Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Any recommendations for good-sounding mp3 players? I would probably use
the line-out into a separate headphone amp, so the line-out is most important. The built-in headphone amp is not so important. I just purchased an iRiver h320 on the recommendation of Headroom, but there's something strange about it. It sounds like it is equalizing or compressing the output. It does have some options in that regard, but I have turned them all off. Interestingly enough, certain of the options don't do anything even when turned on. It's like the device is ignoring the instructions, and myabe that's why it sounds equalized, because the little bugger has decided to turn on the equalization no matter what I set. iRiver makes lousy interfaces. I hear the iPod is a pleasure to use. Maybe I should switch to that. But any recommendations? I listen mostly to classical, I value a smooth and sweet midrange, smooth highs, "punchiness" is low on my priorities, and I don't usually speak of "tight bass" but rather "natural bass" Mike |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
How are you creating the MP3 files and at what bit rate? Are you sure
that you are not hearing artifacts from the encoding process? |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
wrote in message
... Any recommendations for good-sounding mp3 players? I would probably use the line-out into a separate headphone amp, so the line-out is most important. The built-in headphone amp is not so important. I just purchased an iRiver h320 on the recommendation of Headroom, but there's something strange about it. It sounds like it is equalizing or compressing the output. It does have some options in that regard, but I have turned them all off. Interestingly enough, certain of the options don't do anything even when turned on. It's like the device is ignoring the instructions, and myabe that's why it sounds equalized, because the little bugger has decided to turn on the equalization no matter what I set. iRiver makes lousy interfaces. I hear the iPod is a pleasure to use. Maybe I should switch to that. But any recommendations? I listen mostly to classical, I value a smooth and sweet midrange, smooth highs, "punchiness" is low on my priorities, and I don't usually speak of "tight bass" but rather "natural bass" Mike I have the Creative Labs Zen Touch 40G model and am very pleased with the sound quality using Sennheiser px100 headphones. The stock earbuds didn't sound all that great to me. I chose this model because compared to a similar Ipod, this seemed liked a better bang for the buck. I find the interface easy to use. I comes with software called MediaSource organizer which makes moving files from your pc to the device very easy. I don't have any experience with the Ipod, so I can't say which is better. From what I understand Ipod is easier if you use Itunes. So far all my music is ripped from CDs and I store song on my device in the wave format. Which brings up the question, when you say "compressing the output" what format are you using. If you're using mp3 or wma, try a higher bitrate or wav. One bit of warning. If you looking for sleekness ala the ipod than the C L is not for you. Think Hummer and you get the idea. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
jwvm wrote:
How are you creating the MP3 files and at what bit rate? Are you sure that you are not hearing artifacts from the encoding process? I'm creating them at 320 Kbps. Playing them on my computer through a professional soundcard did not reveal any major change from full CD. However, I will see what wav files sound like on the iRiver. Mike |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
I've got a gmini 200 from Archos and I've been very happy with it.
It holds 20G and I paid $217 for it. It's got a built in equalizer so you can adjust it to your tastes and headphones. A lot of the ear buds and small headphones now are very boomy. I have a pair of Etymotic Research ER-6 Earphones. They are very accurate and you could definately listen to classical music with them. It takes a little practice to get them placed just right. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
I have an older iRiver h120. I agree with you on the interface being
"quirky", but after I figured it out, it's more than fine. The beauty of the unit is that in addition to playing mp3's, it will also playback ogg files at any bit rate, which in my opinion, sound better than the same bit rate mp3's, as well as uncompressed wav files. Unfortunately, they never released the firmware that they promised would play back losslessly encoded FLAC files. There's more to it though, since it can play back wav files and has optical digital output, you can plug it into the DAC of your choice and have the best of all worlds. Bruce wrote in message ... Any recommendations for good-sounding mp3 players? I would probably use the line-out into a separate headphone amp, so the line-out is most important. The built-in headphone amp is not so important. I just purchased an iRiver h320 on the recommendation of Headroom, but there's something strange about it. It sounds like it is equalizing or compressing the output. It does have some options in that regard, but I have turned them all off. Interestingly enough, certain of the options don't do anything even when turned on. It's like the device is ignoring the instructions, and myabe that's why it sounds equalized, because the little bugger has decided to turn on the equalization no matter what I set. iRiver makes lousy interfaces. I hear the iPod is a pleasure to use. Maybe I should switch to that. But any recommendations? I listen mostly to classical, I value a smooth and sweet midrange, smooth highs, "punchiness" is low on my priorities, and I don't usually speak of "tight bass" but rather "natural bass" Mike |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
If you want to know more about codecs and such check out hydrogen audio
forums. General consensus there is around 160kbps with MP3 is maybe transparent. A little above that generally is considered to be transparent. This from various blind testing they have done with fairly large numbers of people. Dennis |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Hey everyone, thanks for the thoughtful answers!
I decided that my iRiver H320 is doing something to the sound, emphasizing highs and bass and adding a lot of extra "slam" -- and this is with all equalization turned off. I don't find it acceptable. I went ahead and got an iPod 30GB (since apple has a return policy). I agree with you that a lossless format is important. The iPod has proprietary Apple lossless encoding that compresses things maybe down to 60% of orignal size. I figure I can put 75 hour-long CD's on my 30GB. The iPod sounds terrific through its Line Out. Much less impressive through the headphone output.. they have some cheap circuitry in there I think. Now there's a little difficulty in getting the line output. (The iRiver is superior in that it has a line output in the unit itself.) With the iPod, you need to buy a cable or a docking station that extracts the line output signal from the dock connector on the bottom of the unit. And that cable or docking station costs extra $$$. Like $40 for a docking station. This is what annoys me about Apple.. they get you on the extras. I bought the $299 iPod, but by the time I bought a case ($20), charger ($30), and docking station ($40), it was $390 plus tax. And you KNOW they are making a huge profit margine on these accessories. And then there's the annoying proprietary formats. And, I'm not sure if I can organize albums into folders the way I want to. The iTunes software is very "helpful" in that it organizes everything for you, by predefined categories like "Artist" and "Album". Well, what if I want to set up a folder for Bach, and subfolders for "Chamber" and "orchestral" and "Vocal", and so on down into further levels of organization... it requires some hacking and manual editing of the categories that iTunes "helpfully" creates initially. I may have to use the categories in ways other than they intend. Lance Hoffmeyer wrote: I am by no means an expert but I think most people would tell you not to worry too much about good sounding mp3 players unless they will also play FLAC, APE, TTA, or some other lossless format because mp3 will, by it's very nature, reduce the quality of the recording. True, but on the other hand if the player doesn't have a neutral-sounding circuit in its analog section, then no source format will sound good. That's why I'm ditching the iRiver. Mike |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Dennis Moore wrote:
If you want to know more about codecs and such check out hydrogen audio forums. General consensus there is around 160kbps with MP3 is maybe transparent. No, it's that it *can* be subjectively transparent. That means *some* people, with *some* music, using *some* encoders, will *likely* be unable to tell source from mp3 in a blind test. That's true for 128 kbps too. Heck, theoretically it's true for all known bitrates...you can't rule out that SOMEONE out there hasn't got the ability to tell it from source. But in general as you raise the bitrate, the likelihood of 'transparency' goes up for a given listener, source, mp3 encoder. I'm only nitpicking because I've seen too many audiophiles practically freak out at the idea that mp3s are 'transparent', without qualification. It's hard enough to get their minds wrapped around the idea that even *they* might find a particular mp3 impossible to tell from source, much less that people *generally* can't. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Sorry Steven,
But I said the general consensus there was 160 kbps is maybe transparent. And that is true. That consensus on those forums weren't arrived at by a couple people. It was done many different ways, with different codecs, with different equipment, music etc. That data rate is somewhere near what keeps coming up. Is it perfect, is it true in every case? No, but it likely is close. You won't find people at hydrogen claiming lower bit rates are plenty good. Some don't agree uncompressed digital sound is transparent. On the other hand, if the stuff is transparent, it is. Dennis "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: If you want to know more about codecs and such check out hydrogen audio forums. General consensus there is around 160kbps with MP3 is maybe transparent. No, it's that it *can* be subjectively transparent. That means *some* people, with *some* music, using *some* encoders, will *likely* be unable to tell source from mp3 in a blind test. That's true for 128 kbps too. Heck, theoretically it's true for all known bitrates...you can't rule out that SOMEONE out there hasn't got the ability to tell it from source. But in general as you raise the bitrate, the likelihood of 'transparency' goes up for a given listener, source, mp3 encoder. I'm only nitpicking because I've seen too many audiophiles practically freak out at the idea that mp3s are 'transparent', without qualification. It's hard enough to get their minds wrapped around the idea that even *they* might find a particular mp3 impossible to tell from source, much less that people *generally* can't. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
I've never heard the iRiver, but I've had two iPod's now, a Mini and a Nano,
and I think they're terrific. The trick to getting good sound out of an iPod is to not use the default 128k sampling rate. For classical music, it sounds terrible! If you use AAC sampling, and kick the sampling rate up to either 192k or 384k, the sound quality will improve markedly. Of course, you'll have less storage space, and with any iPod except the Nano you'll substantially shorten the period between needed battery charges, but the trade-off in sound quality is well worth the sacrifice. (Battery life is not an issue with the Nano, because it uses flash memory rather than a hard disk drive.) wrote in message ... Any recommendations for good-sounding mp3 players? I would probably use the line-out into a separate headphone amp, so the line-out is most important. The built-in headphone amp is not so important. I just purchased an iRiver h320 on the recommendation of Headroom, but there's something strange about it. It sounds like it is equalizing or compressing the output. It does have some options in that regard, but I have turned them all off. Interestingly enough, certain of the options don't do anything even when turned on. It's like the device is ignoring the instructions, and myabe that's why it sounds equalized, because the little bugger has decided to turn on the equalization no matter what I set. iRiver makes lousy interfaces. I hear the iPod is a pleasure to use. Maybe I should switch to that. But any recommendations? I listen mostly to classical, I value a smooth and sweet midrange, smooth highs, "punchiness" is low on my priorities, and I don't usually speak of "tight bass" but rather "natural bass" Mike |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
... Sorry Steven, But I said the general consensus there was 160 kbps is maybe transparent. And that is true. That consensus on those forums weren't arrived at by a couple people. It was done many different ways, with different codecs, with different equipment, music etc. That data rate is somewhere near what keeps coming up. Is it perfect, is it true in every case? No, but it likely is close. You won't find people at hydrogen claiming lower bit rates are plenty good. Some don't agree uncompressed digital sound is transparent. On the other hand, if the stuff is transparent, it is. Dennis "Transparent" is only as good as the equipment reproducing it. What is "transparent" in comparison on a $50 boombox is not the same thing as what is "transparent" played through a good high end system. So ultimately, what is "transparent" depends on whom is doing the judgement, and more specifically, on what equipment they are using / are used to. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Dennis Moore wrote:
Sorry Steven, But I said the general consensus there was 160 kbps is maybe transparent. And that is true. That consensus on those forums weren't arrived at by a couple people. It was done many different ways, with different codecs, with different equipment, music etc. That data rate is somewhere near what keeps coming up. I've been reading and participating in hydrogenaudio forums for some years now. I think I have a sense of what the 'consensus' claims would be, there. And I think it would be more like what I wrote below, with all the qualifications -- or like what you wrote above , including the *maybe*, which you didn't include the first time. It is true that 160 kpbs *may be* subjectively transparent. It isn't true that it's 'transparent' in the sense that no one would ever be likely able to tell it from source. Is it perfect, is it true in every case? No, but it likely is close. You won't find people at hydrogen claiming lower bit rates are plenty good. Some don't agree uncompressed digital sound is transparent. On the other hand, if the stuff is transparent, it is. ...to that person. There are one or two folks on HA who have even managed to ABX 320 kbps and --insane presets. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Well Steven,
Go back and look at my original comment on this thread. The 'maybe' is in there. As most of this thread involved various iPod and iPod-like players, I don't think my comments out of line. Some talked of using various bit rates or even compressed files that don't lose info. Well done 160 kbps mp3's can be pretty good. Lesser rates are noticeable. In the context of use on a portable device, it seems pretty likely a good place to put your sampling rate is at or a little above the 160k area. 320 kbps is difficult for most people to hear using almost any playback equipment. On an iPod going higher is probably just wasting memory. Dennis "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: Sorry Steven, But I said the general consensus there was 160 kbps is maybe transparent. And that is true. That consensus on those forums weren't arrived at by a couple people. It was done many different ways, with different codecs, with different equipment, music etc. That data rate is somewhere near what keeps coming up. I've been reading and participating in hydrogenaudio forums for some years now. I think I have a sense of what the 'consensus' claims would be, there. And I think it would be more like what I wrote below, with all the qualifications -- or like what you wrote above , including the *maybe*, which you didn't include the first time. It is true that 160 kpbs *may be* subjectively transparent. It isn't true that it's 'transparent' in the sense that no one would ever be likely able to tell it from source. Is it perfect, is it true in every case? No, but it likely is close. You won't find people at hydrogen claiming lower bit rates are plenty good. Some don't agree uncompressed digital sound is transparent. On the other hand, if the stuff is transparent, it is. ..to that person. There are one or two folks on HA who have even managed to ABX 320 kbps and --insane presets. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Dennis, was there any comparison of mp3 and mp4 (aac)? Did mp4 fare
better? Dennis Moore wrote: Well Steven, Go back and look at my original comment on this thread. The 'maybe' is in there. As most of this thread involved various iPod and iPod-like players, I don't think my comments out of line. Some talked of using various bit rates or even compressed files that don't lose info. Well done 160 kbps mp3's can be pretty good. Lesser rates are noticeable. In the context of use on a portable device, it seems pretty likely a good place to put your sampling rate is at or a little above the 160k area. 320 kbps is difficult for most people to hear using almost any playback equipment. On an iPod going higher is probably just wasting memory. Dennis |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well Steven, Go back and look at my original comment on this thread. The 'maybe' is in there. True, I was wrong. Sorry about that. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
Really comparing codecs can get rather complicated. So for me to summarize
that with a yes or no would not be reasonable. Yes there are comparisons with any codec you can think of on hydrogen audio. Some fare better than others at either higher or lower bit rates. It isn't as simple as one being better than the other usually. MP3 isn't the best way to compress audio. It just reached a certain level of quality and became something of a standard. Dennis wrote in message ... Dennis, was there any comparison of mp3 and mp4 (aac)? Did mp4 fare better? |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
chung wrote:
I wish you would have been equally outspoken about high-end audio. That $390 does not even cover a pair of decent speaker cables...The iPod is an absolute steal, compared to high-end audio products. Think about the engineering that went into the iPod, vs that that went into boutique cables, or SET amps. You don't need to buy an extra charger, or a case. And you could have gotten the line output using 3rd party hardware at significantly lower cost. It's not an "extra charger," dude. The iPod doesn't come with a charger at all, and I need one (since I can't always charge it through the usb port). I did find a device which provides a line output, useful for audio on-the-go, for $29. Wow! Big savings! A case is necessary to get a belt clip. The iRiver provided all these things with a single purchase.. a line output, a case with belt clip, and charger. And then there's the annoying proprietary formats. And, I'm not sure if I can organize albums into folders the way I want to. The iTunes software is very "helpful" in that it organizes everything for you, by predefined categories like "Artist" and "Album". Well, what if I want to set up a folder for Bach, and subfolders for "Chamber" and "orchestral" and "Vocal", and so on down into further levels of organization... it requires some hacking and manual editing of the categories that iTunes "helpfully" creates initially. I may have to use the categories in ways other than they intend. Have you heard of playlists? Of course. I'm not a master of them, but it appears they don't permit hierarchical organization (playlists containing playlists), which is what I want. Lance Hoffmeyer wrote: I am by no means an expert but I think most people would tell you not to worry too much about good sounding mp3 players unless they will also play FLAC, APE, TTA, or some other lossless format because mp3 will, by it's very nature, reduce the quality of the recording. True, but on the other hand if the player doesn't have a neutral-sounding circuit in its analog section, then no source format will sound good. That's why I'm ditching the iRiver. I doubt very much if iRiver has a bad analog section. Were you using line out or headphone out? Are you sure there was no equalization applied? Both, and yes, the equalization was turned off. On long-term listening the iRiver was fatiguing with too much bass and too much slam on transients. The iPod is fine. Mike |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
mp3 players
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
CD Players sound the same? | Audio Opinions | |||
CD Players sound the same? | Tech | |||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation? | Audio Opinions | |||
Great *sounding* CD recommendation? | General | |||
An Excellent New CD Player | High End Audio |