[Urubu]

sorry i didn' read all the posts but can you use EQ with hi ries files now ?  

 

[gerelmx1986]

  sorry i didn' read all the posts but can you use EQ with hi ries files now ?  

yes i have tested it but i find its pretty subtle yet i can still note some changes in sound

 

[xylin6]

  sorry i didn' read all the posts but can you use EQ with hi ries files now ?  

 
sorry to disagree with you gerelmx1986 ,but using the equalizer on hi res song files doesn't make even a subtle difference on the A10 series Walkmans
 
I just checked again in case that might have changed with firmware update 1.21 but it didn't.
 
at first i got excited because i thought it did - until i realized "oh wait! i bet i forgot to turn downsampling off"...
and sure enough....   but as soon as i turned it off neither the equalizer nor clearbass settings made any difference whatsoever
and i ran all five bands and the clearbass settings from top to bottom and back again while the songs were playing (tried a few different tracks just to be sure). i wish they would change that in an update though (and add a gapleass feature for lossy files) .
 
also for past reference on this subject post #5794

 

[castleofargh]

  sorry i didn' read all the posts but can you use EQ with hi ries files now ?  

no, EQ doesn't work with high res files(unless like before you downsampled, but then it's not highres is it ^_^), you can move the sliders and have fun, but I just checked the frequency response didn't change as it did with EQ on 16/44 files.

 

[The Walrus]

 
no, EQ doesn't work with high res files(unless like before you downsampled, but then it's not highres is it ^_^), you can move the sliders and have fun, but I just checked the frequency response didn't change as it did with EQ on 16/44 files.

If I'm not wrong, it downsamples the HR files on-the-fly. Can I be sure the result is CD quality? I doubt it. 

 

[castleofargh]

 

 
no, EQ doesn't work with high res files(unless like before you downsampled, but then it's not highres is it ^_^), you can move the sliders and have fun, but I just checked the frequency response didn't change as it did with EQ on 16/44 files.

If I'm not wrong, it downsamples the HR files on-the-fly. Can I be sure the result is CD quality? I doubt it. 

TBH I can't understand the point of it. why would anybody waste storage space with highres files, and then set the DAP to downsample? it's a lose/lose choice. waste of space + waste of CPU and battery life. and the result is like you say, probably not even as good as a nice sox conversion done on the computer.
but then again I don't understand the point of highres in any situation other than recording and mastering, so maybe I'm not the best guy to defend sony's mindset.

 

[heatofamatch]

 
but then again I don't understand the point of highres in any situation other than recording and mastering, so maybe I'm not the best guy to defend sony's mindset.

 
The A20 is able to apply EQ to hi-res files. So, I bet Sony had already decided last year that they'd hold off this feature for this year's model.
Moral of the story: Sony does a lot of indefensible things. 

 
(off-topic... I happen to be VERY angry at Sony right now cause I just realized they segregated many, many identical-looking noise-cancelling earphones that won't work properly unless Sony decides that your device can have the necessary software profile.)

 

[Urubu]

 
 
(off-topic... I happen to be VERY angry at Sony right now cause I just realized they segregated many, many identical-looking noise-cancelling earphones that won't work properly unless Sony decides that your device can have the necessary software profile.)

 
 
it 's piss me off ,i am not interrested by this earphones (any feedback somewhere?) ,i want to decide by myself , i should prefer have the N20 cheaper  

 

[castleofargh]

it could also be a matter of processing power, or just a change in whatever chipset that does the EQ(if it's not software), that could be limited to 16/44? (I'm fishing here, I really have no idea).
but of course it could also be a way to justify the evolution of the products. I ended up paying 100£ more for an equalizer just because the cheap one was lacking some silly basic but useful feature I could almost have coded myself. it sucks for the consumer, but it's in the game for a business

.

 

[Urubu]

the N20 sound is really the same than the  N10 ?

 

[JJZ109]

 
... bought 2 pairs of SONY MDR-100AAP's (Pink / Black)

Red / Black here ...

 

 

[gerelmx1986]

and to make it worse, models sold outside EU have no NC buds included at least my ZX100

 

[Gosod]

What's the difference between a20?

 

[fish1050]

 
TBH I can't understand the point of it. why would anybody waste storage space with highres files, and then set the DAP to downsample? it's a lose/lose choice. waste of space + waste of CPU and battery life. and the result is like you say, probably not even as good as a nice sox conversion done on the computer.
but then again I don't understand the point of highres in any situation other than recording and mastering, so maybe I'm not the best guy to defend sony's mindset.

The HiRes experiment!
 
A friend of mine bought a Sony ZX2 recently and loaded it with a bunch of classical music (24 bit 192KHZ) tracks.  He listens to a pair of Audeze LCD3 headphones (crazy expensive) with a Lehman Audio Linear Headphone Amplifier (crazy expensive).  While not a fan of classical music I have to say the sound was like nothing I had ever heard from a desktop setup and it cost more than some cars I owned.
 
So of course I asked him why he was wasting space with 24 bit 192KHZ tracks (some tracks over 300 mb).  He told me that the salesman who sold him the headphones and the amp said you had to listen to tracks at 24 bit 192 Khz to get the best sound possible and actually sold him some of the music.  No matter what I said I couldn't convince him to downsample tracks to 16 bit flac.   I still have a number of friends in the high end audio sales field, one of whom manages one of the more prestigious stores in Toronto (asked me not to mention the name).  He agreed to let me and my buddy come down to the store after hours to do a real audio audition.
 
In their high end room they had a system that retailed at over $80,000, it was the sickest home system I had ever seen.   I had taken 5 of my buddies favorite classical music tracks and created downsampled copies at 16 bit flac, and 320Kbps  and loaded 24 bit (original), 16 bit flac and 320Kbps mp3 versions on a thumb drive.   I wrote the names of the 5 tracks in 3 columns on a sheet of paper, 24 bit, 16 bit, 320 Kbps.  We did a blind listening test where I played the same track randomly in all three formats and asked him to pick out the one that was 24 bit and to let me know if he could not tell the difference between tracks. He was allowed to listen as many times as he wanted for as long as he wanted to each track.
 
Final results were interesting,  Number of tracks out of 5 he could not tell the difference between all three formats (1).  Number of tracks he picked the 24 bit version only (1).  Number of tracks no audible difference between 24 bit and 16 bit (3).  He even admitted on the one track where he picked the 24 bit version he took a guess. So actually not once could he definitively identify the 24 bit track.
 
Afterwards he even admitted that without access to a system of this quality the 320 Kbps tracks would even be hard to distinguish as the differences were very subtle.
 
Now I know the purists will argue that this was not a true a/b/c test but for our purposes it still proved a point.  If you can't tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit flac on a ultra high end audio system then you sure as hell can't tell the difference on a portable DAP with consumer grade headphones.  The next day we redid his entire audio collection at 16 bit best quality flac.  He now has like 7 x more storage available on his ZX2. We talked about resampling to 320Kbps but I guess the Sony DAP's don't do gapless for mp3 and it is very important for classical music so we stayed with 16 bit flac.  I have never really gotten caught up on the whole gapless playback thing.  He also said he didn't want to resample at 320Kbps because even if he couldn't hear the difference, psychologically he knew it was there and it would reduce his listening enjoyment.
 
I know some of you will still insist 24 bit is the way to go and nothing I say can change your mind. So go ahead and live in your 24 bit fantasy world if you must.  Me, I think I will stick with reality.

 

[gerelmx1986]

 

 
TBH I can't understand the point of it. why would anybody waste storage space with highres files, and then set the DAP to downsample? it's a lose/lose choice. waste of space + waste of CPU and battery life. and the result is like you say, probably not even as good as a nice sox conversion done on the computer.
but then again I don't understand the point of highres in any situation other than recording and mastering, so maybe I'm not the best guy to defend sony's mindset.

The HiRes experiment!
 
A friend of mine bought a Sony ZX2 recently and loaded it with a bunch of classical music (24 bit 192KHZ) tracks.  He listens to a pair of Audeze LCD3 headphones (crazy expensive) with a Lehman Audio Linear Headphone Amplifier (crazy expensive).  While not a fan of classical music I have to say the sound was like nothing I had ever heard from a desktop setup and it cost more than some cars I owned.
 
So of course I asked him why he was wasting space with 24 bit 192KHZ tracks (some tracks over 300 mb).  He told me that the salesman who sold him the headphones and the amp said you had to listen to tracks at 24 bit 192 Khz to get the best sound possible and actually sold him some of the music.  No matter what I said I couldn't convince him to downsample tracks to 16 bit flac.   I still have a number of friends in the high end audio sales field, one of whom manages one of the more prestigious stores in Toronto (asked me not to mention the name).  He agreed to let me and my buddy come down to the store after hours to do a real audio audition.
 
In their high end room they had a system that retailed at over $80,000, it was the sickest home system I had ever seen.   I had taken 5 of my buddies favorite classical music tracks and created downsampled copies at 16 bit flac, and 320Kbps  and loaded 24 bit (original), 16 bit flac and 320Kbps mp3 versions on a thumb drive.   I wrote the names of the 5 tracks in 3 columns on a sheet of paper, 24 bit, 16 bit, 320 Kbps.  We did a blind listening test where I played the same track randomly in all three formats and asked him to pick out the one that was 24 bit and to let me know if he could not tell the difference between tracks. He was allowed to listen as many times as he wanted for as long as he wanted to each track.
 
Final results were interesting,  Number of tracks out of 5 he could not tell the difference between all three formats (1).  Number of tracks he picked the 24 bit version only (1).  Number of tracks no audible difference between 24 bit and 16 bit (3).  He even admitted on the one track where he picked the 24 bit version he took a guess. So actually not once could he definitively identify the 24 bit track.
 
Afterwards he even admitted that without access to a system of this quality the 320 Kbps tracks would even be hard to distinguish as the differences were very subtle.
 
Now I know the purists will argue that this was not a true a/b/c test but for our purposes it still proved a point.  If you can't tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit flac on a ultra high end audio system then you sure as hell can't tell the difference on a portable DAP with consumer grade headphones.  The next day we redid his entire audio collection at 16 bit best quality flac.  He now has like 7 x more storage available on his ZX2. We talked about resampling to 320Kbps but I guess the Sony DAP's don't do gapless for mp3 and it is very important for classical music so we stayed with 16 bit flac.  I have never really gotten caught up on the whole gapless playback thing.  He also said he didn't want to resample at 320Kbps because even if he couldn't hear the difference, psychologically he knew it was there and it would reduce his listening enjoyment.
 
I know some of you will still insist 24 bit is the way to go and nothing I say can change your mind. So go ahead and live in your 24 bit fantasy world if you must.  Me, I think I will stick with reality.

I have quite a few  but i pefer FLAC Over mp3, my bare minium is 16-bit, if i was professional i would have encoded the 24-bit albums to 16 but because i am a bit clueless better leave them as 24/88. I can hear the difference between 15 and 24? well sometimes yes but is very subtle