[Slimm]

Ok, Here's the situation. I currently have a 40g Ipod, which I use with a variety of phones (ety's, PX200's, V6's, soon HD-25's), amped and unamped.

I'm happy with the sound, and the ease of use, but I'm really intrigued by the IHP 120. I like the remote, and the battery life. I've searched and read comments concerning the sound quality of the two, but I haven't found a comparison of the two side by side, soundwise. If anyone could shed some light on this for me, as to what differences I might find between the two as far as sound quality (Is the IHP warmer, etc.), or point me in the direction, I'd appreciate it.

If I make this change, it would be motivated by the battery life and remote, but if the sound quality is THAT different, I wouldn't do it.

Any impressions would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[PYROTAK]

i have listened to the 3g ipod and I own the ihp120 and the sound quality is better on the iriver.

overall its just more transient and clear. i hear the ipod is supposed to be warmer.

 

[Sczervok]

The iRiver sounds better than the iPod eh?...
From what I've experienced, I'd have to agree with the guy at gear.ign.com.

 

[CamelBackCinema]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sczervok The iRiver sounds better than the iPod eh?... From what I've experienced, I'd have to agree with the guy at gear.ign.com.

Ok first off, ign guy is not god... From your experience, you have to agree with the ign guy? So you're saying that you read the article and based your choice off that?

2nd off, form your own opinions. Have you heard both? I'm assuming you have. People have different tastes. Don't just point at a site that knows almost nothing to hifi sound.

There is a reason why this is disputed still. The sound difference is so minimal it all comes down to preference. Do you want battery life, remote, ogg, etc. or ease of use and style?

Lord...

 

[ojnihs]

Quote:

Originally posted by CamelBackCinema Ok first off, ign guy is not god... From your experience, you have to agree with the ign guy? So you're saying that you read the article and based your choice off that? 2nd off, form your own opinions. Have you heard both? I'm assuming you have. People have different tastes. Don't just point at a site that knows almost nothing to hifi sound. There is a reason why this is disputed still. The sound difference is so minimal it all comes down to preference. Do you want battery life, remote, ogg, etc. or ease of use and style? Lord...

No need to be so harsh here. Sure, whatever we choose is based on our own opinions on the items, such as the iPod and the iRiver IHP series. It's his opinion that he agrees with the guy at IGN, so be it.

Personally, I've heard both and I prefer the sound of the iPod over that of the iRiver's. I also like the easy to use interface of the iPod, and I didn't need all the features that the iRiver had, plus I always use Macs, so the choice was easily the iPod.

 

[White Knight]

I have both iHP, iGP and iPod mini and iPod mini lacks bass, the sound is too bright. iHP and iGP sound better than the iPod mini.

 

[davvy]

I have searched a LOT about this issue as I am trying to decide what player to buy in 3 months when I visit the USA. You will find varying and often conflicting opinions, which probably tends to suggest that the difference is indeed not that great. You might find this link interesting though: http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m..../compared.html

 

[JaZZ]

The sonic difference is quite noticeable, it's not even close. To my ears the iPod sounds more natural, accurate and defined, whereas the iRiver has the deeper bass and sort of (metallic-flavored) hi-tech sound. I prefer the former.

 

[rodbac]

Quote:

It's his opinion that he agrees with the guy at IGN, so be it.

Not to continue to beat the guy up over it, but saying "IGN SAYS IT'S BETTER" is not forming an opinion.

FWIW, I think they both sound great. Base your decision on the features you need/want.

 

[DigDub]

i think the general consensus is that the ipod sounds more accurate and clinical, while the ihp sounds more colored and fun. so if you prefer to have more accurate sound production, go for the ipod. if you prefer to have the music altered to make it sound more fun, then choose the ihp.

 

[Traveller]

Not to place myself in the same situation as Sczervok but instead as an FYI to the thread-owner, I noted some details in a post from a review I read recently.

the most interesting thing mentioned was the author's dissapointment with the iPODs Headphone-out compared to it's line-out, while on the iRiver both were considered good.

Only one view, albiet backed up by measurements, and not my opnion as I have yet to do an A/B test with both.

 

[James]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sczervok The iRiver sounds better than the iPod eh?... From what I've experienced, I'd have to agree with the guy at gear.ign.com.

I have nothing to offer about the sound quality of the IHP vs iPod, other than to say that aside from a bit of treble harshness and midrange muddiness -- general resolution issues -- the iPod is remarkably close to my high-end sources. I'm just surprised no one has come to Sczervok's defense: I can see no reading of his words other than that he has listened to the IHP and, if he were to describe his experiences, he would not be adverse to having the "guy at gear.ign.com" speak for him. There's nothing in what Sczervok said that leads me to believe that he didn't experience the IHP. In fact, if you read closely, that's exactly what he said

.