Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Ordered list of Rockbox-supported devices' sound quality?
Fernando Negro:
--- Quote from: saratoga on September 03, 2016, 07:38:08 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Fernando Negro on September 03, 2016, 09:23:38 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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]:
--- Quote from: Fernando Negro on September 03, 2016, 09:47:36 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Fernando Negro on September 03, 2016, 09:47:36 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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: 96.793.6THD, %:0.0400.037IMD, %:0.0410.041
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 ClipZipDynamic range, dBA: 95.095.0THD, %:0.0140.0037IMD, %:0.0180.0065
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...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version