Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: RMAA iriver vs Cowon (Read 25436 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #25 –
Sometimes (as, for instance, in the largely worthless reviews in The Register), when people talk about the sound quality of a PMP, they are actually saying whether or not they like the equaliser and other forms of signal processing. That, at least, is the polite interpretation, and it's not obviously wrong to claim that there might be audible differences in different brands of Mega Xxxpanda or whatever.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #26 –
Quote from: saratoga on
While this is true, the problem with the Cowon players is  basically that they use capacitively coupled outputs with too small output capacitors.  So the trade off here is between "better frequency response" and "saving 6 cents on each player".  Probably though in the long term Cowon will go to directly coupled output like on the Clip since you don't need the capacitors and the output is better.


So it is theorically possible to mod a cowon player replacing those capacitors with better one to get an excellent frequency response ?
Should the difference be audible, or only audible by people from the "audiophile sect"  ?
(I know some people did that on ipod, not by replacing capacitor, but adding component to the existing ones)

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #27 –
Quote from: takhama on
Quote from: saratoga on
While this is true, the problem with the Cowon players is  basically that they use capacitively coupled outputs with too small output capacitors.  So the trade off here is between "better frequency response" and "saving 6 cents on each player".  Probably though in the long term Cowon will go to directly coupled output like on the Clip since you don't need the capacitors and the output is better.


So it is theoretically possible to mod a Cowon player replacing those capacitors with better one to get an excellent frequency response ?


Probably. The upgrades wouldn't be necessarily better, just bigger. They may not fit in the case.

Quote
Should the difference be audible, or only audible by people from the "audiophile sect"  ?


Neither.

Quote
(I know some people did that on iPod, not by replacing capacitor, but adding component to the existing ones)


Waste of time and money. The waste of time and money is their bad karma for being so self-focused. ;-)

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #28 –
Good !

Thanks a lot to everyone that participated to this thread, it was really extremelly interesting !!!

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #29 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: vpa on
The Clip+ sounds very good with 16 Ohm Earbuds, but is very silent and has a trebble roll off with high impedance headphones.
So you have to decide what your usage will be: If you want to use you high quality headphones, then you better get the high priced Cowon. If you want to use your cheap earbuds, then get something like the Clip or Fuze. If you want to do both, then better get both.


Yeah this isn't true at all.  The reason you get a bass roll off on the Cowon players is because they're capacitively coupled, so the output impedance varies with frequency.  The Clip is directly coupled, so the output impedance doesn't vary with frequency.  I guess it sort of makes intuitive sense if you're not familiar with amps that you might think "they've doing it the opposite way (direct vs. capacitive coupling) so "the high frequencies should roll off -- hey i think i heard that!".  But thats not right.  To get the high frequencies to roll off you'd need inductive coupling which really doesn't make any sense at all and has never been used in a portable audio player.  So high frequency roll off really doesn't make sense.

And if you take a look at the actual output, you will see that indeed, it does not occur:

http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Comparisons...%2048%20Ohm.htm

Which makes a lot of sense because you would not expect a huge amount of inductance in a couple mm of copper wire.

Well, try it yourself. The Clip+ sounds muffled with high impedance headphones.
WavPack 4.50.1 -hhx6 | LAME 3.98.2 -V 0

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #31 –
Quote from: vpa on
Well, try it yourself. The Clip+ sounds muffled with high impedance headphones.


I can't remember all the tests I've done, but I believe I've tried the Clip with high impedance headphones like the 600 ohm AKG K240DF.  There was most certainly a lack of volume.  It sounded "muffled" in that sense that at low volumes a lot of stuff can sound muffled because of what we know about equal loudness curves.  I don't know if there was any issue beyond what was caused by low volume.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #32 –
Quote from: vpa on
Well, try it yourself. The Clip+ sounds muffled with high impedance headphones.


Compared to what?  Are you sure that the Clip is not being compared to a player that has a high source impedance that causes a high frequency rise with headphones whose impedance rises at high frequencies?

I've tried my Clip with high impedance phones and notice no such thing.

Measurements say that there are no high frequency losses if you compare the Clip to an ideal piece of equipment.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #33 –
I suppose my previous post should have been in green.  I am trying to avoid a drawn out argument over subjective statements about sound quality.

Until vpa is ready to produce objective evidence let the dead dog lie.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #35 –
Quote from: urak on
"Audiophiles" portable music player: HiFiman HM-601 (cheapest),
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/524012...-hifiman-hm-601

Yes, I know thisone, I also now the 801.
Check this out: Hifiman RMAA Comparison (abi)

As you say, it is for audiophile people (who we call in france "idiophiles", i let you guess the meaning), meaning it is big, the design sucks, the interface sucks, the battery life sucks, and it is extremelly expensive. Considering all those parameters some people think the sound is absolutely wonderfull and they have the ultimate player in terms of SQ.
But sorry for them, even the SQ sucks

 

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #36 –
Quote from: takhama on
As you say, it is for audiophile people (who we call in france "idiophiles", i let you guess the meaning), meaning it is big, the design sucks, the interface sucks, the battery life sucks, and it is extremelly expensive. Considering all those parameters some people think the sound is absolutely wonderfull and they have the ultimate player in terms of SQ.
But sorry for them, even the SQ sucks


I'm not sure it's possible to say that "the SQ sucks" unless one has heard it.  Certainly one can say the measurements aren't good, but clearly some people really like the way it sounds, even when they also own a player which has much better measurements.  I still prefer my iRiver H140 and especially my iRiver H340 over my Clip+.  The Clip+ has better measurements (check the numbers and graphs at rmaa.elektrokrishna.com) and in some cases the differences are not tiny or marginal.  I can definitely say the Clip+ measures well, on paper it's clearly superior to my expensive old iRivers.  And it's very cheap and tiny.  It's amazing.  But I enjoy my music much more on the H140 and especially on the H340.  Part of the equation is the extraneous noise/interference I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, and part of it is that the players do reproduce sounds differently.  One is head and shoulders above the others in terms of measurements but it's not the one I prefer.  So the one and only thing I am certain of about the Hifiman players is that even by looking at the numbers I can't tell if I would enjoy using one to listen to music more or less than my Clip+ or iRivers.

Please note that I'm not advocating players with unusual frequency responses or filters or poor stereo crosstalk, or suggesting people should like them, or that they are worth extra money.  What I am saying that measurements don't equate directly with enjoyment/perception.  Also that the noise that doesn't get measured (interference etc) is also audible and should not be ignored when making a comparison.  The other thing I'm saying is that stating "Product X has bad/good sound quality" without ever hearing Product X for oneself doesn't strike me as very credible.

I'm very firmly in the objectivist camp when it comes to assessing audio quality and I'd suggest that not hearing a product at all falls somewhat short of the standard expected in a blind or double blind test ;-)

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #37 –
Quote
Certainly one can say the measurements aren't good, but clearly some people really like the way it sounds, even when they also own a player which has much better measurements.


Placebo can do all sorts of magic.  That doesn't mean it actually sounds better.

Quote
But I enjoy my music much more on the H140 and especially on the H340.  Part of the equation is the extraneous noise/interference I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread


Extraneous noises (e.g. between noises) may influence your experiences with a player, but the noises in the Clip and Clip+ are there only during track/setting changes.  They do not come in when the music is playing.  Do track change noises really change your enjoyment of the music?  Even if they do, that still has nothing to do with music playback.

Hiss with high sensitivity headphones is a different story.

Quote
part of it is that the players do reproduce sounds differently.


If players reproduced sounds differently that would be extremely easy to measure.  That's exactly what measurements in RMAA show.  Beyond a certain point (e.g. a 3db bass boost, a certain amount of THD), you can make statements about sonic differences between players based on the measurements.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #38 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote
Certainly one can say the measurements aren't good, but clearly some people really like the way it sounds, even when they also own a player which has much better measurements.


Placebo can do all sorts of magic.  That doesn't mean it actually sounds better.


There is no question of placebo if there is a difference.  And there is a difference.  There's an objective difference, which is shown in the measurements.  People also report hearing a difference.  What some people are saying is that they prefer the player which doesn't have the best measurements.  They are not claiming a difference where none exists.  However some people, who have never heard the player in question, are claiming it doesn't sound good.

Quote from: odigg on
Quote
But I enjoy my music much more on the H140 and especially on the H340.  Part of the equation is the extraneous noise/interference I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread


Extraneous noises (e.g. between noises) may influence your experiences with a player, but the noises in the Clip and Clip+ are there only during track/setting changes.  They do not come in when the music is playing.  Do track change noises really change your enjoyment of the music?  Even if they do, that still has nothing to do with music playback.


The noises are also there on pause and resume.  How would a loud squeaking noise on resuming a track not affect my enjoyment of the music? It does have to do with music playback when there is a loud click or pop or squeak at the start or resumption of a track!  It shouldn't be there, and it is worth remarking upon and it's impossible to say it's anything other than a defect. 

Quote from: odigg on
Hiss with high sensitivity headphones is a different story.

Quote
part of it is that the players do reproduce sounds differently.


If players reproduced sounds differently that would be extremely easy to measure.  That's exactly what measurements in RMAA show.  Beyond a certain point (e.g. a 3db bass boost, a certain amount of THD), you can make statements about sonic differences between players based on the measurements.


RMAA tests do indeed show that different players reproduce sound differently.  That's why I mentioned  rmaa.elektrokrishna.com, where one can browse RMAA tests of the players in question and see for oneself that, for example, a Clip+ does reproduce audio differently than an iRiver H340.  Here is a clickable link rmaa.elektrokrishna.com rmaa results  I'm left wondering if you actually believe all players sound the same?  They are manufactured from quite a variety of different components of varying designs and quality, including using different decoders and amplifiers.  If they did all sound the same it would be something of a miracle.

ABX testing is about identifying difference.  It should not be conflated with determining personal preference.  I know my Clip+ measures better than my irivers yet, even setting aside the issue of unwanted noise,  I still prefer the iRivers.  I prefer their sound.  If you tell me the Clip+ measures better I'll agree.  If you tell me the Clip+ sounds better or is a better player then you might as well try to tell me I'm wrong when I say I don't like to eat baked beans or when I say I prefer Hendrix over Haydn.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #39 –
Quote from: greynol on
I suppose my previous post should have been in green.  I am trying to avoid a drawn out argument over subjective statements about sound quality.

Until vpa is ready to produce objective evidence let the dead dog lie.

If you have any idea how to messure the difference, I will do. I'm an musican, I notice the difference, and I'm not a Fanboy as I have a Clip+ and an A3. Like I said, both have their areas where they good at, and where they are not. IMHO the complete each other very well... So no reason to put me in the lieing dead dog position.
WavPack 4.50.1 -hhx6 | LAME 3.98.2 -V 0

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Takla on
There is no question of placebo if there is a difference.  And there is a difference.  There's an objective difference, which is shown in the measurements.  People also report hearing a difference.  What some people are saying is that they prefer the player which doesn't have the best measurements.  They are not claiming a difference where none exists.  However some people, who have never heard the player in question, are claiming it doesn't sound good.


Actually, there still is.  If Sansa made a $30 device that measured and sounded identical to some $800 audiophile PMP, the same people who claimed the audiophile device was the best sounding player in the world would claim the Sansa device was crap.

So people can prefer players just because they cost more and are advertised as a "High End" device.  That says more about the reviewers than it does about the player.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Takla on
I'm not sure it's possible to say that "the SQ sucks" unless one has heard it.


If you read the whole ABI thread, dkft has a very good idea to make a ABX test, and nearly nobody can ear a big difference with other players.
So for a 800$ player with such a bad interface and battery life (what could be accepotable if the sound was incredibly wonderful compared to any other player), yes, the sound sucks !

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #42 –
Quote from: vpa on
So no reason to put me in the lieing dead dog position.

You have no objective evidence but others who disagree with you do.

Regarding RMAA measurements and audibility:
Differences in graphs do not guarantee differences in sound quality.  Those who wish to claim differences in sound quality are subject to TOS #8.  Takla's claims need objective proof in the way of a double-blind test in order to be accepted on this forum.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #43 –
Quote from: takhama on
Quote from: Takla on
I'm not sure it's possible to say that "the SQ sucks" unless one has heard it.


If you read the whole ABI thread, dkft has a very good idea to make a ABX test, and nearly nobody can ear a big difference with other players.
So for a 800$ player with such a bad interface and battery life (what could be accepotable if the sound was incredibly wonderful compared to any other player), yes, the sound sucks !



I don't see that battery life is a factor in sound quality.  Nor is the interface.  Obviously it's a big issue in choosing a player, but try as I might I can't hear the difference when my player has 10 hours left and when it has 10 minutes.  And when I change theme (interface) on my rockboxed players they don't sound any different.

I wasn't claiming that the sound is good, bad or indifferent.  I'm saying I can't tell because I didn't hear it, and also that I know that the player with the best measurements is not always the one whose sound is preferred.  That's because a preference arises from individual taste, expectation, perception and so on and is not related in a direct linear manner to the numbers.  We all know that a CD can offer a more faithful record than a vinyl LP but what we can't do is tell someone they are wrong to prefer one or the other.  We can call people out if they can only assess sound quality by seeing the hardware, but where there is a difference between two items we can't tell someone they are right or wrong to prefer one or the other.

If people can't ABX Player A from Players B,C & D how is it possible to claim "the sound sucks!" for Player A while maintaining that the others sound great?

Again I'm not advocating this player (I've never seen or heard it) but I'm at least as suspicious of people who can say it sounds bad without hearing it as I am of audiofools who hear differences between 1 metre lengths of coax.  The fact that someone brought up placebo despite there being measurable differences (and several people able to ABX the player) shows me that one doesn't have to be an audifool to be irrational and reactionary.  Simply assuming oneself to be objective doesn't make it so.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #44 –
Quote from: greynol on
Takla's claims need objective proof in the way of a double-blind test in order to be accepted on this forum.


Would that be the claim that I don't know if the Hifiman is any good because I didn't hear it?

Or the claim that I prefer my iRivers to my Clip+?

Or that different players can sound different?

Something else?



RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Takla on
Or the claim that I prefer my iRivers to my Clip+?

Quote from: Takla on
part of it is that the players do reproduce sounds differently.

Bingo!

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #46 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Takla on
Or the claim that I prefer my iRivers to my Clip+?

Quote from: Takla on
part of it is that the players do reproduce sounds differently.

Bingo!


You know that in the hifiman test over at anythingbutipod dfkt mentions many times that the treble on the hifiman sounds rolled off, which of course is exactly what one would expect from the measurements.  The people who did successfully ABX the player  did so because the treble rolled off.

Is your proposition that all players sound the same?  I have some old and extremely cheap unbranded generics that sound so bad it's beyond a joke.  Is it a TOS violation to say that different hardware can sound different?

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #47 –
Takla - Do people prefer certain players only in a sighted test?  If so, that's placebo.

Same with the Hifiman vs other players.  Do people prefer the Hifiman only in sighted tests?  It's easy to say player X and player Y measure differently and and I prefer X.  If you really did prefer X then you would prefer it in a blind test as well.

Nobody is saying all players sound the same if measurements are different.  If you read back, people pointed out the bass roll off from the Cowon would be audible, but not very much so.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Takla on
Is it a TOS violation to say that different hardware can sound different?
Can?  No.

Quote from: Takla on
I have some old and extremely cheap unbranded generics that sound so bad it's beyond a joke.
That sounds like someone with acute hearing saying he can distinguish 64kbit mp3 and lossless.  Normally TOS #8 will be ignored in such situations.

However I do not believe this exaggeration applies to your claims that Sansa and iRivers do (not can!) sound different.  Even if the exaggeration does apply (IOW, differences between your Sansa and iRivers is night and day), you are being challenged to support your claims.  Short of such support you are in violation of TOS #8.  We have all seen people claim night and day differences about all sorts of things such as speaker wire and the application of magic pebbles.

RMAA iriver vs Cowon

Reply #49 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Takla on
Is it a TOS violation to say that different hardware can sound different?

That sounds like someone with acute hearing saying they can distinguish 64kbit mp3 and lossless.  These are generally ignored.

However I do not believe this exaggeration applies to your claims that Sansa and iRivers sound different.  Even if it does, you are being challenged to support your claims.  Short of such support you are in violation of TOS #8.



Saying that different mp3 players can sound different is in no way analogous to claiming a low bitrate lossy track sounds different to a lossless track.  I don't understand that particular point, but never mind.

Here's what I was illustrating:

dfkt at anythingbutipod tested Player A.  Its frequency response is nowhere near as flat as other players.  He can also ABX Player A, as can several other people.  He also mentions several times that in subjective listening he perceives that the treble rolls off.  Different mp3 players can sound different.

That remains true whether I ABX my players or not.  Doing so does not affect in any way the demonstrable and proven fact that different mp3 players can sound different, and that sometimes they do.  In this case it has been demostrated by two different objective method as well as subjectively.  I mentioned my players only for the purpose of illustrating this point but anyway that illustration is done much better by dfkt as he has gone to the trouble of making measurements and performing ABX.

So I'll say again:

Different players can sound different.

The player in question has been objectively proven to sound different to some other players.

I don't know if it would be enjoyable to listen to music using that player because I've never heard it.

I can't claim "it sucks!" or "it's great!".  I've never heard it.

Some people who have heard it like it.  Others don't.

Strangely some other people who have never heard it also have strong opinions about how good or bad it sound.

I'm not one of them.


I think it's obvious I've made a perfectly reasonable and supportable claim in saying that different players can sound different.  Whether I ABX my players makes no difference as the claim stands either way.  As far as I can tell you're using the TOS8 just to bash me because you don't like me, and it wouldn't be the first time that you've hit me with bullying tactics and an official warning simply out of spite.  Of course if one mentions that kind of thing one is in violation again and is banned, so I guess you had better feel happy that you've prevented a rational discourse simply on the basis of your personal feeling, delete this post and kick my ass out of here.

edit: and for what it's worth:

it is hard to keep up with your unannotated edits, but I am not interested in pebbles and all that crap.  I absolutely subscribe to the rational and objective method of discerning differences and testing equipment.  To my mind being able to assess the sound quality of a device must at some point involve listening to it.  It may well be that the hifiaman is a really poor value and low grade product, but the people making claims about its sound quality without ever actually hearing it are not being objective.  On the one hand people are claiming that the sound sucks because the measurements are not as good as other players.  But  people are also claiming that measurements don't translate to audible differences but that the player sounds bad.  And that it can't be ABX'd  but that it sounds worse than the players from which it can't be distinguished.  None of this is rational or objective.  It is reactionary and more closely resembles religion than science.