If you are applying replay gain to your files, that may explain the difference that you are hearing. http://home-12.tiscali-business.nl/~tpm54044/rg/rg.htm
The best mp3 player
- Thread starter leadax
- Start date
This is something that I know about (finally). Please take into account that the following text is my opinion, based on my own listening tests over extended time-periods - your preferences may be somewhat different. The best portable mp3 player sound-quality wise was the Creative Nomad Jukebox 3. This came out in 2002, if I remember correctly. They are not currently produced, and there was only one online shop that I could find with new ones available (I'm buying another soon). The only drawback is that they are too big to fit in your pocket. As far as new players go, sound-quality rankings would be as follows:
1. Rio Karma (30mw/ch headphone output, supports MP3, WMA, WAV, OGG, and FLAC)
2. Iriver H340/H320 (30mw/ch headphone output, supports MP3, WMA, ASF, WAV and OGG)
3. Creative Zen Xtra (30mw/ch headphone output, supports MP3, WMA, and WAV)
4. Apple Ipod (30mw/ch headphone output, supports AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, and a Proprietary Apple Lossless format)
As you can see, the Rio Karma has by far the best file support - especially with FLAC - and comes with a nifty dock with RCA outputs. The Iriver sounds almost as good and comes with pretty good earbuds (Sennheiser MX400). It does not, however, support FLAC. It does support OGG. The Creative Zen series are a step back from the Nomad Jukebox 3 in terms of sound quality, but still sound good. The Ipod is the worst in terms of sound-quality and is the least rugged in terms of design.
I would not consider the Ipod under any circumstances. In fact, it's my opinion that the designers placed sound quality at the bottom of the priority list. :thumbsdn:
1. Rio Karma (30mw/ch headphone output, supports MP3, WMA, WAV, OGG, and FLAC)
2. Iriver H340/H320 (30mw/ch headphone output, supports MP3, WMA, ASF, WAV and OGG)
3. Creative Zen Xtra (30mw/ch headphone output, supports MP3, WMA, and WAV)
4. Apple Ipod (30mw/ch headphone output, supports AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, and a Proprietary Apple Lossless format)
As you can see, the Rio Karma has by far the best file support - especially with FLAC - and comes with a nifty dock with RCA outputs. The Iriver sounds almost as good and comes with pretty good earbuds (Sennheiser MX400). It does not, however, support FLAC. It does support OGG. The Creative Zen series are a step back from the Nomad Jukebox 3 in terms of sound quality, but still sound good. The Ipod is the worst in terms of sound-quality and is the least rugged in terms of design.
I would not consider the Ipod under any circumstances. In fact, it's my opinion that the designers placed sound quality at the bottom of the priority list. :thumbsdn:
Last edited:
I am not sure which one has the best sound quality. I have read many discussions on the issue and most people side with Karma. However, there are also a couple of other issues to consider. First would be how many GBs you are planning to use. If you use lossless files, the Karma (the last time I checked) only holds 20GB. The Ipod is available with 60GB of space.
If you do not have a lot of tunes and want lossless, the Karma may be the best pick since you can use FLAC. Many of the home media players support FLAC, and Apple does not pass out their license very often. In other words, you could archive in Apple lossless and have to transcode them if you ever want to play them on something other than your PC/Mac or Apple Ipod.
I have an Ipod and the sound is good enough for my use. However, the Karma would be my pick if it was available with a larger HD.
If you do not have a lot of tunes and want lossless, the Karma may be the best pick since you can use FLAC. Many of the home media players support FLAC, and Apple does not pass out their license very often. In other words, you could archive in Apple lossless and have to transcode them if you ever want to play them on something other than your PC/Mac or Apple Ipod.
I have an Ipod and the sound is good enough for my use. However, the Karma would be my pick if it was available with a larger HD.
I have an Ipod Shuffle and it is getting great reviews for it's sound quality:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1778968,00.asp
There are some shortfalls to the Shuffle. You can read the closed Ipod Shuffle thread to decide if the player is for you or not.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1778968,00.asp
There are some shortfalls to the Shuffle. You can read the closed Ipod Shuffle thread to decide if the player is for you or not.
leadax
Member
I'm using a Mad Dog Entertainer Card (7.1). I did disconnect the analog outputs on the DVD/CD player/burner in my PC. No analog signal to the sound card. If I recall I think I did have some noise before doing that - not sure. At this time I have zero noise coming from the PC that I can detect (my McIntosh SL6's are pretty "bright" it's taken a while to soften them up) since I only use digital signal input. This suprised me as I was worried about noise coming from the PC at the start. I use Windows Media Player 9 with 98SE. You may have a problem with your sound card if your hearing digital noise. Just an FYI I have been re listening to my music since hooking up the little Sonic Impact. Just can't believe the thing. I think the impact (pardon the pun) this little amp is and going to make in the future will be incredible :thmbsp: .JimmyNeutron said:
mg196
Johnny Thunders - LAMF
I have a 15GB iPod Mini and the thing is AWESOME!! I wouldn't trade it for any knockoff or wannabe out there.
Considering I am listening to my iPod while driving or am wearing the iPod on my belt when I am working out/shopping/waiting in line, sound quality is not of massive importance to me. EASE OF USE is my #1 priority. I am willing to guess that any late-generation MP3 player, when being listened to in a loud, public area, sounds the same as the next one.
Considering I am listening to my iPod while driving or am wearing the iPod on my belt when I am working out/shopping/waiting in line, sound quality is not of massive importance to me. EASE OF USE is my #1 priority. I am willing to guess that any late-generation MP3 player, when being listened to in a loud, public area, sounds the same as the next one.
styler
Super Member
iPod
iPod is clearly the best. has most add ons. best ease of use. who cares what co. made the first HD media player. Apple did it best, marketed it best, and has the market share to keep good product development going. lossless sounds great, airtunes while imperfect sounds pretty damn good. why pay 5000 for McIntosh when you can buy an external 300GB HD and toslik to your preamp?
iPod is clearly the best. has most add ons. best ease of use. who cares what co. made the first HD media player. Apple did it best, marketed it best, and has the market share to keep good product development going. lossless sounds great, airtunes while imperfect sounds pretty damn good. why pay 5000 for McIntosh when you can buy an external 300GB HD and toslik to your preamp?
JimmyNeutron
Super Member
Well, to say that Apple's iPod is the best is so very wrong. iPod is a very nice product, with nice features. It was geared from the start to appeal to the younger crowd - the same crowd that made mp3's popular. Apple has a great marketing department that knew how to market this product to the hipper, young crowd. And they did that well. Nice sleak and appealing shape and size - but that is it. Everything else in the iPod had been done in every other mp3 player. Once the add-on market saw the sales that this sleak, new player were racking up, well let's just say Apple saw this would happen long before it did happen - and they saw $ signs. But the question is did Apple break any new territory with their iPod? The answer is a yes and a no. They made the first "hip" portable. They made a unit that was so attractive on the outside that it made consumers not question what was on the inside. Everyone wanted an iPod because it was on eMpTV, Cosmopolitan, Playboy, and in movies. But what else is unique about the iPod? Not much. Every other portable had "shuffle play", and "playlists", and "informative displays", but they lacked "hip" appeal. Most other players still offer more features than the iPod, features that matter like replaceable batteries and better codecs for higher quality sound, line outputs, even FM tuners and voice recording. Some even let you upgrade the hard drive to a bigger one yourself (Archos). But sadly, most consumers don't care about sound quality. They care about looks. From the $300.00 NIKE tennis shoes that we buy to the $60,000.00 Hummers we drive, while sipping on $8.00 cup of Starbuck's coffee. It's all about image. Apple is all about image. And in the end Apple redifined the portable music player image by repackaging an already tried and true player - the hard drive mp3 player. Apple have never been inventors, they're innovators (and no, Apple did not invent the Windows type GUI interface, but that is a whole other subject).
So is iPod the best? No, of course not. Do they have the best sound quality? No, of course not. But they sure are purdy, and in this country that's all that matters. I like to think of the iPod as the Evian water of the portable MP3 units. :thumbsdn:
So is iPod the best? No, of course not. Do they have the best sound quality? No, of course not. But they sure are purdy, and in this country that's all that matters. I like to think of the iPod as the Evian water of the portable MP3 units. :thumbsdn:
styler
Super Member
i like evian
all a matter of opinion. having owned the Archos and the iPod, i can say the Archos does NOT sound as good. Apple Lossless soundly beats it. and seing as how i can transmit music to several systems in the house with multiple airport express' with little to no set up, i'll take the better sound and ease of use. all the editors of computer mags, NY Times, and Wall St Journal must be wrong, that is, if you are correct my cylon friend. :lmao:
all a matter of opinion. having owned the Archos and the iPod, i can say the Archos does NOT sound as good. Apple Lossless soundly beats it. and seing as how i can transmit music to several systems in the house with multiple airport express' with little to no set up, i'll take the better sound and ease of use. all the editors of computer mags, NY Times, and Wall St Journal must be wrong, that is, if you are correct my cylon friend. :lmao:
JimmyNeutron
Super Member
It is all a matter of opinion, as those same editors of those magazines get paid to give biased reports. My wife owns the iPod, I own a Creative and an Archos. The Creative ranks number 1 in sound quality, Archos second, and iPod last. As for connectivity, yes, the iPod wins. But I can stream ANY mp3 unit with as much ease as the iPod - there are several unit attachments out there. Apple has lossless (which is still a compressed format, if I remember correctly). But every other unit also does WAV playback.
My point isin't to knock the iPod, as I like the unit. But I won't defend it either. I won't trust the opinions of magazines either because it's very well known that they are paid to say those things (that's why there is that little disclaimer saying :The opinions expressed here are solely of the.....blah, blah, blah). And just because it's the hippest portable around does'nt make it the best anymore than Evian water is better than tap water. You can read what you want, my friend, and you certainly have the right to your opinion (and it's taken all in good stride here), but iPod is still a repackaged HD unit. Been there, done that. :yes:
Like Butthead used to say to Beavis, "You can't polish a turd". :butt1:
My point isin't to knock the iPod, as I like the unit. But I won't defend it either. I won't trust the opinions of magazines either because it's very well known that they are paid to say those things (that's why there is that little disclaimer saying :The opinions expressed here are solely of the.....blah, blah, blah). And just because it's the hippest portable around does'nt make it the best anymore than Evian water is better than tap water. You can read what you want, my friend, and you certainly have the right to your opinion (and it's taken all in good stride here), but iPod is still a repackaged HD unit. Been there, done that. :yes:
Like Butthead used to say to Beavis, "You can't polish a turd". :butt1:
JimmyNeutron
Super Member
Well you can't have your cake and eat it too.....or you can't eat cake but.....or you eat but not the cake.... 
oh well.
Here's my view( and that's all it is). With todays bigger hard drives saving space really isin't much of an issue anymore. If you want the closest and most pure music playback, then no compression of any sort is desired. You can have bad egineering and bad codecs on any compression scheme. Yes, WAV's are freakin' huge, but they are, so far, the closest to a CD's sound, if not exactly the same.
But hey, we're talking about a portable format, one that's mostly heard in an outdoor enviroment with headphones, and not ever designed for accurate and critical music playback. I appluad Apple for making a small and sleek unit. I like it a lot and sometimes find myself using my wife's every once in a while. For Christmas I bought my 16 year old niece an iPod because I knew that for her being in high school image was everything. :thmbsp: But just like everything else, each product is geared to a select group. Personally I would not buy one. But for someone else, like my niece, it would be the only choice.
oh well.Here's my view( and that's all it is). With todays bigger hard drives saving space really isin't much of an issue anymore. If you want the closest and most pure music playback, then no compression of any sort is desired. You can have bad egineering and bad codecs on any compression scheme. Yes, WAV's are freakin' huge, but they are, so far, the closest to a CD's sound, if not exactly the same.
But hey, we're talking about a portable format, one that's mostly heard in an outdoor enviroment with headphones, and not ever designed for accurate and critical music playback. I appluad Apple for making a small and sleek unit. I like it a lot and sometimes find myself using my wife's every once in a while. For Christmas I bought my 16 year old niece an iPod because I knew that for her being in high school image was everything. :thmbsp: But just like everything else, each product is geared to a select group. Personally I would not buy one. But for someone else, like my niece, it would be the only choice.
While space may be cheaper it would require a lot more space to save in WAV than it does to archive in FLAC. For my current collection, it would require roughly 460GB to store in FLAC. To use wav, I would almost double the space needed. The last time I checked a terabyte of space was still not real cheap. Also, the FLAC format has been put through many tests and I trust it:
http://flac.sourceforge.net/faq.html#general__lossless_trust
I would guess that the size and HD space is the most important factor for most consumers. The fact that there are other players that may sound slighlty better with similar material is not nearly as important. If it was, then no one would be using the inferior mp3 format to begin with. Actually, we would all still be carrying around our clunky portable CD players.
