|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DCJames
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: Best MP3 Player From an Audiophile's Perspective |
 |
|
| What is the best ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, for starters an audiophile would not be caught dead listening to MP3's.
I'm not an audiophile but I know a few. I know a couple guys that won't listen to anything that is not on vinyl.
I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
demaratus
Joined: 13 Apr 2005
Location: Searching for a heart of gold, and I'm gettin' old
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cowon has a great reputation. I would say any player that plays ogg vorbis files would be suited for an audiophile better than a simple mp3 player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harryh
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: south of Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cowon currently knock out some good players. Audiophiles don't care much for MP3 files. Lossless, FLAC etc, is the way to go.
Ogg Vorbis and FLAC is what I use with my IRiver H140, which unfortunately has been discontinued. It's a great player which accepts many different formats and Rockbox firmware too www.rockbox.org
I use IRiver H140 - Rockbox - Ray Samuels Tomahawk portable amp - Etymotic ER4P or Ultrasone HFI 700 Headphones for my portable needs. I'm quite happy with this set up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulman1
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Location: Jamsil
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
give me a break. Im a sound designer and spent countless thousands on audio equipment. If you encode an mp3 at 320 or even 192 it sounds pristine.
AAC is a little better than mp3, and lossless has the same quality as a CD (WAV) at about a quarter of the size.
Im waiting for the new ipod in September but if you want THE BEST now you might have to go for a portable field recorder like the Korg MR1http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=MR1.. Ive heard some german companies like sennheiser have recently brought out some mp3 players but dont quote me on that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Well, for starters an audiophile would not be caught dead listening to MP3's.
I'm not an audiophile but I know a few. I know a couple guys that won't listen to anything that is not on vinyl.
I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player. |
There are a few things wrong with this post.
1. Guys who don't listen to anything that's not on vinyl.
Certainly, if someone prefers the sound that vinyl gives, that's their prerogative. However, if they prefer vinyl because they believe it is somehow closer to the way the music is supposed to sound completely ignores the fact that vinyl records are subject to all kinds of impurities, not only from dust and scratches, but also from the actual process of manufacturing the record. What it basically boils down to is that some people prefer the way vinyl sounds, which is fine and dandy, but it does not make vinyl empirically better than digital, just different.
2. Audiophiles wouldn't be caught dead listening to mp3s.
You may want to check out www.hydrogenaudio.com People have done blind listening tests at all kinds of bitrates and formats, and the consensus is that when you get over 192 (IIRC) the vast majority of people cannot differentiate it from uncompressed music.
3. "I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player."
I don't discount the fact that bitrate is very important, but when the majority of digital music is encoded at 128 and up (and if you're really serious, flac), you will definitely notice a difference in sound quality between different players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DCJames
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's funny no one is mentioning the IPOD.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulman1
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Location: Jamsil
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DCJames wrote: |
| It's funny no one is mentioning the IPOD. |
check again.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DCJames
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seoulman1 wrote: |
| DCJames wrote: |
| It's funny no one is mentioning the IPOD. |
check again.. |
ok |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Also, another really good site that touches on this topic is www.head-fi.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Well, for starters an audiophile would not be caught dead listening to MP3's.
I'm not an audiophile but I know a few. I know a couple guys that won't listen to anything that is not on vinyl.
I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player. |
There are a few things wrong with this post.
1. Guys who don't listen to anything that's not on vinyl.
Certainly, if someone prefers the sound that vinyl gives, that's their prerogative. However, if they prefer vinyl because they believe it is somehow closer to the way the music is supposed to sound completely ignores the fact that vinyl records are subject to all kinds of impurities, not only from dust and scratches, but also from the actual process of manufacturing the record. What it basically boils down to is that some people prefer the way vinyl sounds, which is fine and dandy, but it does not make vinyl empirically better than digital, just different.
2. Audiophiles wouldn't be caught dead listening to mp3s.
You may want to check out www.hydrogenaudio.com People have done blind listening tests at all kinds of bitrates and formats, and the consensus is that when you get over 192 (IIRC) the vast majority of people cannot differentiate it from uncompressed music.
3. "I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player."
I don't discount the fact that bitrate is very important, but when the majority of digital music is encoded at 128 and up (and if you're really serious, flac), you will definitely notice a difference in sound quality between different players. |
Can you stick to the topic. The OP didn't ask your opinion on my post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulman1
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Location: Jamsil
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Well, for starters an audiophile would not be caught dead listening to MP3's.
I'm not an audiophile but I know a few. I know a couple guys that won't listen to anything that is not on vinyl.
I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player. |
There are a few things wrong with this post.
1. Guys who don't listen to anything that's not on vinyl.
Certainly, if someone prefers the sound that vinyl gives, that's their prerogative. However, if they prefer vinyl because they believe it is somehow closer to the way the music is supposed to sound completely ignores the fact that vinyl records are subject to all kinds of impurities, not only from dust and scratches, but also from the actual process of manufacturing the record. What it basically boils down to is that some people prefer the way vinyl sounds, which is fine and dandy, but it does not make vinyl empirically better than digital, just different.
2. Audiophiles wouldn't be caught dead listening to mp3s.
You may want to check out www.hydrogenaudio.com People have done blind listening tests at all kinds of bitrates and formats, and the consensus is that when you get over 192 (IIRC) the vast majority of people cannot differentiate it from uncompressed music.
3. "I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player."
I don't discount the fact that bitrate is very important, but when the majority of digital music is encoded at 128 and up (and if you're really serious, flac), you will definitely notice a difference in sound quality between different players. |
Can you stick to the topic. The OP didn't ask your opinion on my post. |
hahaha! he is just cleaning up your mistakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seoulman1 wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Well, for starters an audiophile would not be caught dead listening to MP3's.
I'm not an audiophile but I know a few. I know a couple guys that won't listen to anything that is not on vinyl.
I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player. |
There are a few things wrong with this post.
1. Guys who don't listen to anything that's not on vinyl.
Certainly, if someone prefers the sound that vinyl gives, that's their prerogative. However, if they prefer vinyl because they believe it is somehow closer to the way the music is supposed to sound completely ignores the fact that vinyl records are subject to all kinds of impurities, not only from dust and scratches, but also from the actual process of manufacturing the record. What it basically boils down to is that some people prefer the way vinyl sounds, which is fine and dandy, but it does not make vinyl empirically better than digital, just different.
2. Audiophiles wouldn't be caught dead listening to mp3s.
You may want to check out www.hydrogenaudio.com People have done blind listening tests at all kinds of bitrates and formats, and the consensus is that when you get over 192 (IIRC) the vast majority of people cannot differentiate it from uncompressed music.
3. "I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player."
I don't discount the fact that bitrate is very important, but when the majority of digital music is encoded at 128 and up (and if you're really serious, flac), you will definitely notice a difference in sound quality between different players. |
Can you stick to the topic. The OP didn't ask your opinion on my post. |
hahaha! he is just cleaning up your mistakes. |
Mistakes???
1. A couple people I know that are self proclaimed "audiophiles" prefer vinyl over any other formats. I'll be sure to tell them that their preference to vinyl is wrong..
2. I was under the impression that Audiophiles looked for the best listening experience. It just makes sense to me that they would choose lossless formats over compressed MP3's. It doesn't matter if the average person can't tell the difference between the two. Maybe audiophiles sit around with their DVD audio player and brag about how much "cleaner and fuller" the sound is compared to MP3 and CD's. I don't know, I'm not an audiophile, but it would seem to me that they would want the best.
3. I didn't say players weren't important. I said bitrate was probably more important than players. Any decent MP3 player will have a custom equalizer where you can adjust the settings to your liking. No player is gonna make a 96kbps MP3 sound like CD quality. Hence, bitrate is more important than player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Can you stick to the topic. The OP didn't ask your opinion on my post. |
I'm pretty sure everything in my reply to you has a direct bearing on the subject of audiophiles and mp3 players. I also put up links to websites devoted to different types of compression formats as well as a site that has a section specifically devoted to all aspects of portable audio, including mp3 (or DAP) players, headphones, and portable amplifiers. All in all, I think my contribution to this thread to quite relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulman1
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Location: Jamsil
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| seoulman1 wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Well, for starters an audiophile would not be caught dead listening to MP3's.
I'm not an audiophile but I know a few. I know a couple guys that won't listen to anything that is not on vinyl.
I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player. |
There are a few things wrong with this post.
1. Guys who don't listen to anything that's not on vinyl.
Certainly, if someone prefers the sound that vinyl gives, that's their prerogative. However, if they prefer vinyl because they believe it is somehow closer to the way the music is supposed to sound completely ignores the fact that vinyl records are subject to all kinds of impurities, not only from dust and scratches, but also from the actual process of manufacturing the record. What it basically boils down to is that some people prefer the way vinyl sounds, which is fine and dandy, but it does not make vinyl empirically better than digital, just different.
2. Audiophiles wouldn't be caught dead listening to mp3s.
You may want to check out www.hydrogenaudio.com People have done blind listening tests at all kinds of bitrates and formats, and the consensus is that when you get over 192 (IIRC) the vast majority of people cannot differentiate it from uncompressed music.
3. "I think for MP3's the encoding (bitrate) is more important than the player."
I don't discount the fact that bitrate is very important, but when the majority of digital music is encoded at 128 and up (and if you're really serious, flac), you will definitely notice a difference in sound quality between different players. |
Can you stick to the topic. The OP didn't ask your opinion on my post. |
hahaha! he is just cleaning up your mistakes. |
Mistakes???
1. A couple people I know that are self proclaimed "audiophiles" prefer vinyl over any other formats. I'll be sure to tell them that their preference to vinyl is wrong..
2. I was under the impression that Audiophiles looked for the best listening experience. It just makes sense to me that they would choose lossless formats over compressed MP3's. It doesn't matter if the average person can't tell the difference between the two. Maybe audiophiles sit around with their DVD audio player and brag about how much "cleaner and fuller" the sound is compared to MP3 and CD's. I don't know, I'm not an audiophile, but it would seem to me that they would want the best.
3. I didn't say players weren't important. I said bitrate was probably more important than players. Any decent MP3 player will have a custom equalizer where you can adjust the settings to your liking. No player is gonna make a 96kbps MP3 sound like CD quality. Hence, bitrate is more important than player. |
when u are deciding upon an mp3 player the biggest factors to consider are the quality of the internal amplifier and mp3 decoder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
