01-24-2010 11:42 AM - edited 01-24-2010 09:07 PM
Ok, I must confess, I have read many posts here (I see that, finally, you all are always the same guys answering, congratulations), ABI, Head-Fi... And a few reviews.
Anyway, I still would like to understand (maybe you already told me, but please repeat). Also, please, answer about your direct first person knowledge of the devices... I need real comparison, I don´t care about nominal superiority of the new processor. I do not need a "this is better" but a explication of the differences. So I can decide in the shop, according on the preice I will get. IE, in this moment a Clip+ 4Gb would costs me 10US$ more than a Fuze 8gb (no idea if V1 or 2), and a Clip+8gb would costs 27US$ more... Tomorrow I will check availibility and prices of other shops.
0) I own, actually, just a pair of economic Phillips SHS8000 IEM, 16ohms, 102db, 6-23.500 hz, 50mW. I have read that they are considered very good for the price. But I tell you, to let you know which IEM I will use. No Shure or luxury ones. For now.
1) what REALLY changes in SQ between Clip+, Faze V1, and Faze V2 (and how do I know, when I am to buy a Faze, if it is V1 or 2)?
2) THis "warmer sound" of Clip+, is something good or it is just a polite way to say that it lacks of highs and basses and it is not crispy and transparent? I believe that JK said Clip was too bright, CLip+ not enough bright, Fuze is the best. Is it right? I do not like metallic sound or eq where high and bass are so exagerated that vocals sound terribly. But I do like crispy highs, and good, present, basses, and a definite transparent clear and deep sound (yes, I shuld get better IEM, but let´s start from player).
3) I am a hard shuffler. I quite never look for a specific song or listen to an entire album. I generally shuffle all my music, all genres, to be surprised. I have read somewhere that Clip had better shuffle functionthan Fuze. What about CLip+? My generic MP4 pick up the same songs all the time!!!
4) concretely, for those who owned E200v1 and now own Fuze and/or Clip+: how does the E200v1 with Rockbox sound compared to CLip+ and Fuze?
Message Edited by San_Discolo on 01-24-2010 09:07 PM
01-25-2010 07:33 AM
The biggest difference you will hear will be between the later devices and the e270 (v1), since it is running with a completely different processor.
The earlier v1 e200 devices sound pretty decent, though most folks can readily pick up on the differences when they step over to the newer players. The functions of Rockbox are quite popular with v1 users, as saratoga can attest, and enhancements continue, even for the later Sansas.
As to the reported differences in sound quality with the various current models, these differences are indeed subjective, and more subtle. The new devices are pretty close in sound quality, with the largest differences being overall features (size / controls / battery life).
01-25-2010 07:52 AM
I have owned, and used for a long time, E260v1 and a Fuzev1, and I bought a Clip+ because of the good reviews.
I sent the Clip+ back. It simply does not sound as good as the Fuze. I really wanted to like it, but my ears kept telling me otherwise.
Frankly I don't think it sounds any better than the E260v1, possibly worse.
It has an audible peak in the midrange--to make vocals pop out--and it has a narrower soundstage, which is to say that the music just sounds more three-dimensional and natural on the Fuze.
I carry the Fuze around in a shirt or jacket pocket all the time. I take it to the gym. It's not fragile.
Obviously you can't put it in a back pocket where you'd sit on it. You might--just might--be able to do that with a Clip+. I don't think that's worth the decrease in sound quality or battery life.
01-25-2010 10:46 AM
The Fuze has a higher power output than the Clip+. This will make the Fuze sound better than the Clip+, especially if you are using less efficient headphones. The Clip is brighter sounding than the Clip+, with the Fuze being between the two. The differences are small though. Imo the Clip was a bit too bright though, with the Fuze being the best balanced of the three. It is important to use headphones 32 ohms or under to get decent sound from the Clip, Clip+, or Fuze, with efficient 16 ohm earphones being the best choice(the lowest impedance headphones I have seen is the 24 ohm Sony V900HD9(7509HD). Anyone here know of a 16 ohm circumaural headphones?
01-25-2010 11:27 AM
This is simply not true:
I've seen you say this before:
And I (and others) told you it was stupid then. Its arguably more stupid now that you know its wrong.
I realize you want to help, but if you're less informed then the person asking questions, its probably better that you not try to give advice. Making up answers isn't helpful.
01-25-2010 01:31 PM
"JK98 wrote: The Clip is brighter sounding than the Clip+, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is simply not true: http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Comparisons/Sansa%20Clip%20vs.%20Clip+%20(No%20Loads,%2016%20Ohm%20Loads).htm "
Did you read the review of the Clip+ on Amythingbutipod.com? I am not the only one who feels that the Clip+ sounds different than the Clip.
As for the Clip+ and Fuze not properly powering headphones over 32 ohms, that is what I observed using the headphones I own. The Fuze and clip+ don't work that well with the Sony V6 Sennheiser HD545, Koss A200 and Portapro. I have heard much better sound using those headphones connected to other more powerful sounces. On the Fuze and Clip+ I need to have the volume set at maximum or close to it, and sometimes there isn't enough volume. While higher impedance headphones might be okay with the Fuze and Clip+ using a supplemental headphone amp, most people don't want to have to use one.
Perhaps you will tell me that it was just my imagination that I often didn't get enough volume with these headphones?
01-25-2010 01:33 PM
Its not an off day when its everyday and its not being mistaken when you have no idea what you're talking about.
01-25-2010 01:58 PM
I didn't say you're the only one whos wrong about this. Just that you should know better since you've had it quite patiently explained to you how these things work in the past. You have no excuse for being so clueless.
If you've got a real difference, post the RMAA results. Because the tests I linked show no difference! If you've got one at 32 ohms it should be very easy to show.
Look I'll even go again. Heres another set of tests:
Note that the low impedance headphones all work worse then high impedance. If you've got so many pairs of headphones where this isn't the case, please test them and share with the community.
Of course you won't do this because you realize you're wrong already and are just trying to save face.
You've confusing impedance with sensitivity. With lower sensitivity headphones, you might need an amp. With lower sensitivity headphones you might need to turn the volume up more. Going from 16 ohm to 32 ohm drops the volume 3dB. Thats nothing! The threshold of detectability is usually around 1 dB for most people. But that doesn't mean lower impedance works better. It doesn't as I've shown above. It just means that if you get headphones that need an amp, you might need to get an amp. But you can still easily drive higher impedance headphones provided you pick ones with suitable sensitivity such that an amp isn't needed. And in fact doing so will give you slightly better performance then going with very low impedance headphones.
But really, this brings us back to my original point: you don't even know what impedance is, so why are you giving advice about it?
Honestly, given the other things you've said, I wouldn't be surprised if its because you haven't found the volume knob.