Sparky191

Personally I reckon a iPod Shuffle sounds better. Its much smaller and the controls are more logical. I can also fill it faster and use it as a memory stick. It also charges from USB and doesn't need a cable. Its also much more robust and a lot cheaper. So I'm less likely to damage it, and even if I do or lose it, its cheap to replace. On HiMD The whole group button thing annoys me as does tiny amount of info the screen displays especially on the cheaper models which are directly comparible to the Flash players. The button placement is illogical, pause/play should be on one button. I don't have a LCD remote, and perhaps that would change my mind on the useablility. As would a digital amp on the SQ front. But that would add to the expense of the unit. I still like HiMD however I suspect would need a better unit to switch to using it as my main player. The RH1 might be that unit, but its too expensive for me.

If you've gone to the effort and expense of getting a headphone amp, I would have thought you'd have matched it up with better earphones than EX71's which are budget set of buds. I don't agree that its just a lack of midrange though. But if you like them, I guess thats all that matters.

Hate to tell you but the EX71 are well known as a bassy earphones. Do a search on the web for "EX71 and bassy". The line out on an iPod is a very clean almost clinical. Its not bad, but its not to my taste I'll admit. However most people are used to listening to very coloured sound. We're bombarded with bass heavy EQ from everywhere these days. Radio, TV etc. Its hard to step back and turn down the bass and reclaim your midrange. I notice a lot of newer CD's are mixed now to favour a bass heavy eq. Look at all the sound systems now with huge subwoofers. Impossible to avoid them. Most of the sound that will travel through a house and to the neighbours is soley bass. Turn these off and you'll find you cn crank the levels and not annoy the neighbours. Personally I find ATRAC/MD to be quite coloured myself. In many cases I might even prefer it to the original CD. Its not that its bad its just not all that true to the original CD. I actually prefer Sharp Atrac to Sony's. Its fun and enjoyable, but it is coloured. In my opinion at least. A bad cable wouldn't help I'm sure.

I only mentioned lossless to eliminate encoding as a problem. Using a decent amp/speakers or headphones generally highlights any weakness in the encodings. Most people (the concensus on Head-Fi) seem to think properly gained encodings, the iPod through a line out and decent amp makes a good source. If someone say's it sounds terrible then I reckon theres a problem with the setup somewhere. While I wouldn't expect it to match a decent seperates HiFi I reckon it shouldn't sound awful either. Theres people on these forums who would claim that ATRAC 132kps/64kps is as good as a CD. So you have to take a pinch salt with most comments re SQ on this forum.

In that case theres a problem somewhere, iPod, MP3's or something is faulty. When you are not using the EQ and are using high quality encodings (Lame etc) through the line out the general opinion on Head-Fi is that the iPod should have great sound, if anything its sounds bass deficient because its so neutral. The iPod has a volume limiter which I assume you've unlocked? and the EQ on 4G and older causes distortion, so you don't use it. I suspect your a bit of a basshead though.

Try using lossless and the line out on the iPod.

How so? Can I finally use Filetree?

Maybe I'm missing something Would * the cutoff of the unit's ADC * the limits of the unit's input preamp Not effect PCM recording the same as ATRAC?

Actually I don't get it. I think you are saying the cut off is there. So that there should be little variance between recordings made on different portable units. That there is a cutoff at all is because of something on the units themselves. However I'm just surprised that there would be a cutoff at all, if there isn't for PCM on a portable. Whats so different about a HiMP in HiSP mode vs PCM?

But if you record in PCM on the portable, then encode to HiSP in SS you will not have this - 19.5 kHz with your HiSP files.

"base-level/standard" Yahwhoozywhatsit? :~

No audiophile disclaimer here too I dunno. Personally think SP sounds a little bit better than HiSP on the units (MD/HiMD portables) I have. HiSP still sounds good though, its almost as good as SP. The real advantage is that HiSP is so much easier to manage in terms of encoding and getting tracks on and off HiSP. Perhaps HiSP is also much smaller than SP. I can't remember. However as has been discussed before, how you encode (portable/SonicStage/Deck) seems to as much a factor as which codec you use.

Why does the compromise only exist on the HiMD unit?

That may have been the intention. But I think if you ignore the time line and read from bottom to top you'll be closer to the reality than the marketing. Basically (SP292) is still better than (HiSP256). It would be on a par with a Lame 320kps MP3. OK it doesn't make sense for the lower bitrates, but who cares about the lower bitrates.

HiSP - 19.5 kHz on the HiMD unit is not good

Very interesting info. I think it just confirms what we already know that MD/HiMD use is shrinking.

You reading it wrong. Sound Quality is better as you go from bottom to the top. Not from left to right. So in that Chart not even HiSP is better then SP. Which is correct. I'm no audiophile either, but I generally encode all mystuff in HiSP. I think SP and 352kps sound better, but HiSP is much easier to manage. To me the lower bitrates LP2, HiLP don't sound good at all.

For me the faster upload/download of the RH1 alone is worth the extra. However while I have a MZ-NH 700 I got cheap 2nd hand, I still don't these units are good value, even with the Mic.

Its not an editor ir just adjust the gain on MP3's to make them all the same, or louder/quieter. Its only for MP3's obviously. You run it across all your MP3's so that the volume doesn't jump up and down.

If its going to be MP3 I would say MP3Gain.

What does that mean?

Any battery savings gained by the HD-Amp are going to be negated by the screen etc. From what I've read. I don't think it has any SQ effect. Though I've not compared HD-Amp first hand.

Not good enough IMO to justify buying the unit.

As a collectable is the only thing that makes sense. Its IS a poor quality camera. Quality is determined by lense and CCD quality. Mega pixels only dictate the maximum size of photo you can take.

aah, so does mine! Doh!