Click Here - Orb Audio Speaker Sale
MP3 players: Who HATES iPod's sound quality?
Who HATES iPod's sound quality?
by equazcion - 5/13/05 5:31 PMOkay, maybe "hate" is too strong a word. But I had to get your attention somehow.
The real question is this: Do you hate the fact that everyone talks about how great Apple's iPod is because of its sleek looks and controls, while very little attention is paid to the way it sounds?
Worse yet, do you feel like you shelled out $300 for a pretty, sleek little music player that looks nice and makes you feel cool, but doesn't really play music all that well?
While Apple continues to refuse to release the audio performance statistics of the iPod, such as "signal-to-noise ratio" (normally a pretty decent way to measure of sound quality), major reviewers continue to all but ignore what would seem like a vital area of comparison. Sure, sound is fine for the average consumer. But what about us sound geeks?
It's been suggested that iPod's sound is great, but the headphones it comes with hinder the output quality. Ok, try this: Get your best set of headphones and plug them into your computer. Listen to an MP3. Then plug the same headphones into your iPod, and listen to the same MP3. If you've followed those steps, I shouldn't have to say any more.
Sure, the sound quality certainly isn't terrible. I can live with it, if need be. But for $300, I expect more, and no amount of flashy exterior can make up for that. If you buy a new Mercedes and find out the engine isn't quite as good as your dad's '95 Civic, you're gonna be pissed, no matter how nice a paint job you got.
I am therefore looking for an iPod alternative. I want to see a clear comparison of iPod's SOUND QUALITY versus its competitors' SOUND QUALITY. Not looks, features, or anything else I can already find in any standard brainless review. I want to know which MP3 players have better sound quality than iPod, so I can go out and buy one!
Since I haven't seen any reviews like that yet (I'm not optimistic since everyone gets sexually stimulated just by looking at an iPod), I would like to start this thread. I would, if possible, like for replies to come ONLY from those people who have listened to the iPod's sound and judged it to be INADEQUATE. I would then like to hear about an iPod alternative that you've tried, and what your experience was. I would of course ESPECIALLY like to hear from those of you who found a player with better-than-iPod sound quality.
I'm sure I will have to deal with those who feel the need to defend iPod because of a romantic attachment. I expect this, and if it helps to avoid such encounters, to you iPod lovers, I respect your position and respectfully disagree.
So, here are the rules. I use the term "rules" loosely since of course I can't actually enforce any real rules:
I'm looking specifically for alternatives to the Apple iPod 20GB, 4th Generation. So basically, we are looking at hard-drive-based portable MP3 players with around 20GB of space.
Here's a primer of some models I'm curious about, but if you have something else you'd like to review and share, it would certainly be welcome:
iRiver H320
Dell DJ-20
Creative Zen Touch
Rio Karma
Sony Network Walkman NW-HD3
Cowon iAudio M3
MPIO HD300
SoniqCast Aireo 2
Archos Gmini XS200
Remember, when you post, try to focus on sound quality rather than looks, features, battery life and so forth. Try comparisons based on listening to an MP3 file copied to a few different devices, like your computer, then an iPod, and then your iPod alternative(s), and rank each one. Of course make sure you use the same MP3 file for all three, as well as the same headphones each time.
Thanks in advance to everyone who posts!
Sound Quality
by rcgcfn - 5/14/05 12:51 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionI've really only listened to two portable HD players. 'The' iPod and the Neuros. I was shocked as well at how 'empty' the sound was. It didn't resonate in my ears, or make listening to music pleasant. I could hear all the different parts of the music just fine, but it didn't sound organic. Or as organic as something digital can be. Some people describe it as being 'crisp', but that borders on being flat/one-dimensional.
With my Neuros, it sounds like the music is actually being played for me.
I don't know what specifications you are looking for as ideal, but:
Audio
-Up to 30 minutes of skip protection
-Maximum output power: 60mW rms (30 mW per channel)
-Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz
-MP3 format (up to 320 kbps), MP3 VBR, OGG, WAV & WMA
That's directly from their website. The makers of this product have gone through serious revision over the several years this product has been available, and the resulting firmware shows it. The Neuros supports OGG, which I believe allows the music to retain some of it's, might I say, "organicness." Neuros Audio really has a passion for their products, audio quality is their top priority over maketing or social image.
Go check out their website: neurosaudio.com
And ask some people in its forums for other views on audio quality too.
Neuros
by equazcion - 5/14/05 1:47 PM In reply to: Sound Quality by rcgcfnThat's certainly a good-looking player with some nice features. OGG support is a major plus, I too am a big fan of that compression format. The fact that it gets picked up as an external drive is also great, as a major downfall of many good portable hardware is a reliance on obscure proprietary home software.
The included FM tuner, built-in mic and FM recording capability, as well as car power adapter are also all nice additions. I always wondered why something as simple and non-space-hogging as an FM tuner wasn't more standard for portable media devices. It even includes an FM transmitter built-in, for playing through a car's stereo system -- wow. That blew me away. Most companies don't include all of these features because they want you to buy them separately as accessories.
Seems like they really made something that finally speaks to what people want, and what makes sense to include. The extensive features don't seem to have even taken much of a toll on batter life (claimed, at least), or even on the price, which is actually lower than iPod's. Incredeible. I'm definitely going to look into this more, and hopefully it will turn out to be as good as it sounds.
Thanks so much! I wonder why I've never heard of this one before...
Re:Neuros
by rcgcfn - 5/15/05 11:17 AM In reply to: Neuros by equazcionIt's rather larger than most of the other players, so it is an instant turn off for many people. But it really feels natural in your hand. When you read reviews of this, they are bound to be polarized. "I hate it cause it didn't work for me!" or "I love it, it should be taken in as a saint!" Those are really the reactions people have.
Even the FM broadcaster has rather exceptional sound quality, since it isn't going through a small dongle out of the phone jack, rather internally. Even though you do need to search for an open station.
And what you said about the battery . . . the broadcaster brings the battery life down to about 6 I believe, but I usually have mine plugged in wherever I go, whether in the car or at home, so.
I'm really glad you now at least know about the Neuros, many people would never see it. Especially looking through those hundred and some odd hard drive players here at Cnet.
Neuros
by equazcion - 5/15/05 3:47 PM In reply to: Re:Neuros by rcgcfnI've read some reviews, and those are the two main issues that are mentioned, the size/weight and battery life while using the transmitter. The transmitter/battery issue doesn't concern me because it comes with the car power adapter. When will I use the transmitter other than in my car?
That was actually one of the main ideas of a complaint I submitted to CNet regarding their review of the Neuros. It seems the company addressed the battery drain issue by including the car power adapter, and CNet failed to mention that.
I'm also very disheartened by reviewers' (all reviewers, not just CNet) disregard for the value of quality sound. They rave about the iPod so much without even comparing its sound to that of other MP3 players. The review for the Neuros even says that it has "excellent" sound, but that didn't seem to be much of a factor in their conclusion. If they did compare, perhaps iPods wouldn't be reviewed quite as glowingly. People have to start remembering that these devices are also meant to play music, not just to adorn the body of the owner.
So, that leaves the looks/size/weight issue. I'm still undecided as to whether or not that aspect would disuade me from the Neuros. I need to see it for myself and feel the weight. From the measurements and weight quoted by the company it really doesn't seem all that large, but it's hard to tell just from the numbers.
So I'll try to find a store that carries them and has a floor display. That might be difficult to find, but if I do, I'll let you know what happens.
Thanks for your help so far 
Creative
by HotAgent - 5/16/05 12:02 AM In reply to: Neuros by equazcionive owned many players, including the ipod. IMO the iriver h120 (dont know about the 320) sounds worse than the ipod. actually i think the ipod has excellent sound quality, the only players that ive heard that can beat it are creative players. a zen touch or micro would suit you well. id say forget the neuros, it gets terrible reviews. i use etymotic er-4p headphones with my players, if you were wondering what headphones i use to test them.
Re: Creative
by - 5/17/05 3:32 AM In reply to: Re:Creative by rcgcfnI would say that from a sound quality standpoint, Creative players MUST be good, because Creative has been the top soundcard manufacturer for years, and their Audigy2 is the best card on the market.
So they, if anybody, should know how to build something with top-notch sound quality.
Creative
by equazcion - 5/17/05 6:50 AM In reply to: Re: Creative byAccording to reviews, the Creative Zen does have exceptional sound. The signal-to-noise ratio is apparently 97dB. In the world of hard-drive MP3 players that is a pretty incredible achievment.
I would disagree if you said that Creative's sound card expertise is the reason for the great sound quality ratings of the Zen. The fact is, when it comes to sound quality, any current brand-name $20 PC sound card will give you perfect or near-perfect performance. It's the added functions, inputs, effects and multi-speaker support that drive sound card prices up.
That means the real question to ask is this: "If everyone already knows how to reproduce perfect sound, why don't all hard-drive MP3 players have perfect sound?" The answer probably has to do with the fact that the higher the sound quality, the more physical space gets taken up by sound hardware in the device. Also, higher sound quality probably means more power consumption.
In the case of portable hard-drive players, both physical space and battery capactiy are at a high premium. With the exception of micro-drives like those found in the iPod Mini, hard drives are not small. It also takes a lot of power to run a hard drive. That power comes from the battery, whos capacity can only be increased by making it larger and heavier. This makes for a delicate balancing act for a company designing such a device.
Apple has seemingly simplified their approach to the issue. They've decided not to worry too much about sound quality. Instead they've focused their attention on outward appearence, compactness, and low weight, hoping that the the flashy finished product would look so good and be so trendy that people wouldn't notice the sound deficiency.
At the same time Apple has managed to raise the bar so high for compactness and low weight that no company looking to compete on the features and functionality front can possibly stand a chance. More features mean a larger and heavier product. Case-in-point, the Neuros, with its dizzying feature set, is also the bulkiest and heavyest of all such devices.
Now that Apple has managed to get people to think of their portable devices as show-off material (something many companies like Sony and Panasonic have been trying to do for years now, unsuccessfully), even very small differences in size or weight have a dramatic effect on how people percieve these products.
Creative's approach with the Zen has been to make sound quality and battery life their top priorities. The Zen is significantly bigger and heavier than the iPod, probably due mostly to its large battery capacity. It makes full use of that battery though, of course with its superb sound quality and long very long battery life. The Zen has a claimed life of 24 hours on one charge, and in practice it actually lasts 26 hours as tested by CNet. For reference, the iPod battery lasts 12 hours.
One thing is for sure: there is no reason to buy an iPod unless outward appearence is your top priority. The iPod is the most expensive and least finctional product out there. From a band-for-buck standpoint, it really is a terrible product. There are many devices that do everything the iPod does (and more), only they do it better and for less money.
For me, it is a choice between all of the iPod competitors. The Zen does look pretty nice. The sound quality is what attracts me to it. Which one it will be in the end though remains to be seen.
sound quality superb; 'phones, navigation, bitrate issues
by biggbrother - 5/21/05 7:56 PM In reply to: Creative by equazcionI have owned a 20 GB Creative Zen Touch for two months now and have used it daily since then. Some rather disjointed thoughts that may or may not shed some light on this debate.
1. Sound is my number one priority as well; it was the deciding factor in the Creative purchase. That said, the discussion thus far hasn't mentioned headphones. I'm not sure of the relative contribution of player/headphones to overall sound, but I've heard it said that headphones are the most important thing here. I bought an awkward and clunky pair of Grado SR80 headphones to go with the player and have to say the sound is phenomenal. The combo is sufficient to reveal details on the Beatles' first record that I've never heard before, and that's an AAD, relatively poor recording, compressed to 128 kbps in WMA.
2. I understand the debate is supposed to stick to sound, and I have no basis for comparison with other players, and I agree 100% with the comments here opposing ipod fetishism. However, the debate, in my view, has over-emphasized the fashion issue and over-looked the biggest ipod attraction--going in circular motions to select songs. Ease of navigation is an absolutely critical issue for any player over 20GB--you're scrolling through thousands of songs on the go. I've tried an ipod and the scrolling motion and selection--in fact the entire interface--is absolutely intuitive. I 'got it' in the first minute, literally. By contrast, it's been two months and I'm still uncomfortable navigating the Creative's controls. The difference between sliding a thumb in a linear as opposed to circular motion seems ridiculously trite, but it is unbelievably important if you regularly select material rather than using the shuffle function. Otherwise, I agree with all ipod criticisms. It's not our fault that the debate is so passionate and polarizing--it's the marketing campaign.
3. Back to sound--if the ipod sounds as flat as you say, get a Creative. As you know, you'll need to encode songs at at least 128 kbps in WMA for near-CD quality sound, though it sounds like you and I on the same page re: sound and would prefer 192 kbps. However, the advertised battery life is premised on 64 kbps in WMA! (Incidentally, so is the advertised 10,000 song capacity. That was a nasty surprise--it means that I now need the 40 GB version to hold all my music! That was an incredible shock. I wish Cnet would let readers know about this--to my knowledge the 10,000 song per 20GB player assumption hasn't really been scrutinized.) Higher bitrates (and decent over-the-ear 'phones like the Grado) will suck out significanly more power. My battery life is about half of the advertised capacity.
Hope this helps your decision a bit.
For sound quality the Audigy isn't the best sound card
by yuriv - 5/17/05 12:04 PM In reply to: Re: Creative byIf you don't play certain games and sound quality is more important, look at Lynx, RME, M-Audio Delta series, or Creative's other line of sound cards: Emu 0404, 1212m, 1812m. These cards are designed for musicians and home-studio hobbyists, but some of them are affordable--the Emu 0404 at $99 is cheaper than some Audigy packages.
I have an Audigy 2 and an Emu 0404 (also other recording cards with balanced inputs), and for me, the 0404 and the other recording cards sound noticeably better than the Audigy. This has been confirmed by review sites that measure sound card performance. To name one random example, Tom's Hardware Guide. Look up the Audigy and the 0404 on THG and compare their measured audio performance.
But why speculate about the Zen's performance? Measure it! Download RightMark Audio Analyzer (freeware), put the calibration and test .wav files into the Zen, and then use your sound card to measure the Zen's performance. I did the same with my 1st Gen iPod Mini and an old Yamaha DS2416. The loopback performance of the DS2416 is much better than the iPod mini's, so the numbers for the iPod aren't below the measurement limit:
1G IPod Mini as a line-out device (i.e., with no load),
volume level max:
Frequency response: almost ruler flat 20 Hz - 20 kHz.
Noise level dBA: -90.5
Dynamic Range, dBA: 90.3
THD: 0.0014%
Intermodulation: 0.012%
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -89.7
IMD (swept freq.): 0.0094%
As a line-out device, the IPod mini has pretty good numbers. Now here's the problem with the iPod and the other portable players: the performance gets a lot worse when it's driving a pair of earphones. Here are the numbers when it's driving a pair of Sony MDR-EX81SLs:
Frequency response: compared to 0 dB at 1kHz:
-0.5 db at 20 kHz
...
-3 dB at 70 Hz
-4 dB at 60 Hz
-5 dB at 50 Hz
-6.5 db at 40 Hz
-8.5 db at 30 Hz
-12 db at 20 Hz.
It's too bad we can't post graphs and charts on CNet. The fundamental frequency of the lowest note on a piano is around 27.5 Hz. Pipe organ goes much lower. So if you use a normal pair of headphones on the iPod, you're going to get really wimpy bass performance. The bass boost EQ preset is really mild and won't make these numbers go up. Other MP3 players have the same problem, but I've heard that the problem has been fixed with the iPod Shuffle (maybe somebody with an iPod Shuffle can make some measurements).
The solution is a portable headphone amp (bulky), or a pair of earphones that have a hyped-up bass to compensate for the iPod's bass performance. The Sony MDR-EX81 that I use is such a pair--it sounds balanced with an iPod, but sounds too bassy with a headphone amp. Sony has a couple of other 'phones that do this: MDR-G74SL, -51LP, -71SL, -NX1, etc. Those will probably sound horrible on a regular stereo (unless you're a basshead).
Even when driving the EX81s, the iPod Mini has somewhat worse numbers on the other performance parameters:
Noise level dBA: -90.3 (breathing is louder than this)
Dynamic Range, dBA: 90.2
THD: 0.3234%
Intermodulation: 0.273%
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -48.7
IMD (swept freq.): 0.844%
But it sound fine to me through the EX81s. Unless you can make a side-by-side comparison of two MP3 players, it's hard to compare their sound quality. I compared my iPod Mini to my MPIO FY400 flash player and my EMU 0404 going to a headphone amp. The iPod Mini has the wimpiest bass of the three. That's how I know about the sound quality even before taking measurements. Let your ears be the judge.
Interesting
by equazcion - 5/17/05 2:05 PM In reply to: For sound quality the Audigy isn't the best sound card by yurivThat's interesting. I didn't know such a program existed. If I had a Zen on hand or one I could borrow, I would definitely run a test to compare it with the iPod. Unfortunately I don't have access to a Zen.
I'm aware that the iPod's shortcomings can be solved with amps, high-end headphones, etc. It's interesting to note that in the Apple store, the iPods on floor display are hooked up to top-of-the-line Bose noise-cancelling headphones. Those headphones cost upwards of $150, and of course, the iPod sounds amazing with them. Of course, I don't feel I should have to buy top-of-the-line headphones just to make up for the shortcomings of what should already be a top-of-the-line audio player.
I can understand the health risks of letting customers share the included iPod earbuds, but I'm sure corporate Apple could have replaced them with more streamlined over-the-head headphones for its store displays. That is, if they wanted to give an honest representation of how the iPod would sound to most people, people who don't have another $150 bucks to shell out on top of the $300 for the iPod. But perhaps I ask too much, and I should take my ideas back to magical happy fairyland, where corporations aren't devious and nations don't fight wars.
Upon seeing that display in the Apple store I asked a salesman if there were any normal headphones lying around that I could use to test the sound. Surprise surprise, there were none to be found.
My problem with iPod's sound isn't purely bass (or the lack thereof), although that is a big part of it. I have a feeling the signal-to-noise ratio is also very low. I was trying to determine that spec from your posted test results, but I'm afraid my expertise with detailed audio characteristics is limited.
I think perhaps that ''noise level'' is the spec I am looking for, but that seems like more of a straight measure of how much noise is present in the sound, rather than a ratio of ''what should be there'' versus ''what shouldn't.'' You'll have to educate me as to what number ranges are considered to be good for an audio device. Perhaps you could run a test on something else for comparison, like sound card output or that of a CD player, or even another portable MP3 device, and post the results so that we have some common frame of reference.
Nevertheless thank you for your post. I will probably be spending some time playing with that program, now that I know it exists
Some articles on MP3 player audio quality
by yuriv - 5/18/05 2:43 AM In reply to: Interesting by equazcionRightMark Audio Analyzer (RMAA) has been around for a while now. It makes the audio test suite easier to run. If you prefer to do the tests by hand, you could download Audacity (also freeware), generate the test tones, and then run the audio tests manually one by one. A discussion of RMAA's test principles and a description of the individual tests can be found on the RMAA site:
http://audio.rightmark.org/downloads/rmaa-theory.pdf
http://audio.rightmark.org/downloads/tests.pdf
There is a Russian site that uses RMAA to test MP3 players. I can't read Russian, but if you look at just the graphs and charts, you can figure out the test results. I got these links from the RMAA site's discussion forums.
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/digitalway-mpio-fg100.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/msi-mstick-520.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/creative-zen-micro.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/creative-muvo-txfm.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/archos-gmini400.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/creative-zen-touch.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/digitalway-mpio-fy300.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/sunstar.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/beatsounds-emp1x0.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/beatsounds-empz.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/cenix-mp400.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/safa-srm290f.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/creative-rhomba.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/digitalway-mpio-fy200.shtml
http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/inno-phototainer.shtml
Follow the Zen Touch link and you'll see the chart that has the RMAA results. On that page there is also a link to the frequency response charts, etc. Earlier on the same page, you'll see links to the reviews of the Zen and the Zen Xtra.
The problem with that site is that they only test the MP3 players without the headphones plugged in, i.e., they're using the headphone jack as a line out going straight to the sound card's line in, which has a much higher input impedance (in the range of 10k ohms to around 100k ohms depending on the sound card). This is very easy for most MP3 players.
If you compare my test results for the unloaded iPod Mini (going into a Yamaha DS2416) to the numbers that they have for the three Zen models (going to a Terratec 6Fire), you can see that the iPod has similar numbers. By the way, the noise figure (90+ dB) that I'm getting for the Mini should be close to the actual S/N ratio. Even if the test didn't normalize the results, I'm still running the calibration signal as hot as possible without clipping, which means that the -90+ dBA noise level would be compared with a signal that's very close to 0 dB. Needless to say, the iPod is a pretty good line-out device. The Zen Xtra seems to be best performer of the group, with S/N and dynamic range figures that are a few decibels better than the others.
But that's not how MP3 players are used. A more realistic test would measure the player's performance while it's driving a pair of headphones, which typically has a much lower impedance. You can do this by running the RMAA tests with a headphone splitter. The 'phones (or a test load) would go into one jack and the line-in cable going to the sound card would go into the other. Plugging in the sound card should not affect the the signal that much because line in has a much higher input impedance (10k-100k ohms) than a pair of headphones (Typically 16 ohms for the stock earbuds to 600 ohms for the worst-case AKG K240Ms). Try it--listen to some music on your player and see if you can tell the difference when you plug in the sound card (you might be able to with the AKG's).
Here's a safety warning: never, ever wear the headphones while running the test suite. The calibration signals and the test tones are running almost full-scale, that is to say, very loud. In fact, it gets so loud that I'm sometimes worried that I might destroy the headphones. Don't say I didn't warn you. To date, I haven't broken any of my headphones yet (I've tested the Sony MDR-EX81s, a Sony MDR-7506, and a Grado SR-125 with my headphone amp). The EX81 specs, for example, says that they can handle 100 mW, which is higher than the maximum power output of some MP3 players.
There are other people who have also run the RMAA test suite on an iPod while driving headphones. I did it with my Sony EX81's; here is a link to the frequency response graphs of an iPod driving a Grado SR-60, a Sennheiser HD25SP, and a Sennheiser HD650:
http://ipodstudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=980
That's a 3rd Gen iPod on the chart, not a 1st Gen Mini (which seems to have the worst bass performance in the iPod line). The problem is still there, but it's not as severe. The numbers are pretty good: for the Grados it's only down -2.5 dB at 40 Hz (which is as low as it gets for a lot of music).
I'm pointing out the bass performance, because it seems to be the one area that portable players don't handle well (the iPod Shuffle excepted). The iPod's S/N ratio of 90 dB is pretty good. The old Samsung YEPPs had a rated S/N ratio of only 85 dB and they sounded fine to me. Normal breathing is going to be louder than the noise level of these players when they're playing music at ''normal'' levels.
On my iPod Mini, I usually don't notice the noise even on quiet solo piano music unless I really, really listen for it. I can even hear Glenn Gould's humming loud and clear on the 1981 Goldberg Variations--the noise level is not the problem. For me, the distortion is a bigger problem than the noise. But even worse is that it takes effort to hear what the bass player is doing. I want to hear the fine work of a John Patitucci or a Victor Wooten, or a Ray Brown, or an Edgar Myer, or even Sting or Flea.
That's why I use the EX81s or the 7506s on the iPod instead of the Grados. When I use the headphone amp I can hear bass players just fine on the Grados. But on the iPod Mini, the're farther away in the background. It's almost unfair for them. And the EX81's aren't high end. They're less than $50. There's even a bit of controversy about them on the head-fi.org forums--some folks like them, and some think that they have bloated, tubby bass just like the EX71s. That could be because they're running the EX81s on a proper source (in which case I agree that the EX81s are too bassy). But it's probably because headphones rely on the structure of your ear for its sound--and everybody's ear canals are different. That's why you just have to listen--and trust your hearing more than the popular opinion in user reviews.
High-end phones usually expect a flat response from the source. Most MP3 players can't deliver a flat response to all headphones, and so many of them sound terrible on an MP3 player like the iPod. There are, however, some high-end phones designed for portables. The Etymotic ER-4P comes to mind (The ER4-S is the version for headphone amps with more juice).
Now all we need is somebody who has has a Zen and a nice sound card. By the way, here's Bill Machrone's controversial article about the bass performance of several players, with the Shuffle coming out on top and the Zen Micro coming in second. Alas, his tests also confirm what I've already known about my 1st Gen Mini just by listening to it:
http://home.comcast.net/~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm
Re: Audigy2 performance
by - 5/18/05 12:51 PM In reply to: For sound quality the Audigy isn't the best sound card by yurivOh, I won't argue about there being better cards out there, if you're looking for studio-quality equipment. It's just that the Audigy2 is a fine piece of work!
Creative Nomad Zen Xtra 30GB
by kgbeezr1 - 5/24/05 7:05 PM In reply to: Creative by HotAgentAfter about a month of endless searching for reports on MP3 player sound quality, I decided on going with this player. Sound quality was also my biggest concern, even more so than battery life, navigation etc...
You'd be better off sitting in silence than using the supplied headphones. I'm using the same Sennheiser HD280 pro's that I use with my home system and I am very hard pressed to tell any difference between a CD on the home system and an MP3 ripped @ 192kbps on the Zen Xtra. The equalizer is only a 4 band, but I use only the 12khz for a small boost in treble and it works beautifully. Bass is perfect out of the box, not too much, not too little, and with perfect definition. There is a strong air to the sound as well, but not echo'y' and processed sounding (no added delay). There are some hokey sound processing settings (such as ''bathroom'' for example lol) included that I tried and have no desire to try again. The volume of the unit is more than adequate, driving the HD280's with no audible distortion to uncomfortable levels. I get about 8-10 hours out of the battery using this setup.
I was dead set on getting myself MP3 player, while at the same time resigning myself to the fact that I wasn't going to be experiencing the sound I was use to at home and this player surprised me. It's not sexy, it doesn't posess the most user friendly navigation setup, it's a little on the large and heavy side, but overall I don't think I could be happier with a player under $300. This player was only $220 too, $80 cheaper than what I was prepared to spend.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
