music collection without regard to playback SQ compromises with you whenever you want. Well, time to stop "flac- in" around , I'm "flac-in outta here for now. 
 

 

[swanlee]

 
Quote:

Yeah, I guess I'm just being a little lazy as I don't care for compressed files in any shape or form & all the music I put on my DAPs(I hate calling these things MP3 players because I wouldn't use it if that's all they would play) is from my CDs or Higher Rez music files! I tried using the flac encoder in the EAC rip program but I didn't care for bit rate reduction that was being applied so I decided to just bring the wav files over to my Flac Frontend program & encode the files using a level 5 setting which does'nt appear to be as aggressive in its bite rate reduction. Conservation of player storage space will always be a secodary consideration compared to any amount of playback resolution retrival & I do mean any. The best feature of any new DAP (to  myself ) is the ability to physically remove music storage as desired . Now you truly have the ability to have as much of your music collection without regard to playback SQ compromises with you whenever you want. Well, time to stop "flac- in" around , I'm "flac-in outta here for now. 
 

 
 
.flac is lossless there is no loss, it is like putting a .zip on your music, you are compressing the file without removing any audio unlike .mp3.
 

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

It would be nice if we could come up with a list of portable amps that worked well with the SFLO:2
 
I'll start in saying I love the XM5 but the LO is just to loud for this amp.

I would put the ALO Rx and the RSA Tomahawk into that list. Used both with the T51 LO and had nothing but positive results. IEMs used were Triple.Fi 10s and UM3Xs.
 

 

[Podtweaker]

Quote:

 
 
 
.flac is lossless there is no loss, it is like putting a .zip on your music, you are compressing the file without removing any audio unlike .mp3.
 

Yes, were did you get the impression that I don't realize lossless is like a zip. It's just that I'm happier using the highest attainable bit-rate within any codec. Flac Frontend (level 5 encoding) gave  me a higher kbps rate for the same music files flac encoded using the EAC flac plug-in. I don't have a reasonally high quality flac player to compare the identical(but different kbps rate) files. Until, I do please humor me.
I will gladly admit that bit rates make no difference within a lossless codec if I can't hear any difference in the retrieval of "ambient sounds" from the recording location. (I know, no-one else gets this crazy about portable source playback SQ, but I've had some wildly great sounding portable stuff that sounds better than many home systems I've heard (Not my home system; but I accept some compromises from my portable music). I really have no problem wasting a few bits. Oh , & flac is actually compressed lossless as opposed to uncompressed lossless if we're looking for accuracy here! 

 

[swanlee]

 
Quote:

Yes, were did you get the impression that I don't realize lossless is like a zip. It's just that I'm happier using the highest attainable bit-rate within any codec. Flac Frontend (level 5 encoding) gave  me a higher kbps rate for the same music files flac encoded using the EAC flac plug-in. I don't have a reasonally high quality flac player to compare the identical(but different kbps rate) files. Until, I do please humor me.
I will gladly admit that bit rates make no difference within a lossless codec if I can't hear any difference in the retrieval of "ambient sounds" from the recording location. (I know, no-one else gets this crazy about portable source playback SQ, but I've had some wildly great sounding portable stuff that sounds better than many home systems I've heard (Not my home system; but I accept some compromises from my portable music). I really have no problem wasting a few bits 

Uh regardless of  the bitrate the .flac file is when compressed when it is decompressed and presented as audio it is still 16bit 1411.2 KB. The only benefit is the cpu of what ever player you are using does not have go through the trouble of decompressing the.flac file. While with .wav you lose the ability for id tags and it takes up alot more space.
 
Having a lower bit rate on your .flac file is actually a good thing as you are getting better compression and saving space.

 

[CronosX9x9X]

They said on the forum the sflo2's are shipping this week for sure since free shipping will take forever I decided to try to upgrade it to EMS shipping ugh it'll cost more but I'm sick of waiting for my player, anyways Sflo2 I'll finally listen to good music yay

 

[Somnambulist]

Quote:

I just could not spend $250 for the Arrow, so I settled for the T3. But even so, it really does sound great to me, more dynamic or something. Could be placebo, so I need to do more listening with and w/o the amp. But I think it is better, on first impressions. I too would love the Arrow ... someday.

 
Being in the UK it actually works out cheaper for me to get the Arrow, I think, than many other amps due to customs chargers e.t.c.I was going to get one of the DIY Head Fi people to make me a nice right-angled mini-to-mini if I end up getting one.


 
Quote:

I thought the sflo2's output impedance was too high for use w/ the Arrow (at least I thought I saw that somewhere)...

I'll ask about that in the Arrow thread, ta.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

You guys are funny!!!  That you will listen to any "hiss" from IEMs or buds is extremely unblieveable to me. It's unacceptable for me to listen at anytime to euipment generated noise. The recordings I listen to all have at least some portions of silence (if only for a second or two)where a very low noise floor makes the sound special. I'm a little dissapointed that a product like this does'nt have support for wav files, as it supports removable music storage! Oh well, it still sounds worth a try for me (as my Korg MR1 has developed some operational quirks)   
 

Mate, you have to realise that every source makes hiss. Some, however, make more than others. If your earphones are sensitive enough, you will hear it. If not, you won't. Then, your ears have to be sensitive enough. My sources range from horrible to very good.
 
Worst for hiss:
AMP3 Pro 
Sony anything
S:Flo
Fuze/iPod Nano 1G (when rockboxed)
Clip OF
iPod touch
 
But anything from the S:Flo on down isn't bad at all. I am sensitive to hiss because I've used sources that don't even hiss with my current earphones, but they are MD players. I won't be going back. I only started slumming it with DAP's in 2007 and was shocked at how behind in certain criteria they were.

 

[worldman]

 
Quote:

It would be nice if we could come up with a list of portable amps that worked well with the SFLO:2
 
I'll start in saying I love the XM5 but the LO is just to loud for this amp.

Well, I think that swanlee's suggestion for a list of portable amps that works well with S:Flo2's line-out is an excellent idea.
 
For me, my Qables iQube V1 works fantastically well with the S:Flo2.  Of course I use the amp's low gain mode and I get the best sound on earth from a portable set-up.  Do not forget to play only lossless FLAC files and use a high quality cable between the S:Flo2 and the amp.
 
By the way, I own a first batch S:Flo2 and I do not notice any hiss.  I wonder what this fuss concerning hiss is all about.

 

[swanlee]

 
Quote:

 


Well, I think that swanlee's suggestion for a list of portable amps that works well with S:Flo2's line-out is an excellent idea.
 
For me, my Qables iQube V1 works fantastically well with the S:Flo2.  Of course I use the amp's low gain mode and I get the best sound on earth from a portable set-up.  Do not forget to play only lossless FLAC files and use a high quality cable between the S:Flo2 and the amp.
 
By the way, I own a first batch S:Flo2 and I do not notice any hiss.  I wonder what this fuss concerning hiss is all about.

 
 
Probably in the same vein that people were wondering about the BASS issues after a single review suggested it was lacking in Bass but every other person who heard the player said it has excellent Bass.
 
Lacking Bass and having Hiss are non existent issues on this player. It's a shame these issues got thrown around and now seems to have stuck to impressions of the player.
 
What kind of internals does the IQube have?
 
My only other hesitation with an external amp on the SFLO:2 is that the opamp and dac chips in the portable amp may be worse than the internals of the SFLO:2 itself. Would be silly to downgrade the SFLO:2 just to use an external amp with it.
 
This is also part of the reason I'm still just using the HO with my Hippo VB IEM's
 

 

[clou91]

I just ordered one of these now. Do you think its worth it for me to also get an iBasso T3 for the line out, or will the headphone out be sufficient for my HFI 780s? I'm not used to listening from a high quality source, so I suspect that I will be happy enough without an amp. Someone please feel to convince me otherwise as the T3 is cheap enough

.

 

[brandnewgame]

Quote:

I just ordered one of these now. Do you think its worth it for me to also get an iBasso T3 for the line out, or will the headphone out be sufficient for my HFI 780s? I'm not used to listening from a high quality source, so I suspect that I will be happy enough without an amp. Someone please feel to convince me otherwise as the T3 is cheap enough

.

Given the impressions of the headphone out quality, I think the T3 would not sound any better, if anything it may sound worse. I'd recommend saving the money and hassle of carrying around two pieces of gear rather than one. That money could be better invested in a desktop setup down the road 

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

I just ordered one of these now. Do you think its worth it for me to also get an iBasso T3 for the line out, or will the headphone out be sufficient for my HFI 780s? I'm not used to listening from a high quality source, so I suspect that I will be happy enough without an amp. Someone please feel to convince me otherwise as the T3 is cheap enough

.

Ive been down the same road as you and IMO (and I dont only say it here, I say it in all of the other thread about headphone amps), I'm not dissing any amps or companies but you should really save your money and get something "good". Not saying they're bad but when you buy a headphone amp, you should really go for something good. Ultimately you should spend most of it on the headphones because that has the greatest impact in sound.
 
The minimum I would suggest for an amp would be the 200+ range because of the jump in SQ you get from something like the D4/T3 to an RSA amp or an ALO Rx or something (only two 300+ amps I heard). 
 
If you don't have the money, I'm not saying you should.... save for a year or heavily budget for it but if you're getting something under 200 bucks, that money could be better spent on a better pair of headphones. 
 
Quote:

Given the impressions of the headphone out quality, I think the T3 would not sound any better, if anything it may sound worse. I'd recommend saving the money and hassle of carrying around two pieces of gear rather than one. That money could be better invested in a desktop setup down the road 

I agree with it not sounding any better; sure it might just because it's out of the LO and it's a little cleaner than the HO but the amp itself isn't going to really add anything (I had the T4 a year ago; although people said the T3 is a little better, from what I've heard it might not be worth it). 
 
PS: I have some money laying around and I'm really thinking of getting a cable for my K702s although posts like these make me want to go and read up on some ~200 desktop amps lol (Desktop/Full size >> Portable in price/performance ratio). 
 

 

[clou91]

Quote:

Ive been down the same road as you and IMO (and I dont only say it here, I say it in all of the other thread about headphone amps), I'm not dissing any amps or companies but you should really save your money and get something "good". Not saying they're bad but when you buy a headphone amp, you should really go for something good. Ultimately you should spend most of it on the headphones because that has the greatest impact in sound.
 
The minimum I would suggest for an amp would be the 200+ range because of the jump in SQ you get from something like the D4/T3 to an RSA amp or an ALO Rx or something (only two 300+ amps I heard). 
 
If you don't have the money, I'm not saying you should.... save for a year or heavily budget for it but if you're getting something under 200 bucks, that money could be better spent on a better pair of headphones. 
 
I agree with it not sounding any better; sure it might just because it's out of the LO and it's a little cleaner than the HO but the amp itself isn't going to really add anything (I had the T4 a year ago; although people said the T3 is a little better, from what I've heard it might not be worth it). 
 
PS: I have some money laying around and I'm really thinking of getting a cable for my K702s although posts like these make me want to go and read up on some ~200 desktop amps lol (Desktop/Full size >> Portable in price/performance ratio). 
 

 
Thanks for the advice guys. The main reason I was attracted to the T3 was more for the small form factor...I can afford something more expensive, but I'm not too keen on carrying around a bigger amp. 
 

 

[Young Spade]

Quote:

 
Thanks for the advice guys. The main reason I was attracted to the T3 was more for the small form factor...I can afford something more expensive, but I'm not too keen on carrying around a bigger amp. 
 

Which was one of the reasons I got the T4 when I used an iPod Nano
If you want to keep size small you should look at the RSA Amps if the "rsa house sound" is something you are interested in. 
I'm sure this was posted earlier but what kind of player are you using?