Successor to the Fuze: Clip Zip?

MP3 players Sansa Fuze
1

Well, this is interesting. A new Sansa toy, the Clip Zip

http://forums.sandisk.com/t5/Clip-Zip/SANDISK-INTRODUCES-SANSA-CLIP-ZIP-MP3-PLAYER/td-p/242594

With these features:

  • microSDHC  card slot  lets consumers instantly expand the player’s storage capacity-up to 32 additional gigabytes2 (a maximum of 8,0003 songs total between the internal and external memory).
  • Easy compatibility  with all major music, audio book and podcast formats, including MP3, WMA, WAV, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, AAC and Audible files.

Yes, AAC is in there. And according to the user manual, it does gapless too.

Physical controls, not touchscreen. Looks like the Fuze in a matchbook size. The crucial question, of course, is sound quality. Personally, I didn’t like the Clip + sound quality. Let’s see what the reviews say.

2

@black_rectangle wrote:
Personally, I didn’t like the Clip + sound quality.

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showpost.php?s=a9f201f9ee9c1425e4815c46d589909c&p=469501&postcount=34.

3

@black_rectangle wrote:

Well, this is interesting. A new Sansa toy, the Clip Zip

 

http://forums.sandisk.com/t5/Clip-Zip/SANDISK-INTRODUCES-SANSA-CLIP-ZIP-MP3-PLAYER/td-p/242594

 

With these features:

 

  • microSDHC  card slot  lets consumers instantly expand the player’s storage capacity-up to 32 additional gigabytes2 (a maximum of 8,0003 songs total between the internal and external memory).
  • Easy compatibility  with all major music, audio book and podcast formats, including MP3, WMA, WAV, FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, AAC and Audible files.

Yes, AAC is in there. And according to the user manual, it does gapless too.

 

Physical controls, not touchscreen. Looks like the Fuze in a matchbook size. The crucial question, of course, is sound quality. Personally, I didn’t like the Clip + sound quality. Let’s see what the reviews say.

The successor to the Fuze was the Fuze+, albeit a flawed successor.

I am curious what you didn’t like about the Clip+ sound though, given that it runs off the same sound chip as the Fuze did. I do remember that the custom EQ was slightly improved from Fuze –>Clip+, from when I had both. The one on the Zip works pretty well,  although it’s not Rockbox-grade.

Basically, the only thing the Fuze has over the Clip Zip is battery life. The three players I am using the most these days are the Clip+ w/Rockbox, the Clip Zip, and my Touch 4G.  I’ve been doing a lot of testing with the Zip, and thankfully am almost done with that…and listening to the C+  as always on-the-go.   I use the Touch for podcasts, gaming and apps (and music if the Clips aren’t nearby) , mostly at home.

I can get great sound out of any one of the three players, but the C+ and Touch have more customizable sound than the Zip if needed. The Touch does have a little bit higher output power though, which is nice when driving speakers.

Actually, I couldn’t really say that any one of my six players sound noticeably better than the rest…they really all sound very, very good. The Cowons are trickier to use if you want/need  to tweak your sound…all kinds of stuff to play with, but it’s easy to get sucked in by the enhancements and end up with an artificial sound.

Anyways, B-R, to get back to your original question, before the firmware upgrade yesterday,  I was of the opinion that out of the Sansas I’ve had, assuming original SanDisk firmware only, then the Zip is tops, by a very small margin, and assuming no EQ is being used, I rate it as equal to the Rockboxed Clip+ . Since the upgrade, I’ve been running battery life tests, so I haven’t gone back for serious back-to-back testing…but hopefully the update didn’t change the sound.

4

Most who don’t like the Clip+ sound quality are either using low quality sound files(low bitrate? yes, 128 kbps mp3 files don’t sound so good) , are mucking up the sound using the equilizer, or are using the player with the cheap included earphones. There are enough people who find the sound good enough with the included earphones, however I suggest that they be replaced with something better.

5

@black_rectangle wrote:

Personally, I didn’t like the Clip + sound quality. Let’s see what the reviews say.

Just goes to show how different people hear differently, and how all those “What head/earphones are best?” threads are completely worthless.

Myself, I find the Clip+'s sound quality to be excellent, and sounds the best (to me) using no EQ at all.

Conversely, to get the same enjoyment from the Clip Zip (using the same earphones and files), I find I have to use the EQ to ‘color’ things a bit.

6

Tapeworm, please elaborate on the sound differences between the Clip+ and Clip Zip.

7

I wouldn’t read too much into my comments. As I said, everyone hears things a bit differently.

The Zip just sounds a little flat to me with no EQ added. I found I have to boost the Bass & Treble just a tad to get the same sound I seem to hear with the Clip+ with EQ set to Normal.

I haven’t done a lot of experimentation, and so can’t describe it in more detail. Heck, it might even have been the fact that when I discovered this, I was at approx. 5000 ft elevation. I haven’t had the chance to compare extensively since I’m back home at sea level.

8

@tapeworm wrote:

I wouldn’t read too much into my comments. As I said, everyone hears things a bit differently.

 

The Zip just sounds a little flat to me with no EQ added. I found I have to boost the Bass & Treble just a tad to get the same sound I seem to hear with the Clip+ with EQ set to Normal.

 

I haven’t done a lot of experimentation, and so can’t describe it in more detail. Heck, it might even have been the fact that when I discovered this, I was at approx. 5000 ft elevation. I haven’t had the chance to compare extensively since I’m back home at sea level.

 

PM sent.:wink:

9

I, too, have read that the Clip + had the same chip as the Fuze. However, I think it has less power to the headphone jack, and that made a clear difference to me. I really wanted to like the Clip+ . I just couldn’t.

I A-B compared (not X, sorry) the same files at the same volume from the Clip +, and the difference was obvious even when I wasn’t aware of which I was listening to. Yes, flat was the word. The Fuze had a richer, better soundstage.

I only use high-bitrate mp3s (192 minimum, usually 256 or 320 or alt-present-insane). I don’t use EQ–I like to hear what the musicians wanted, not some one-size-fits-none exaggeration.

And I’m using good phones:  Shure IEMs, SE 310 or SE 510, or Grado SR 125. Maybe I should add a headphone amp, but that completely defeats the purpose of an itty-bitty player. It’s OK, my v1 Fuze is hanging in there. 

10

@jk98 wrote:

128 kbps mp3 files don’t sound so good

A different point of view:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles#Portable:_background_noise_and_low_bitrate_requirement.2C_small_sizes.

11

@contrapuntal wrote:

@jk98 wrote:

128 kbps mp3 files don’t sound so good

A different point of view:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles#Portable:_background_noise_and_low_bitrate_requirement.2C_small_sizes.

“Acceptable” to some is not acceptable to others. Personally, I don’t like 128kbps (for music files) either.

12

@tapeworm wrote:

@contrapuntal wrote:

@jk98 wrote:

128 kbps mp3 files don’t sound so good

A different point of view:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame_Compiles#Portable:_background_noise_and_low_bitrate_requirement.2C_small_sizes.

“Acceptable” to some is not acceptable to others. Personally, I don’t like 128kbps (for music files) either.

Acceptable as in how easy or how difficult it is to detect compression artefacts using ABXing software after encoding with a high-quality encoder like LAME 3.98.4.

13

Listen to a decently recorded drum kit or a real orchestra in 128kbps. NOT acceptable.

14

@black_rectangle wrote:

Listen to a decently recorded drum kit or a real orchestra in 128kbps. NOT acceptable.

Are you perhaps suggesting that it is very easy to hear compression artefacts at 128 kbps?  Because the following public listening test seems to suggest that the compression artefacts at 128 kbps are very subtle.

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mp3-128-1/results.htm:

“The quality at 128 kbps is very good and MP3 encoders improved a lot since the last test.”

15

128 kbps still does not, IMHO, capture the richness of natural instruments.

Maybe it’s OK for largely electronic music that’s produced for earbud users and car stereos, but it is just not good enough for sounds with any timbral depth. Hydrogen Audio is not saying it’s wonderful–they’re saying if you’re stuck with it, it’s better than it used to be. .

The test–from 2008–is a comparison between various codecs all at 128 kbps. It does not compare 128 kbps to higher bitrates. The author’s opinion, having nothing to do with the test results (since 128 kbps is not compared to anything else) is “very good.”   Me, I want excellent.  Music deserves it.

16

@black_rectangle wrote:

“128 kbps still does not, IMHO, capture the richness of natural instruments.”

It is not about capturing the richness of natural instruments.  It is about detecting compression artefacts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact#Audio.

“Maybe it’s OK for largely electronic music that’s produced for earbud users and car stereos, but it is just not good enough for sounds with any timbral depth.”

This theory is easy to test.

“Hydrogen Audio is not saying it’s wonderful–they’re saying if you’re stuck with it, it’s better than it used to be.”

They are saying that the compression artefacts are tolerable for portable use—listening while there is some background noise and a requirement for small file sizes.

“The test–from 2008–is a comparison between various codecs all at 128 kbps. It does not compare 128 kbps to higher bitrates.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec_listening_test#ABC.2FHR_test:

“In an ABC/HR test, C is the original which is always available for reference.”

'The author’s opinion, having nothing to do with the test results (since 128 kbps is not compared to anything else) is “very good.”’

Which is the point that I wanted to make:  a bit rate of 128 kbps can have an acceptable amount of compression artefacts—very few.

“Me, I want excellent.  Music deserves it.”

Music does deserve it.  But 128 kbps does not necessarily mean bad sound quality.

17

Flash memory is so cheap now. It doesn’t make sense to use a low bitrate. It made sense to use 128 kbps 11 years ago, when 64 meg of flash memory was $200. Now one can buy a 32GB card for under $50. 500 times as much memory for 1/4 of the price(not even adjusting for inflation!) So now flash memory is around $1.50 per GB, and it was $3,200 a GB back then!

18

@jk98 wrote:

Flash memory is so cheap now. It doesn’t make sense to use a low bitrate. It made sense to use 128 kbps 11 years ago, when 64 meg of flash memory was $200. Now one can buy a 32GB card for under $50. 500 times as much memory for 1/4 of the price(not even adjusting for inflation!) So now flash memory is around $1.50 per GB, and it was $3,200 a GB back then!

 Well, all my encodes are at -V3 and -V0.  I am only saying that should someone chooses -V5, it is not like they are going to immediately soil their underwear and need a defibrillator because of the huge amounts of compression artefacts.

19

@contrapuntal wrote:

 Well, all my encodes are at -V3 and -V0.  I am only saying that should someone chooses -V5, it is not like they are going to immediately soil their underwear and need a defibrillator because of the huge amounts of compression artefacts.

Let’s be realistic here…many of the people in this forum have done their encoding with either the Windows Media Player encoder or the iTunes encoder…and both are inferior to LAME. So in that circumstance, the lower bitrates may be more suspect.

I personally use either V2 or V0 for my portable use, but that’s after a few years of really learning a lot about the whole process.  When I first bought a player (my first was a Fuze, right after they came out) I used WMP too. Later on, I went back and re-ripped everything, but I could have saved a ton of time if I’d known better from the start. 

20

So your standard is whether or not there are glaringly obvious compression artifacts?  That’s a mighty low standard. 

You lose something with 128 kbps. Frequency range is restricted. Complex overtones are left out.  Spatial effects flatten out.

If all you care is that it doesn’t sound awful–that cymbals don’t squelch as they do at lower bitrates–then OK, it’s “very good.” By 2008 standards. What a triumph.

But you are just not getting the music as it was supposed to sound. Play the music with a better bitrate, or lossless, and the difference from 128 is obvious. The original post was about sound quality. I wouldn’t judge sound quality from 128 kbps.

Hydrogen Audio is saying very clearly that IF you are listening to your music over background noise, 128 kbps can be adequate. Meanwhile,  folks who are listening through stock earbuds are losing more from the cheapo earbuds than they are from the compression.

But I listen through IEMs that block a lot of background noise and reproduce the file with some accuracy.  Why would I want to get a high-quality playback of a file that is at best passable, when I have enough GB to have higher fidelity?

128 belongs in the era of dial-up internet and memory measured in MB. It’s over.