Which Music Player has the best quality?


Recommended Posts

CD has the best quality, but if you encode your Mp3s yourself, you can encode them at CD quality. Minidiscs uses a custom compression format that isn't very good.

For players, I have heard that the iRiver mp3 players have superb sound, but iPods are the most popular. I've also heard great things about the Creative Zen Micro. Do some research by googling them to see which one you would like.

I love my MP3 CD Player, it never skips either, its a Panasonic and has anti-skip on it. Bateery life is good too and I know this isn't as much as a Hard Drive based player but it stores usually 120 mp3's ;)

oh so the db's tell how good the sound is?  the higher the better?

585282712[/snapback]

It's a large part of the picture. The higher the sound to noise ratio, the less "impurities" you'll get that are due to the hardware putting out the sound.

Yeahhh in terms of dB, Creative takes the cake... most of their products are at 98dB... iRiver is apparently 80dB, though it sure as hell sounds a lot better than that. And iPod is said to be in the 70s.

585283178[/snapback]

iriver is 90 and ipod is 86 or 89, I believe.

The difference in Signal to Noise ratio isn't great enough between any of the MP3 players to make a noticable difference when using cheap headphones.

Buy a pair of Sony MDR-EX71LP for $35 (link) to complement which ever MP3 player you purchase, and you will hear a noticable improvement in audio quality.

If you have the money, get the Shure E2c setup instead for $65 (link)

Edited by digistil

You can't just use signal to noise ratio measure the sound quality of DAPs. It is a part of it, but there are still many other factors to consider.

Also, you might like the way a player sounds, even though others hate it. From my own experience, Creative (Zen Touch) is the most "fun", the iRiver (H120, H320) is up there, but still lags behind the Creative, while the iPod is just... flat. My advice is, try out different players before you choose one. What sounds good to others might not sound good to you (except the iPod, it sounds worse than my two year old P.O.S. Samsung DAP, so avoid it if audio quality is top priority).

If you encode at 192kbit, it's almost the same as CD quality, and with some players, you have the option to encode to lossless formats as well.

Like digistil mentioned, if you quality is important to you, buy a good earbud/headphone (Sony EX71, Sharp MD33) as well. Stock earbuds sound like crap, no matter if it's used on a Zen or iPod.

I read the Creative has reported S to N ratio of 96!

I also read the iRiver H1xx/H3xx (and presumably the new H10) is around 92, followed by the undisclosed figure of the iPod, expected to be in the 80s.

I can notice a difference between the iRiver and iPod, and both of them versus the low-end Aiwa HDD players.

I'd also have to agree that quality headphone are a big part of it.

Sony's newest in-ear buds supposedly have very high quality and put out really good bass. Using them with any mp3 player will help.

But yeah, as far as SNR goes, Creative > iRiver > iPod

Not necessarily. Listen to me, try it before you buy it!!!

Just because a bunch of people on Neowin tells you it sounds good doesn't mean that you'll like the way it sounds.

From what I've seen, most people love the sound quality of Creative's DAPs. Take it for what it's worth.

I have a little different opinion about this topic. I have people ask me all the time about it because they know I love technology. I like having a pda (I have a hp ipaq 1945 with a 1gb sd card) because I can not only hold tons of music, but I also get all the other functionality that comes with having a computer with me all the time. I can carry tons of pictures, even videos with me. So, I know its not what you asked, but I just like it better having a computer with me always to play my mp3's and everything else. What do yall think?

I have a Creative Nomad Jukebox 3 and the sound quality is awsome on it (though it doesnt go too loud, which im sure is not the case with neweer products from creative now) but I havent not yet compared the sound directly between the jukebox and my new iriver... I can easily say though, iriver is a lot louder.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!