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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Lossless formats will keep the quality of the recordings.
Unfortunately, I have not seen too many portable players that support
these formats.

see:

http://flac.sourceforge.net/

Lance

wrote:
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 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

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

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

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)

wrote:
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.

Uhh, just about everything is intgrated into a couple of chips. There is
no "cheap" or "expensive" there. The headphone circuit is designed to
drive low impedance phones, and you may also have inadvertently turned
on equalization (which applies to the headphone output). I have tried
both outputs and it is very difficult to tell them apart, unless you
have the volume set really high.


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.

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.



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?

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?

Mike

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)

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

wrote:

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).

Given that you have to use a computer to transfer songs to the iPod,
most people in fact charge the iPod on the USB port. So the AC charger
is not essential. If you want it, be prepared to pay for it, although
you can easily find ones selling for less than $12, shipped. The older
iPods come with ac chargers and docks, and you can buy refurbished iPods
cheap from Apple.

I did find a device which provides a line output, useful for
audio on-the-go, for $29. Wow! Big savings!

I got the combo auto-charger and line output for less than $25. Think
how much you can get for $29 at a high-end boutique store. How much you
paid for your headphone amp?


A case is necessary to get a belt clip.

It comes with a case, and you don't like it. That's fine. You can spend
a lot of money on fashion accessories theses days. I just put mine in my
pocket.


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.

Yes, nothing is going to have all you 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.

Except it does not come with the AC charger...

Mike

wrote:
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
The type of encoder makes a difference as well in how good your MP3s
sound. I used to use iTunes built in encoder for making MP3s. I then
tried LAME. Never went back.

CD