Ordered list of Rockbox-supported devices' sound quality?

[Fernando Negro]

Hello everyone.

I'm in the middle of a process of selling, refurbishing and buying some smartphones and MP3 players. And, so that I could possibly better decide what devices to sell and what to buy, I was wondering if someone here could tell me something about which Rockbox-supported devices have the better sound quality...

Does anyone here know of some sort of list, that sorts Rockbox-supported devices according to sound quality?

I'm asking this because, from my experience, there are clearly - some, at least - devices in which the difference in sound quality is very noticeable - and is not subjective... For example, having I tested 3 different devices which are capable of running Rockbox, I could clearly notice that: my Sansa Clip Zip has a better sound quality than my Creative Zen, which in turn has a better sound quality than my iPod Classic 6G. (And so, at least for these 3 devices, tested by me, I can clearly already make a sort of small list related to sound quality.)

Also, one other thing that I'm very curious about, is if there are any MP3 players that have a better (or equivalent) sound quality than a smartphone with a Wolfson DAC, like my Nexus S. With the reason for me asking this being, to know if it's worth - for someone who's interested in a very good sound quality - to buy some Rockbox-supported device, or to just buy a smartphone with a Wolfson/"hi-fi" or equivalent DAC, and use the latter just as a music player...

[saratoga]

I'm asking this because, from my experience, there are clearly - some, at least - devices in which the difference in sound quality is very noticeable - and is not subjective... For example, having I tested 3 different devices which are capable of running Rockbox, I could clearly notice that: my Sansa Clip Zip has a better sound quality than my Creative Zen, which in turn has a better sound quality than my iPod Classic 6G. (And so, at least for these 3 devices, tested by me, I can clearly already make a sort of small list related to sound quality.)

I'd say your listing is pretty subjective since its really hard to evaluate mp3 players by ear.  Most are good enough that the differences are small compared to just variations in volume level, etc.  If you just rank them by how accurate the output is, the iPod 6G is probably the best device, followed closely by the Clip+/Zip/v1/Fuze/Fuzev2.  Many of the older devices (older iPods, Sansas, etc) would be a step down from there.  I'm not sure that anyone has ever looked at some of the more obscure devices like the Zen.  Some of the unofficial ports like the Xudoo X3 and iBasso also likely have outstanding output as they're basically made for that.

Also, one other thing that I'm very curious about, is if there are any MP3 players that have a better (or equivalent) sound quality than a smartphone with a Wolfson DAC, like my Nexus S. With the reason for me asking this being, to know if it's worth - for someone who's interested in a very good sound quality - to buy some Rockbox-supported device, or to just buy a smartphone with a Wolfson/"hi-fi" or equivalent DAC, and use the latter just as a music player...

"Wolfson DAC" covers literally hundreds of different products, some of which are very good, some of which are quite bad.  Regarding the Nexus S, looking out the results here:

http://www.gsmarena.com/google_nexus_s-review-565p5.php
http://en.goldenears.net/9391

It looks like a very average device for that era.  Probably any modern smartphone would at least match that. 

[Fernando Negro]

I'd say your listing is pretty subjective since its really hard to evaluate mp3 players by ear.  Most are good enough that the differences are small compared to just variations in volume level, etc.  If you just rank them by how accurate the output is, the iPod 6G is probably the best device, followed closely by the Clip+/Zip/v1/Fuze/Fuzev2.

Well, I would say that the difference in sound quality is pretty clear. And, to be more specific - from what I remember, when making my tests - when I talk about sound quality, I'm talking about (pardon my ignorant terms) sound "clarity" - that is, the richness in detail in sounds, for the same music.

Using the same headphones, I found the sound quality of my iPod 6G pretty bad, when compared with the Sansa devices, for example. So, it's either a clear difference, or the sound quality can be altered (for better or worse) depending on the headphones used, and I can possibly get different results(?) with other headphones(?)...

I'm not sure that anyone has ever looked at some of the more obscure devices like the Zen.

The Creative Zen player is still being tested with Rockbox ("unusable ports"). And so, I made my tests without Rockbox installed in it - since that, I assume that Rockbox will not make the sound quality worse.

[saratoga]

I'd say your listing is pretty subjective since its really hard to evaluate mp3 players by ear.  Most are good enough that the differences are small compared to just variations in volume level, etc.  If you just rank them by how accurate the output is, the iPod 6G is probably the best device, followed closely by the Clip+/Zip/v1/Fuze/Fuzev2.

Well, I would say that the difference in sound quality is pretty clear. And, to be more specific - from what I remember, when making my tests - when I talk about sound quality, I'm talking about (pardon my ignorant terms) sound "clarity" - that is, the richness in detail in sounds, for the same music.

You probably don't want to hear this, but usually that is just because you didn't match the volume very well. 

[Fernando Negro]

You probably don't want to hear this, but usually that is just because you didn't match the volume very well.

I don't think so - since that, whenever I make tests, I usually do them in an intelligent way... But, I can try doing it again - once I have the time to - and to pay particular attention to that component, and I'll leave here some feedback, in case I get different results. But anyway, thanks for the possible tip.

[saratoga]

You probably don't want to hear this, but usually that is just because you didn't match the volume very well.

I don't think so

FWIW, if you had properly volume matched well enough to test devices that have differences maybe 50 dB below peak, your reply would have been a discussion of the steps you went through.  A simple "I don't think so" means that you aren't doing it right.

But, I can try doing it again - once I have the time to -

This is actually really hard to do.  I wouldn't bother unless you're going to devout enough time and research to do it correctly.  And if you aren't willing to do that, just look up the performance of each of the devices and buy the one with the best output.  It may be overkill, but at least you know its as good as you could get.

[Fernando Negro]

OK. Thank you for that warning and correction.

I recognize my ignorance in such matters. I only made an amateur test, with no professional equipments and/or specific knowledge. And, after reading what you wrote, I guess that there's no much point in me coming here telling people which devices have a better sound quality then.

So, what I should look for - in terms of sound quality - is for "how accurate the output" is, in reviews that I can find on the Internet?

[wodz]

If you have good quality soundcard in your PC you could RMMA test devices (which is not THAT obvious anyway - hint loaded/unloaded test) and get semi-objective data.

[saratoga]

So, what I should look for - in terms of sound quality - is for "how accurate the output" is, in reviews that I can find on the Internet?

I usually just look that it can get close to 16 bit dynamic range into 16 ohms (since most of my music is from CD) and that a device has a relatively low output impedance (no more than a few ohms) so that I can be reasonably sure it will work well with whatever headphones I might buy in the future.  There are other more subtle problems you occasionally see, but those are the most common in portable devices.

[Fernando Negro]

If you have good quality soundcard in your PC you could RMMA test devices (which is not THAT obvious anyway - hint loaded/unloaded test) and get semi-objective data.

Hello, wodz.

Thank you for that suggestion/tip. But, unfortunately that is quite a bit beyond my specific knowledge about sound quality. I do happen to have a good sound card with a Wolfson DAC, but I don't even know what "RMMA" means - and, I don't think that it would be a good idea for a novice like me to do any sort of serious or semi-professional(?) testing of that nature, since that, I don't know how truly accurate the results would be, and I wouldn't be able to completely interpret, or give true importance to, the results. I will just look for more information on the Internet, then, about people who have made that kind of tests with Rockbox-supported devices, and I'll read what do they have to say afterwards, when it comes to interpreting/translating the importance of the results. But, thanks again and anyway for your suggestion.

[Fernando Negro]

I usually just look that it can get close to 16 bit dynamic range into 16 ohms (since most of my music is from CD) and that a device has a relatively low output impedance (no more than a few ohms) so that I can be reasonably sure it will work well with whatever headphones I might buy in the future.  There are other more subtle problems you occasionally see, but those are the most common in portable devices.

Ah. Thank you very much for your tips, saratoga.

Je, I really have a lot of reading to do. Since that, I don't even know the meaning of some of the terms that you use.

It's good to know how ignorant I was about this subject. Since that, now I know of more characteristics I should look for, and that can help me make much better choices.

Thank you very much, again, for your information.


And, to everyone involved in this Rockbox project,

Thank you so much for, not only a great (spectacular, in my opinion) piece of firmware, but also for all the "professionalism" (or, profound specific knowledge) involved in making it.

It's great to see that, not only are you able to write one of the most spectacular pieces of software I've ever used, in terms of interface, but also that you have people who really know what they're doing, when it comes to operating with audio devices and paying (close) attention to their sound quality.

Even though I have in my possession a smartphone with a "hi-fi" DAC, I fell so much in love with this firmware, that I will keep one more device capable of running Rockbox than I need to, just for the pleasure of using this firmware.

Thank you so much for such a great piece of software.

[Fernando Negro]

Even though I have in my possession a smartphone with a "hi-fi" DAC, I fell so much in love with this firmware, that I will keep one more device capable of running Rockbox than I need to, just for the pleasure of using this firmware.

And, speaking of this - and, also returning to the last question I asked in my first post...

From the limited knowledge that I have, I think that I can safely say that, when it comes to comparing (relatively) cheap MP3 players to smartphones with "hi-fi" DACs, we are talking about two different leagues - and, that the latter DACs alone create a far superior sound quality. But, one of the things that I've learned, is that, besides the iPod models, there are also other more expensive MP3 (/other codecs, music) players that appear to have DACs as good as some good smartphones have - namely the "Cowon" ones.

So, what I would (again, and more specifically) like to ask, is:

Apart from the iPod models, are there any Rockbox-supported devices that produce a sound as good as the one that comes from smartphones with "hi-fi" (Wolfson, and the likes) DACs?

[[Saint]]

Apart from the iPod models, are there any Rockbox-supported devices that produce a sound as good as the one that comes from smartphones with "hi-fi" (Wolfson, and the likes) DACs?

In short, no.

For a slightly longer explanation, the problem with this question is the issue of subjectivity, primarily. What sounds good for you, may well sound terrible to me. The fact that your basis for comparison of quality is simply "smartphones" leads me to believe that you and I would disagree on fundamental levels about perceived "quality" of the audio output.

I am going to be significantly less delicate with you than the responses you have been given in this thread previously. You start this thread by insisting that your claims are not subjective, and then immediately supply very subjective "results" based on completely informal testing.

Many smart phone OEMs shape their audio output and colour it artificially, in some poorly thought out effort to better suit their internal speakers or OEM supplied monitors. To me, such behavior is plainly unacceptable. What I perceive as "quality", is output that is as faithful as possible to the original input signal, not some indefinable metrics or a list of silly adjectives that "audiophiles" like to apply to their reviews of media devices. Like "clarity", "sound stage", "warmth", "depth" and other laughable useless comparisons.

It seems like you're not satisfied with the educated answers from professionals given below, and want to discard those (perfectly correct) answers until you get one which aligns with your own rather biased belief set and uneducated assumptions made against what you freely admit is a very limited knowledge of this arena.

You don't want answers, you've been given very appropriate answers and you rejected or waved them off as too technical. You just want someone to agree with you or to say something that aligns with what you already believe to be true, and that is something that no one can help you with.


[Saint]

[Mihail Zenkov]

Apart from the iPod models, are there any Rockbox-supported devices that produce a sound as good as the one that comes from smartphones with "hi-fi" (Wolfson, and the likes) DACs?

As saratoga already mention -  smartphones with "hi-fi" can be just marketing and have cheap DAC (Wolfson also have many cheap DAC).
Just compare:

	Nexus S with load 62 om	Clip Zip with load 22 om (rockbox)
Dynamic range, dBA:	96.7	93.6
THD, %:	0.040	0.037
IMD, %:	0.041	0.041

Result mostly same, but Clip Zip loaded with 22 om, so it work much harder and output more power (3 times). So roughly we can say: Clip Zip have ~3 times better output than Nexus S.



No load

	Nexus S	ClipZip
Dynamic range, dBA:	95.0	95.0
THD, %:	0.014	0.0037
IMD, %:	0.018	0.0065

Again with same condition (no load) Clip Zip have ~3 times lower distortion than Nexus S.

[Fernando Negro]

Hello, Saint.

Concerning the "subjectiveness" of my testing results,

What happens is that, as I said/realized/admitted, I'm quite an ignorant person when I comes to this subject of analysing sound quality. And therefore, I probably cannot express myself correctly when describing why does one device sound better than the other, and was not aware of how subjective my impressions (or "test results") were.

(It's like going to two different restaurants, and eating a very good dish at one of the restaurants and an equivalent very bad dish at the other. Not being a cook or someone who knows how to cook decently, I cannot tell in which ingredients the same dish differs from one restaurant to another - starting with the fact that I cannot even identify some of those ingredients used. It's just that the dish at the more expensive restaurant tasted better than the same dish at the cheap restaurant.)

I was not aware of the amount of different characteristics that one should look for, when evaluating sound quality. But, now that I know some more, I will have to inform myself about them, for better future evaluations.

Concerning my reaction to the posted answers,

I did not reject, or was unsatisfied with, any answers. I only reacted like any other ignorant person would react, by saying that I don't even know (yet) the meaning of some of the terms used. And, therefore, I cannot even approve or reject what is being said to me. (Like I said, I will then have to inform myself about the mentioned characteristics.) I don't have any psychological problems or barriers, like wanting to believe in something. I'm what's called a "free thinker" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought - who just seeks the truth, wherever it may lead to. (That's what I'm looking for.) And, that applies even when I try to psychoanalyse myself.

Concerning your longer explanation,

Thank you very much for that information. I was not aware that some manufacturers altered the sound output of their devices, in order for the sound to be artificial and less faithful.

Indeed, I really have a lot to learn, before even starting to be somewhat capable of evaluating sound quality...