[kunwar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jet_fighter00 But I love my Rio Karma . You can never take away from the excellent sound of it. And a 5 band parametric EQ helps.

be happy with what you have and don't worry abouta everyone else.
It is all in the mind of the beholder.

 

[gorman]

Well...

Rio Karma has:

1) FLAC lossless (with good battery life to go with it).
2) gapless playing of gapless albums (if one defines himself as an audiophile I can't understand how one can go overlooking this).
3) 5 band parametric EQ.
4) S/N ratio better than iPod.

These four things are facts that have no equals in other players. iPod has just recently added a lossless compression option, but I've yet to understand what the impact might be on batteries.

Edit: I know I-River might have some of the above, not all, though.

 

[Slimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Well... Rio Karma has: 1) FLAC lossless (with good battery life to go with it). 2) gapless playing of gapless albums (if one defines himself as an audiophile I can't understand how one can go overlooking this). 3) 5 band parametric EQ. 4) S/N ratio better than iPod. These four things are facts that have no equals in other players. iPod has just recently added a lossless compression option, but I've yet to understand what the impact might be on batteries. Edit: I know I-River might have some of the above, not all, though.

Well for one, the Creative line of MP3 players have a STN ratio of 98, and to me sounds a lot better than the Karma, as does the Ipod and Iriver, without EQ.

As far as I can tell with the Apple losseless, it has the same battery strength as if you were playing wave files, but someown ran a test where he got longer battery life using wave (or AIFF) files than the lossless.

Hasn't been my experience though.

By the by I"m somewhat of an audiophile, and I don't NEED gapless playback.

If one defines himself as an audiophile, why would they "settle" for the STN ratio of the Karma?

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slimm By the by I"m somewhat of an audiophile, and I don't NEED gapless playback. If one defines himself as an audiophile, why would they "settle" for the STN ratio of the Karma?

Because... well, ok... *I* am more interested in music as an art, an expression form. If you are more interested in its technical aspects, then fine, you are more than entitled not to care about an artist's original view of his/her creation. But, come on, are you telling me that listening to Dark Side Of The Moon or The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway with gaps *is* the way an audiophile goes without looking back?

Regarding S/N, I said better than iPod. I didn't say the best overall. AFAIK, Creative products do not support gapless and do not support lossless compression. Do they have parametric EQ? You can say you don't care, but I would say that for portable use it's an important feature for an audiophile use, since not everybody will want to go with a quality portable amp.

 

[Dylan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Because... well, ok... *I* am more interested in music as an art, an expression form. If you are more interested in its technical aspects, then fine, you are more than entitled not to care about an artist's original view of his/her creation. But, come on, are you telling me that listening to Dark Side Of The Moon or The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway with gaps *is* the way an audiophile goes without looking back?

As a music lover I'm able to look past minor imperfections in presentation and still enjoy the music. All things being equal, of course I want gapless playback. But the gaps don't prevent me from enjoying my music.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan As a music lover I'm able to look past minor imperfections in presentation and still enjoy the music. All things being equal, of course I want gapless playback. But the gaps don't prevent me from enjoying my music.

Fine, to each his own I guess. I felt it was noteworthy to mention, anyway.

 

[Ken]

the way i test my portables is to play them thru my stax srm007 and this gives very clear picture of whats good.

rio karmer 8/10
lastest sony mp3 player 9/10
sony mini disc 10/10
and for fun
Palm T3 8.5/10 [fair bit of background noise but great sound]


these numbers are for comparison only and refere to portables only
also i have not heard Ipod which i expect will be the equal to sony mini disc

 

[bangraman]

Which minidisc is 10/10 for your reference, as a matter of interest?

 

[gorman]

Out of curiosity, does Minidisc offer lossless compression now?

 

[swalker]

If you'd want to go all out for the best sound quality possible, I guess an MP3 player with a digital out such as the iRiver ones hooked up to Sostenuto or PACE (gulp) would be the best option.

 

[Slimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Because... well, ok... *I* am more interested in music as an art, an expression form. If you are more interested in its technical aspects, then fine, you are more than entitled not to care about an artist's original view of his/her creation. But, come on, are you telling me that listening to Dark Side Of The Moon or The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway with gaps *is* the way an audiophile goes without looking back? Regarding S/N, I said better than iPod. I didn't say the best overall. AFAIK, Creative products do not support gapless and do not support lossless compression. Do they have parametric EQ? You can say you don't care, but I would say that for portable use it's an important feature for an audiophile use, since not everybody will want to go with a quality portable amp.

Well, to me, the gapless playback doesn't take away from the artist's rendition or meaning of presentation. Besides, if it were to be a true presentation, wouldn't there be gaps where you'd have to flip over the vinyl?

And yes, I am saying gapless playback doesn't necessarily matter as much as sound to a strereotypical "audiophile".

Plus you did say "better S/N than the iPod", but then you went on about "no equals in other players".

But I do think you're contradicting yourself as far as audiophiles and what they'd prefer. It's all about sound, and better sound. And if carrying around an amp will give you better sound, that's what will happen. I'm not in the camp that an EQ'ed sound will give you better sound than one that's amped (given the quality of the amp).

None of the "self professed audiophiles" (take it for what you will

)I know feel the Karma stacks up to the others as far as pure sound. Doesn't mean it's not good or enjoyable sound or the player doesn't have other attributes that make it worth buying and using, but as far as sound, I, they, and others prefer other players.

Hell, even Headroom feels that other players sound better than the Karma. It's all highly subjective, and not as "clear cut" as I think you're trying to make it.

By the way congratulations on your purchase, fellow future UE-10 owner.

 

[Slimm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorman Out of curiosity, does Minidisc offer lossless compression now?

Not that I know of, but it's been my experience that an SP recorded MD sounds better than a CD in most of your PCDP's. It has more to do with the hardware though.

 

[swalker]

AFAIK, the new Hi-MD format supports a lossless PCM codec. We'll see if Sony can get this one right.

 

[gorman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slimm Well, to me, the gapless playback doesn't take away from the artist's rendition or meaning of presentation. Besides, if it were to be a true presentation, wouldn't there be gaps where you'd have to flip over the vinyl?

I know you are joking but... in those cases there *are* gaps. Let's take Dark Side of The Moon as an example, 10 tracks overall. 5 per side. Between The Great Gig In The Sky and Money, the music is obviously not gapless... but as I said, if you like it that way... fine! I'm just wondering what would have happened if CDs came out after vinyl and they were not gapless. Would you have been so eager in justifying it? And, sorry, much as I wish to trust you, I will not believe to a "yes"

Quote:

And yes, I am saying gapless playback doesn't necessarily matter as much as sound to a strereotypical "audiophile".

See above.

Quote:

Plus you did say "better S/N than the iPod", but then you went on about "no equals in other players".

I was referring to the sum of the parts, not to every single part.

Quote:

But I do think you're contradicting yourself as far as audiophiles and what they'd prefer. It's all about sound, and better sound. And if carrying around an amp will give you better sound, that's what will happen. I'm not in the camp that an EQ'ed sound will give you better sound than one that's amped (given the quality of the amp).

I seem to notice there are many people around here that define themselves audiophiles but choose not to carry an amp for portable use. It's all about how practical you want to get, and at what loss. With no parametric EQ, if you choose to go practical... you suffer more, I believe. Especially if you can't afford really top of the line headphones.

Quote:

Hell, even Headroom feels that other players sound better than the Karma. It's all highly subjective, and not as "clear cut" as I think you're trying to make it.

I wasn't trying to make it clear cut. I'm just trying to let people know that there *are* other products around other than iPod. That they undeniably *do* have some features that iPod is lacking. And that they *do* cost less. Sorry for all the emphasis, I couldn't help it.

Let me add just one more thing. If Apple added gapless, better battery and parametric EQ to the iPod, I would be in line the same day to buy one (heck, I might as well wish for a black one... but that's just me). iPod is a great product, it might just be a little better in some aspects. Ok? Peace now?

 

[Slimm]

Sorry man, didn't mean to upset you. It's just discussion.

CD's could have been "not gapless" and it wouldn't have mattered to me (I would've been to young and naive to care anyway). The point could be made that CD's as a medium took off because of it's added convenience (Don't have to rewind to find a song, etc) rather than it's sound or GP.

I didn't mean to make my points "iPod specific" necessarily, I've owned a variety of players. Sorry if that's the vibe I gave.

I wasn't really joking about the vinyl comment, but I do understand what your saying. Most "audiophiles" I come in contact with swear by vinyl as the superior audio medium. And If I could have the rig to pull it off, I would too.

I just rip "The Wall" and DSOTM as one big file.