MP3 players: Who HATES iPod's sound quality?
Sony NW-HD5
by equazcion - 7/1/05 6:37 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionWell I did it, I replaced my iPod. I know it just came out and I should really wait for prices to drop, but I'm going back to college in a couple days and I need to have something decent for my music. I sprung for the new Sony NW-HD5.
I did this because CNet finally came out with a review of the hard drive players' sound quality, http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-6247126.html, in which they did a blindfolded ''taste test'' of all the players. Weelll lookie what they found out! Surprise surprise, IPod came in LAST PLACE! Gee, not like I've been saying THAT for the past two months already. Bill Machrone can go shove it.
First place was the brand-spankin-new Sony NW-HD5. Ipod's last-place standing in this review made me trust its other findings. The HD5 has incredibly long battery life (40 hours claimed, 24 tested), a replaceable battery (to Apple: ''DUH''), and is smaller than the iPod, among other things.
I recieved mine today and I'm very impressed so far. The sound quality is great (once you play with the equalizer a little). It lacks all the useless features of the iPod like the calendar and games, things no one uses anyway. The interface is very intuitive, with dedicated volume control buttons outside of the software, which I thank god that someone finally thought to include.
Sony still has an unreasonable emotional attachment to proprietary-ism, even though this is their first hard-drive incarnation to include the ability to play MP3 format natively (previous NW-HD# models required a conversion of all transferred files to Sony's proprietary Atrac-3 format). However, the player's kick-ass equalizer features only affect Atrac-3-encoded files, an annoyingly unadvertised downside. For MP3's, you're stuck with the basic 2-band bass/treble equalizer, which is sufficient but leaves me wanting. For that reason I may encode in Atrac-3 depending on how long it takes. Conversion to Atrac-3 does add a significant amount of time to the transfer.
Sony's next proprietary attachment brings me to the player's most major downfall: a reliance on SonicStage 3.1 software. Sony's spawn-of-Satan SonicStage software has always been god-awful, and the latest version included with the HD5 is no exception. While it is slightly better than previous versions in its interface design, it is still slow, inefficient, and unstable. It has crashed on me a total of 3 times during transfers, which for some reason makes the files transferred up until the point of the crash not even show up on the player. The software is actually responsible for the unit's incredibly slow USB transfer rate as well, because when storing other data files using Explorer (yes, you can do that, and no, music files transferred by this method won't play, just like on the iPod) the transfer rate practically quintuples.
Since I only plan to make a major transfer once, the software issue is just bothersome and not a reason for me to return the player. My main concern was sound quality, and so far, the HD5 has me satisfied in that area as well as many others. It's also a real sleek, cool looking littlle device.
I'll report back when I've had a longer-term experience with it. For now, I'm likin' it.
Sony HD5 follow-up
by equazcion - 7/25/05 1:38 PM In reply to: Sony NW-HD5 by equazcionAfter using this thing for almost a month, I'm confident in saying I'm completely satisfied with it, and I recommend it to anyone looking for an ''ipod-only-better''.
First off, sound quality is unbelievable. As many of you already know, I ran my informal test comparison with my home audio setup versus my 4th-generation iPod 20GB. The difference was painfully obvious. I ran the same test with my new device, the Sony Network Walkman HD5; incredibly, the sound was so similar that I could not tell the difference between the two input signals. That's a PC with a Sound-Blaster sound card going out to a big, honkin' Sony STR-DE835 reciever, versus the HD5, which is significantly smaller than the ipod and shares dimensions with the average pack of cigarettes, except it's half the depth.
Loaded output is exceptional, but the volume could stand to go a bit higher. It's more than ample for most applications (and I like my music LOUD), but I like to know that the extra power is there if I should ever need it, and the Sony falls just a little short here.
As a line-out device (zero load) I also had some minor problems, but some tweaking of the output device's EQ fixes them up. The HD5 had a ''line-out mode'', which max's out the volume of the signal (and then some) and flattens the EQ, not allowing you to change any of those settings until you switch back to regular output mode. We can conjecture that this is to take advantage of the very low power consumption of unloaded operation and instead rely on the output device for power. Don't switch into line-out mode while you've got headphones in though; it's a deafening experience, and could damage your headphones.
I found that the extreme volume of line-out mode is needed. In both modes the sound seems slightly unbalanced to me graphically, especially through lower-end speaker systems. The highs are just a bit too harsh, and the really cheap speakers even sound overloaded on the high-end and crackle, even at low volumes. Usually an EQ adjustment takes care of it. This might bother me more if line-out were my main use of the device, or rather if I were frequently switching between line-out and headphones.
The software, as I mentioned, sucks harder than a (insert funny-shocking-sexual joke here). The main problem came when I made my initial transfer of my large collection of files. The software is unstable in a major way; I haven't figured out yet whether it simply crashes when you try to transfer too many files at once or if there are some files in particular that cause the software to crash. I think it might be both. Once the main brunt of my collection was transferred, though, the crappy software didn't bother me that much (except in principle).
Navigation through the file list and various menus is pretty intuitive. There's only a very slight learning curve in comparison with the ipod. Just remember that ''play/pause'' (the middle button) is NOT a ''select'' button, but a PLAY button. To dig down into an artist or album you must press the right-direction button. Also, use the left-direction button the go back up a level. This might seem like common sense, but after using an ipod you'd be surprised at the compulsion to press the middle button for everything, and the stop-button to go back.
Playlist functionality is limited and not all that useful, so if you're all into ipod's one-the-go functions, you might want to consider this. Even playlists you create locally and then transfer to the HD5 are limited; literally, to 100 songs each. The HD5's version of on-the-go is a bit retarded. You can't add tracks by selecting them in the list, but you must play the file first and add it from the ''now playing'' screen. This means you can't add entire artists, albums, genres, etc all at once. Individual tracks only.
Even with all the bad, they don't add up to anything that could possibly sway me from saying that I'm completely satisfied with this product. The sound is amazing. The battery life is equally incredible. It does what it's supposed to, simply and well. I was sick of all the hype and wanted something that just played music well; and I got it.
iPod video compared with Nokia N80!
by kishan9 - 8/15/06 2:16 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionHey, I got an iPod video for Christmas, purely thinking that it will have great sound quality, being at a high price I thought its bound to have great sound quality, but no! So got some new Sennheiser MX 550 Headphones, and it sounded ok till, I got my new phone the nokia n80. Now I tried the sound quality on that and it was fantastic, much much better than the ipod, and that’s a true comparison, because a phone is a small size, and if it just happens to come bundled with an mp3 play on it, and it beats your ipod you would be dam gutted. I got this little connector on it as well so I can put any headphones in, so i tried the ones I got for my ipod and further more it wasn’t just the special headsets that came with the phone that sounded good, it sounded great with my normal headphones. I'm disappointed that apples expect you to pay a lot for an ipod, and a phone can come along and beat the sound quality.
An Ipod owner's lament.
by chrismacbell - 8/19/06 4:07 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionMy problem is most of my music is on the ipod, original computer (OSXP)has broken down or is likely to while transfering mp3s.....My new music is on my present computer (OSXP), which I wish to transfer to my ipod without erasing the material there. I have an ipod photo 60 gig with about 40gig on it, a lot of which I have hard copies of (all music). My old computer,to which the ipod is tied, misbehaves, shuts down at inopportune moments, so am reluctant to have anything to do with it. It would seem I have a very laborious process in front of me. My new computer only has 80gigHD and as my collection must be getting on for 50gig I want to transfer things the short way...Why oh why can't I use it as an extra hard drive with no limitations. I appreciate the problems with copyright but I spend lots of money on music ( yes I know, NOT relevant)....P'raps I should learn how to write it( I wish).
With reference to the sound I find Sony headphones much better, but I like the storage capacity
iTunes Library and External Drives
by mrmacfixit
- 8/26/07 6:27 AM
In reply to: An Ipod owner's lament. by chrismacbell
There is nothing preventing you from purchasing an external drive and transferring the iTunes library from your new computer onto it.
Make a copy to the existing library, and all it's associated parts, and put it on the new drive.
Launch iTunes and, using the preferences, tell iTunes that your library is now located on the external drive.
That's all there is to that.
Download some software like Anapod, and transfer all your tracks from the iPod onto the new machine and into the external HD library.
This would also work if you attached the external drive to the old machine and copied its iTunes library to it. From the way you describe the old machine, I'm not sure I would trust it to do that.
Now that you have the answer, it might be a good time to mention the phrase "backup schedule". It would save all of this trouble
P
Ipod's Sound quality issues
by tk31 - 8/25/07 2:08 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionWow... finally some one comes to his/her senses and points out the ipod sound quality is absolute crap! I compared the Ipod Nano to the Iriver Clix/U10.... the Iriver Clix/U10 kicked the Nano's butt with stock earphones.
Samsung one of the best sounding mp3's
by jaehyeonan - 7/7/09 7:39 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionI have an mp3 that I got in 2004 even thow it is old it sounds great much better than those newer crappy ipods and it still didn't break. Somethimes I don't understand why people love ipods. Video quality in a ipod is aloso crappy and when you drop it the screen is glass so it cracks so easily.
There is only one
by JeepMysteryProb - 7/11/09 9:45 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionHello. I am an audiophile and about 4 months ago I was on the same quest as you are now in, the quest for the best sounding MP3 player. I looked at the major companies and decided that I needed to look at higher end audio stores. This is when I found Bang & Olufsen. They have two MP3 players that are astounding in the audio category. Now, Bang & Olufsen is the oldest audio company in the world, they are a magnificent company whose audio equipment is well at the top of the audiophile pyramid. Now the media player that they have, that I own and recommend to people looking for audiophile MP3 players is called the Beosound 6. Here are the specs.
Signal to noise ratio is although not in spec sheet is extremely good.
Formats supported are MP3, WMA and OGG.
This is the best audiophile music player out there, it is a must buy for audio enthusiasts. You can book a free demonstration online at Bang & Olufsens website at the nearest store to you. Hope this helps!
If the Form 2 headphones are any indicator
by make_or_break - 7/15/09 1:16 AM In reply to: There is only one by JeepMysteryProbThen I'll stay clear of B&O's portable/MP3 efforts, thank you very much. Besides, the thing was first on the market in 2007; that's OLD AND OUTDATED by MP3 standards. Plus it looks bloody fat and chunky...and even more bloodier expensive.
And for only 4GB of storage to boot.
To be honest I've never been a fan of B&O's audio quality, even as their gear looks pretty and sexy while spitting out that less-than-satisfactory (to me) sound.
Have you heard the Beosound 6?
by JeepMysteryProb - 7/16/09 8:38 PM In reply to: If the Form 2 headphones are any indicator by make_or_breakThere many strengths that this player readily makes apparent. For one the sound that the player outputs is consistently rich and full even to max volume with no distortion or hissing, which is apparent in the majority of players I have heard. You mentioned the Form 2 headphones, are you basing your opinion of the whole B&O product line from their least expensive product? The Beoosund6 player does not come with the Form 2 Headphones, but with the A8 headphones which separately which are fantastic. B&O is the oldest audio company in the world; they were the first to create and incorporate A/C power in household items such as the radio. Also Bang & Olufsen have not one MP3 player, but two; my recommendation is to B&O top end Mp3 player called Beosound6. Also you must keep in mind that high end audio companies don't follow a timely schedule of product releases as other companies because their products are high end, exceeding the quality of Apple, Sam-sung and alike. I encourage the audio enthusiast to try out this player for themselves.
Hey, I finally found one to listen to
by make_or_break - 11/20/09 9:55 AM In reply to: Have you heard the Beosound 6? by JeepMysteryProbFrom an acquaintance looking to sell his. I admit I think it does sound pretty good, but not $450 worth of good for only 4GB of storage. Funny finding the SAMSUNG label on the back of the thing (lol). Even looks a LOT like the Samsung Z5. Lousy, sluggish controls, though...just like I sort of remember the Z5 was saddled with.
From the oldest audio manufacturer: badge engineering of outsourced product from another supplier...how 21st century.
The only advantage that I can see for this is that you don't have to use lossless media to get the greatest sound quality, since the BS6 (BS...lol) uses a data "repair" algorithm that guesstimates missing bits from a lossy rip and fills in the blanks. Other than than, it's still Samsung technology behind the scenes.
Samsung!
by chanman111 - 11/17/09 5:45 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionSamsung makes mostly Flash-based players, but I fell in love with their sound. This is even AFTER using a Creative. I've listened to iPods, but have never personally owned one, and I have to say they just cannot compare with Creative's, Samsung's, and other companies' machines. I have never considered purchasing one.
I currently use the P2, and the P3 has recently come out. They are great players, and I believe the P3, though flash, can get above 20GB of memory. There are also other higher-end players, but I don't know their model numbers.
anythingbutipod.com is a great website.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
