[JK1]

I have the Clip Sport which is built on the same platform as the Clip Jam. The Clip Jam is very similar to the Clip Sport except that the Jam has a smaller battery(18 hours vs 25 hours of battery life) and the Jam has a smaller display which can't show album art, while the Sport can show album art. There is no Rockbox for either. Both players are limited to 2,000 songs internal memory, and 2,000 songs card memory. The card memory is in a separate database from the main memory. I also have  Rockboxed Clip+, and Rockbox Clip Zip players. My advice is to get the Clip+ or Clip Zip and Rockbox it, unless the extra battery life of the Clip Sport is very important to you. I want the extra battery life, but not if it means having a lower capacity player, and not having Rockbox. With the original firmware, Sandisk players often have trouble with cards faster than class 4. I only use class 4 cards with my Sandisk players. A few people have reported that class 10 cards work fine in a Clip+ or Clip Zip when used with Rockbox. 

 

[Mark2010]

No flac support on the Sandisk Jam is a deal breaker for me.
 
I  can't believe they dropped flac support every sandisk player I ever owned supported flac.
 
This is definitely a step back.

 

[gp58mb]

I have 4 clip+  1 with kilamanjaro amp, 1 with montblanc amp 1 with little bear single or double tube amp, & I just got a fiio X5.
love it much more than the DX-50 touchscreen. Sound is more intimate & closer cleaner.
The clip+ is my absolute favorite with either Fiio amp, I'm ok with WAV or WM higher bit rates.
& the UE 600 iem is almost as good as my Westone um3x.
I can't hear the difference between Wav & flac?

 

[Sparky191]

  Keep in mind that the Clip Jam is intended to compete against the ipod Shuffle, so in that regard it is still so much better. The trouble is that a Clip+ or Clip Zip is so much better than the ipod Nano in many ways, and the Clip Jam is far inferior to a Rockboxed Clip+ or Clip Zip except perhaps for battery life.

 
Why "so much better" than the Shuffle?
 
Recently picked up a 4th Gen Shuffle for the kids and I thought the SQ was pretty decent. I also have a Zip which is great. But the kids were finding the Sandisk clips hard to use, and I wasn't giving them my Zip. So I thought I try with a shuffle and the voice over feature makes it quite usuable. Haven't quite worked out how I'll manage eBooks on it yet (in terms of tagging and playlists). All of my Clips are either broken or have dodgy earphone sockets. So I was looking for something cheap for the kids. 
 
The Sport and Jam seem like a cost cutting exercise so I'm not sure I'm interested in them. 

 

[JK1]

"Why "so much better" than the Shuffle?"
 
The Clip Jam has a radio(no radio in the Shuffle), 8GB built in(only 2GB in the Shuffle), a display(no display on the Shuffle),and a card slot(no card slot on the Shuffle).
I don't have the Clip Jam, but do have a Clip Sport(in addition to Clip+ and Clip zip players). The Clip Sport is built on the same platform as the Clip Jam, except that the Clip Sport has a larger display that is in color, and a larger battery(for 25 hours of battery life). My Clip Sport is an 8GB one with a 16GB card in it. I paid $40 for the Clip Sport, and $10 for the card. An ipod Nano would have cost me $140, $90 more!
 
"The Sport and Jam seem like a cost cutting exercise so I'm not sure I'm interested in them."
 
LOL! You think the Shuffle doesn't look like a cost cutting exercise when compared to the Nano?

 

[Sparky191]

Sorry my bad. Since its Head Fi I was solely thinking about SQ (Jam/Sport vs Shuffle). It didn't really occur to me you weren't. No one buys Apple as cost saving exercise, I didn't consider anyone would  compare any Apple product on bang per buck basis.
 
No I meant cost saving over the clip and zip. Which if you already have (and we do) there doesn't seem any point in buying a Jam.Sport. Or if you were a headfier you'd want to go backwards in terms of SQ. 
 
I was back to back reading with other threads where someone said the Jam/Sport don't have the same chipset/SOC and thus SQ weren't on a par with the Clip/Zip. Also another thread where people were rating the current shuffle on a par with the Zip. I always really rated the original shuffle highly in terms of SQ, the one since then have been a bit meh. So I took your comment out of context. 

 

[JK1]

  Sorry my bad. Since its Head Fi I was solely thinking about SQ (Jam/Sport vs Shuffle). It didn't really occur to me you weren't. No one buys Apple as cost saving exercise, I didn't consider anyone would  compare any Apple product on bang per buck basis.
 
No I meant cost saving over the clip and zip. Which if you already have (and we do) there doesn't seem any point in buying a Jam.Sport. Or if you were a headfier you'd want to go backwards in terms of SQ. 
 
I was back to back reading with other threads where someone said the Jam/Sport don't have the same chipset/SOC and thus SQ weren't on a par with the Clip/Zip. Also another thread where people were rating the current shuffle on a par with the Zip. I always really rated the original shuffle highly in terms of SQ, the one since then have been a bit meh. So I took your comment out of context. 

Does the Shuffle sound better than the Jam? I doubt it. I have the Clip Sport, Clip+, and Clip Zip. Using 256kbps mp3 files, these sound great. I haven't heard any Apple players, so I can't comment on their sound quality from personal experience. Based on what I have read on the net though, it seems the Shuffle and Nano sound quality are around on par with the Clip+, Clip Zip, Clip Sport, and Clip Jam.
 
"No I meant cost saving over the clip and zip. Which if you already have (and we do) there doesn't seem any point in buying a Jam.Sport. Or if you were a headfier you'd want to go backwards in terms of SQ. "
 
I don't hear any sound quality differences between the Sandisk Clip Sport and my Rockboxed Clip+ and Rockboxed Clip Zip, when the equilizer is not used. Some have said that without using the equilizer, the Clip Sport sounds a bit better than the Clip+ using the original firmware. I think they are on par. I could see buying the Clip Sport for the 25 hour battery life, however the Jam is basically a Sport with a smaller display and smaller battery. since the price difference between the Sport and the Jam is so small, I see no reason to buy the Jam(unless it gets discounted to $25 or less, or the Sport becomes unavailable).
 
"I was back to back reading with other threads where someone said the Jam/Sport don't have the same chipset/SOC and thus SQ weren't on a par "
 
No. The sound quality is on par, however the Sport and Jam are limited as far as functionality when compared to the Clip+ and Clip Zip. The equilizer on the Clip Sport is better than the horrible implementation in the original Clip+ and Clip zip firmware. With Rockbox though, the Clip+ and Clip Zip equilizer is great.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

I ordered a Jam just for giggles. Gonna tear it apart and see how the pcb compares to the older clips. What I know about these clips is all share the same amp but implemented in slightly different ways which will alter the sound subtly:
 
Clip:   Sandisk cpu, 290mAH battery, 15 hr, grounded battery, internal metal shielding, quality crystal oscillator clock
Clip+: Sandisk cpu, 290mAH battery, 15 hr, grounded battery, no shielding, nondescript clock
Sport: Lesser cpu, 220mAH battery, 25 hr, non-grounded battery, no shielding, nondescript clock
Jam:   Identical to sport.
 
The original clip has the best internal quality components, with each new iteration sandisk literally took two steps back. It's not all bad though, the pcb design get's better each iteration, so in the end they kinda cancel each other out and I'd call them even. Still, improvement would be much better than one step forward one step back, considering there has been 5 clips with no overall sound improvement between iterations, only trade-offs.

 

[JK1]

  I ordered a Jam just for giggles. Gonna tear it apart and see how the pcb compares to the older clips. What I know about these clips is all share the same amp but implemented in slightly different ways which will alter the sound subtly:
 
Clip:   Sandisk cpu, 290mAH battery, 15 hr, grounded battery, internal metal shielding, quality crystal oscillator clock
Clip+: Sandisk cpu, 290mAH battery, 15 hr, grounded battery, no shielding, nondescript clock
Sport: Lesser cpu, 220mAH battery, 25 hr, non-grounded battery, no shielding, nondescript clock
Jam:   Lesser cpu, 18 hr, (haven't received it yet so I don't know the other internal specs yet)
 
The original clip has the best internal quality components, with each new iteration sandisk literally took two steps back. It's not all bad though, the pcb design get's better each iteration, so in the end they kinda cancel each other out and I'd call them even. Still, improvement would be much better than one step forward one step back, considering there has been 5 clips with no overall sound improvement between iterations, only trade-offs.

What I don't understand though is Sandisk's recent obsession with just making players that retail for under $50. There is plenty of demand for players that are just under $100, especially if they are much better than their players under $50 and are Rockboxable. I like the form factor of the Sport, however even though the processor in it doesn't seem capable of supporting Rockbox, it would still be nice to see a version of the Sport which uses a 440 mah battery, giving 50 hours of battery life.

 

[tdweis]

Can anyone who owns either the Clip Sport or the Clip Jam tell me if the unit allows you to record FM radio like the Clip+?
That feature for me was one of the best features the Clip+ had, and I used it to record radio shows to listen to later.
Besides the Clip+, the only other players I know of that allowed recording of FM radio were certain Cowon models (J3).

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

  Can anyone who owns either the Clip Sport or the Clip Jam tell me if the unit allows you to record FM radio like the Clip+?

 
That feature was removed from the sport and jam because they use ****ty cpu's. Only the clip+ and zip have it.

 

[JK1]

   
That feature was removed from the sport and jam because they use ****ty cpu's. Only the clip+ and zip have it.

The Clip Sport though gets 25 hours of battery life using a 220 mah battery, while the Clip Zip got 15 hours using a 290 mah battery. So the Clip Sport uses only around 45% of the power the Clip Zip uses. To put this in perspective, the Fiio x5 uses a 3700 mah battery, and gets only around 9 and a half hours, so it uses around 44 times the power of the Clip Sport!

 

[JK1]

  Can anyone who owns either the Clip Sport or the Clip Jam tell me if the unit allows you to record FM radio like the Clip+?
That feature for me was one of the best features the Clip+ had, and I used it to record radio shows to listen to later.
Besides the Clip+, the only other players I know of that allowed recording of FM radio were certain Cowon models (J3).

Many radio shows are available for downloading as podcasts. Go to the radio stations' websites.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

Cracked open the Jam today, it's insides are identical to sport.

 

[JK1]

  Cracked open the Jam today, it's insides are identical to sport.

Not completely. The battery in the Jam must be smaller, and of course the display on the Jam is smaller.