| Author |
SE / Sony MP3's V.S. iphone / IPods sound quality |
whentheleveebreaks
Joined: Jun 15, 2004
Posts: 390
PM, WWW
|
I couldn't even listen to music at 80 kbps. |
|
|
Dogmann
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: London England
PM |
Hi all
Actually if you read what i said i was very careful to point out that as individuals what is great for some isn't for others, and also dependant on what each of us has been exposed to will also effect what we find good or even great.
At the end of the day use what ever you are happy with but no one will ever convenience that low bit rates with stock headphones on a Phone will beat a dedicated player with high bit rates and a good set of headphones logic says this is just not possible.
Now whether a Sony MP3 player is better than any other or the Ipod is the best is always down to an individuals personal preference some may prefer a brand and even subconsciously this will make them prefer one set over another as long as you are happy with what you are using enjoy it. But then don't make absurd claims like all iPod's are rubbish just because you don't like them.
It's all well and good to have a preferred brand to look at first but just buying by brand is only cheating yourself of possibly a better option and really that goes for anything you buy.
Marc
_________________
Nokia E90,8GB SDHC, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Dogmanns Nokia E90 Blog @ http://dogmann.vox.com/
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2008-03-18 10:56 ] |
Muhammad-Oli
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The NZ of L
PM |
Quite true 
This message was posted in the mail
2008, 2009, 2010 Best Australasian Member. |
>500
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
@oli
there will always be a gap between phone mp3 players and stand alone players, just like there is with camera phones and digi cams!
i love my music. i just dont have the $$$ for a mp3 player 
|
Muhammad-Oli
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The NZ of L
PM |
Yeeeeah maybe. I think they will slowly close the gap though.
I have a digicam, MP3 player and a phone. I prefer to get the best of it all. Hehe.
This message was posted in the mail
2008, 2009, 2010 Best Australasian Member. |
>500
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
[quote]
On 2008-03-18 11:55:55, Dogmann wrote:
But then don't make absurd claims like all iPod's are rubbish just because you don't like them.
_________________
Nokia E90,8GB SDHC, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Dogmanns Nokia E90 Blog @ http://dogmann.vox.com/
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[quote]
guessing that was aimed at me i guess. 
actually, i liked the sq of the 1st gen shuffle, and the touch is quite good now. i prefer sony though, not because of the name, i just prefer the sound from it.........
every ones ears are different. what sounds good to one, might not sound good to another!
|
Pop Lover
Joined: Jun 15, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Amman, Jordan
PM |
"what sounds good to one, might not sound good to another!"
So what the use of this thread
I think The Equalizer have to be much better so the SQ will be good for all ears
That's my Opinion
|
semo
Joined: Sep 20, 2004
Posts: 182
From: Groningen -> Leuven -> Caen
PM |
Just another recent review.
It's about one of the newest sony walkmans. Some comparison is done with Ipods and other players.
http://www.velvetacidchrist.c[....]818-mp3-player-hexfix93s-take/
|
Muhammad-Oli
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The NZ of L
PM |
Come on! The guy comes right out and says "I hate ipods" in the very first paragraph! Thats hardly an unbiased review!
This message was posted in the mail
2008, 2009, 2010 Best Australasian Member. |
semo
Joined: Sep 20, 2004
Posts: 182
From: Groningen -> Leuven -> Caen
PM |
Ok, I may agree, but I checked many other forums now and when SQ is considered big majority opinion is that Sony, Iriver and some others are sounding much better. Here's another forum discussing the a similar subject:
http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=623654
and
http://whathifi.com/forums/t/3605.aspx
Edit: @Oli, BTW which walkman model do you have?
[ This Message was edited by: semo on 2008-03-18 13:18 ]
[ This Message was edited by: semo on 2008-03-18 13:32 ] |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
On 2008-03-18 11:55:55, Dogmann wrote:
Hi all
Actually if you read what i said ...
...At the end of the day use what ever you are happy with but no one will ever convenience that low bit rates with stock headphones on a Phone will beat a dedicated player with high bit rates and a good set of headphones logic says this is just not possible.
It's all well and good to have a preferred brand to look at first but just buying by brand is only cheating yourself of possibly a better option and really that goes for anything you buy.
And if you read what I said, I didn't rubbish iPods, Walkmans, high bit rates, or the people who choose to use them.
I have had my music on the same bit rate for three years and have noticed a significant difference in the V640i and HPM-64 over the K700i, V800, V630i, and Nokia 6234 I used.
I would like to get a large capacity M2 card so that I can start updating my music to 196 kbps or higher but until then I'm happy with what I've got.
|
Muhammad-Oli
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The NZ of L
PM |
Slightly off topic but what capacity M2 came with your V640i, carkitter?
This message was posted in the mail
2008, 2009, 2010 Best Australasian Member. |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
256MB same as the V630i.
The V800 I bought recently has a 512MB MSPD in it but as it's not my everyday phone I haven't bothered to add anything other than a few favourite themes and ringtones. It's currently providing the 3G connection I'm using for this post.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-03-18 11:55:55, Dogmann wrote:
At the end of the day use what ever you are happy with but no one will ever convenience that low bit rates with stock headphones on a Phone will beat a dedicated player with high bit rates and a good set of headphones logic says this is just not possible.
but wouldn't it be a fairer comparison to compare THE SAME bitrate and the same headphones on different devices? Rather than the good headphones to stock and high bitrates to low?
The differences are then far less marked.
I use 256Kbps and 320Kbps (I mostly use 320Kbps MP3 from CD, or itunes plus at 256Kbps AAC). For Headphones I use either my HPM-70 headphones, which most reviewers on head-fi and other places compare to the Sony EX71 (the EX71 gets it's share of praise from audiophiles), or the Creative ep630 which is basically a rebadged Sennheiser CX300 (both also get their share of praise), or my full size Sennheiser HD202.
In constrast the stock headphones that come with non-walkmen models are poor. And while carkitter is happy enough, and all power to him, I switched up from the 96Kbps I used on my K700 as soon I had a phone with expandable memory. When I did comparisons back then, I noticed a high degree of clarity being stripped from the 96Kbps tracks even compared to 128Kbps. For example cymbals losing their resonance and instead sounding like they were being hit with a rag damping the cymbal. I couldn't go back to 96Kbps.
Not all people who claim SE music players are good quality use stock headphones and low bitrates.
|
manster
Joined: Feb 22, 2008
Posts: 36
PM |
Apple IPOD sound's good but for me the Sony NWZ-A810 sounds better the only thing i dont like about Sony is that they don't have enough space but the battery life is better than the Apple IPOD's.
Sony
Pros: Great Battery Life
Sound's Great (For Me)
Cons: Small Screen
Not Enough Space
Apple IPOD's
Pros: Great Space
Cons: Not That Great Battery life
[ This Message was edited by: manster on 2008-03-18 17:11 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2008-03-18 11:42
