Threads like this make me sad. There are no shortage of opinions on the web, but there is a shortage of factual, objective, and unbiased information that can be verified and compared in valid ways. Sadly, most of the objective data that can be found is either from sources with conflicts of interest (they sell the stuff, or their advertisers do), or from people who don't have the knowledge and/or equipment to provide valid information that's fit for comparison. So I recently started an entirely non-commercial, not-for-profit, personal blog to try and improve the situation--at least a little.
Subjective opinions certainly matter. I won't argue with someone's taste in wine, or even if they prefer lots of bass in their headphones. But they only go so far in helping others as we all have different tastes. At least with something like portable music players it's possible to provide meaningful objective data that can be useful to anyone making a decision.
A Ford guy might think the Mustang is the best car in its class while a Chevy guy likely thinks it's the Camaro. But at least several car magazines put both on a test track and run them at their limit door to door and a clear winner almost always emerges. Yeah, the Ford might have better seats to some--that's subjective and personal taste. But 0-60 times, the 1/4 mile, gas mileage, lap times on a track, etc. are hard numbers, that when done right, can be fairly compared. And those numbers typically correlate well into which car will win an informal "stoplight drag"--i.e. they're valid and they matter in the real world. Audio can be the same way but few products ever get compared on an objective level playing field--the audio equivalent of the car test track.
Many offer what they think are technical explanations to support their positions, but their lack of knowledge and/or the right equipment for valid measurements often make their claims empty unless they're otherwise well referenced. If they don't have solid facts behind them, they should stick to the wine analogy--i.e. they prefer Player A over Player B but you might like the opposite.
The world of digital and analog audio is loaded with complexities and variables that many are unaware of. And oversimplifying often just doesn't work--things like impedance, jitter, and compression are misunderstood by many. And the manufactures, dealers, and audiophile press generally don't help things at all. They have their own agendas--generally to keep everyone spending more money even if they don't need to. What's dangerous is when myths are assumed to be fact because they're repeated so often.
The post in this thread regarding WAV files sounding better than FLAC is an example of a typical myth. But once you understand how the data stream works in playing back digital audio files, there really is NO difference. None. Zero. There's nothing magic or mystical here. The data stream entering the DAC is identical in either case so the DAC can't tell them apart. The differences some claim to hear are either purely psychological or related to some other variable besides the FLAC encoding. I can provide solid references on this for anyone who thinks I'm wrong and I'd love to hear what *objective* evidence they have? I'll see them at the track.
Another example: RMAA results are frequently referenced by many as solid "proof" of one product's superiority over another. In reality, RMAA has lots of flaws of its own, and worse, it's typically used in ways that make comparison literally impossible. I can easily make a $10 Chinese no-name USB audio device show better results on RMAA than a $400 desktop DAC. The technical details of why RMAA is flawed, complete with some screen shots, are on my blog. And more will be coming. It's sad to see even some of the big sites touting RMAA as being far more valid than it really is.
Many portable players are not at the "point of diminishing returns" you find in higher end audio gear where the differences often are inaudible. Portables are designed to be cheap, small, run for dozens of hours from a tiny battery, etc. All of these things are in conflict with high-end sound quality.
So there really *are* measurable parameters in portable players that can account for many audible differences. Many of them have been mentioned and alternately credited, and dismissed, in this very thread. Just one example is output impedance (something RMAA doesn't measure). I show graphs on my blog of how headphone impedance interacts with output impedance in some VERY audible ways. And it varies widely among portable players.
And some of the players people automatically assume are better (mostly due to mis-information spread on the web), really are not. I just tested one of the new Cowon players that has a loyal following and it performed significantly *worse* than an iPod Touch 3G on just about *every* test. Even the $39 Sansa Clip+ outperforms the far more expensive Cowon in some key areas. I'll be posting the full reviews soon on the blog.
There are many things that can make an audible difference that are not revealed in typical specs, and some are not tested by RMAA, but they can be revealed with more advanced equipment and test methods. I list some of them in my blog.
There often are technical reasons why someone prefers one thing to another. Sometimes they're just not very obvious. For example, vinyl lovers typically prefer an LP of an old recording to the later CD release. CD's, in pretty much every way, are technically superior to vinyl. But, CD's of old recordings have to be made from the original master tapes. And tape deteriorates badly with age. So the CD was made from an old "faded" tape while the vinyl LP was made from much better sounding fresh tape. So the vinyl lover's preference has some objective evidence behind it after all. You just have to know where to look.
Please feel free to comment here or on the blog if you like. I don't plan to censor topics like blind testing, etc. And I don't expect to change the opinions of the masses. But if I can even help a handful of people make more informed choices, the blog is worth it. Facts can be way more useful than opinion, myth and hype.