Sony targets Apple iPod with Sony NW-HD5 Walkman player
April 10th, 2005 Leave a comment Visited 337 times, 1 so far today
Sony targets Apple iPod with Sony NW-HD5 Walkman player
The search for the ultimate Apple iPod killer continues. While the likes of Creative and Samsung somewhat slowed down, it is the entertainment industry giant Sony to take the center stage. They have been targeting Apple since quite sometime now. Having confessed that they missed on an opportunity to rule the digital music world, which is now dominated comprehensively by Apple, Sony is working hard to catch-up with the market leaders.
Sony’s latest attempt to get back looks good indeed. They call it Sony NW-HD5 and it is a 20 Gigabyte hard disk player smaller in size and lighter in weight (125 grams) compared to the similarly feature matched Apple iPod. The device supports Sony’s controversial ATRAC3 and ATRAC3plus formats along with more popular standards like the Windows Media Audio, WAV files and of course the MP3 format.
Earlier Walkmans did not come with support for WMA and MP3 leading to a disappointing performance in the market. Sony admitted that it was a wrong decision and decided to make the amends. This device seems to be straight out of those ideas.
The NW-HD5 also comes with a reported incredible battery life of thirty hours of MP3 playback, which is further enhanced to 40 hours if the proprietary ATRAC3Plus format is used to play the songs at 48kbps. This is a huge benefit when compared to the iPod, which reportedly gives the battery backup of just 12 hours. More is in store for the customers as Sony promises that the battery would be easily replaceable with spares made available in the local stores. Apple loses here as well, as battery replacement is quite a cumbersome deal with iPods.
Sony’s latest gadget also comes with a revolutionary new innovation called ‘Follow Turn Display’. This technology automatically rotates the interface screen horizontally or vertically depending upon how the user is handling the device making it convenient to use. These kind of innovations are something we normally expect Apple to come out with!
Sony indeed is working hard on catching up with Apple.
Apple, Apple iPod, Creative, Digital Music - Players, Samsung, Sony, Sony NW-HD5, Sony Walkman
Editor
Category: News
|
TechWhack on Facebook
|
April 10th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
IPODS are better, that’s at least what I think.
April 10th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
I have 48 IPODS.
April 11th, 2005 at 1:00 am
“W-HD5 also comes with a reported incredible battery life of thirty hours of MP3 playback, which is further enhanced to 40 hours if the proprietary ATRAC3Plus format is used to play the songs at 48kbps”
What a load of marketing crap. 48kbps? No one would use that bit rate! What’s the 30 hour life based on? 96kbps? Again, no one uses those “low-quality” bit rates. Anything under 128kbps is not realistic and nothing more than a unethical marketing ploy. Sony and so many of the iPods competitors use these unethical tactics to sell there sub-standard products. They also use these ridiculous bit rates to say that there 20GB drive hold more music than the iPods 20GB drive, which simple is false advertising.
April 13th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
“What a load of marketing crap. 48kbps? No one would use that bit rate!”
- that is seriously ignorant of Atrac3plus. I am a bit of an audiophile and so i care deeply about the quality of different compression modes. and for my ears atrac3plus is way ahead of the field. 48kbps atrac3plus is comparable to 128kbps mp3 (using the latest lame), but slightly “warmer” (read “less defined”). I have re-ripped my cds into atrac3plus 64kbps and i have a collection that is 1/3 of the size that is was in mp3 192kbps and to me sounds better. *be warned – converting from mp3 to atrac3plus does not yeild as good quality music as re-ripping to atrac3plus*
so yes, i will be putting 3 times as much music onto my brand new HD5 that i could fit on my decrepid old ipod.
This is an absolute cracker of a device, my mates have hd1’s and hd3’s and they are both leaps and bounds ahead of ipods, and this looks like it will be even better.
April 14th, 2005 at 1:02 am
Apple’s iPod & iTunes uses AAC by default for ripping from CD!
So I guess only IGNORANT people like you use the MP3 format on your iPod. I’m sure that ACC can match Atrac3Plus at any bit rate.
Just like Microsoft, Sony has to resort to trickery in order to sell their inferior products. But I guess their tactics work great on people like you and your mates.
April 14th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Atrac3plus really is the best compression format. AAC is good but still not near as good. All I can say is try atrac3plus out and see for yourself. I have over 370 cd’s formated in 64kbps atrac3plus they take less than 11gigs. I’ve tried all the formats, yes it’s proprietary, so is AAC, but it’s still the best.
April 15th, 2005 at 3:18 am
AAC is NOT proprietary!
And who says Atrac3Plus is the best? Sony?
Show me an independent study, not funded by Sony, which supports your point of view? The fact of the matter is that most of the newer compression methods are better than the old MP3 standard, because compression technology gets better every year.
True, some compression methods are better than others, but by how much? When it comes to AAC (aka MPEG-4 based on Apple’s QuickTime) and others like Ogg, RM, WMA, MP3 (newer versions) etc, vs. Atrac3Plus, we’re only splitting hairs on sound quality at most bit rates.
Sony touts Atrac3Plus at 256kbps as CD quality.
The bottom line is that Sony, Rio, Dell, Creative, and just about every other iPod competitor uses 48 or 64kbps encoding rates to inflate how many songs their player can hold vs. Apple’s iPod, regardless of the actual sound quality or codec used. Why? Because they can’t compete with the iPod’s superior user interface, style, and iTunes software.
These same companies also use these lower bit rates to inflate the battery life of their devices, since lower bit rates (regardless of actual sound quality) require less power to playback. Why? (again) Because they can’t compete with the iPod’s superior user interface, style, and iTunes software.
Maybe Atrac3Plus is slightly better than AAC or maybe Ogg is slightly better than Atrac3Plus. But is the difference in quality so great as to justify doubling of storage capacity and battery life over the iPod using AAC at 128kbps? I seriously doubt it. I doubt that a casual listener would even notice the difference between a 64kbps Atrac3Plus encoded file and a 64kbps AAC (MPEG-4) encoded file – on a portable music player’s headphones! One thing is for certain, AAC at 128kbps is certainly better than Atrac3Plus at 64kbps.
The fact of the matter is that Apple could justifiably double the numbers for the iPod’s storage and battery life using a 64kbps standard, but they don’t. Why? Probably because Apple is concerned about overall sound quality, being that AAC is being playback through higher quality home and car stereos, using the iPod or iTunes on high quality studio speakers. Which is why AAC also has a 256kbps “lossless” setting for CD quality sound, just like Sony’s Atrac3Plus at 256kbps.
Another thing for certain is that iPod through firmware upgrades will eventually adopt improved AAC compression methods in the near future, like High Efficiency AAC (aka aacPlus) by Dolby (AAC technology was invented by Dolby not Apple). XM satellite Radio already uses ACC Plus, so its already out there waiting to be adopted by the iPod.
Apple’s QuickTime is quickly becoming the de-facto standard for media content and delivery world-wide, because Apple’s only real competition, Microsoft, can’t compete on quality and is not willing to use open standards. It’s hard if not nearly impossible to find a consumer electronics device that’s not compatible with QuickTime.
AAC is NOT proprietary!
AAC is the audio component of MPEG-4 which is an international standard set by the ISO group. AAC stands for Advanced Audio Codec. The only proprietary part of Apple’s AAC codec is the DRM applied to tracks purchased purchased from the iTunes Music Store. Music ripped using iTunes uses the non-DRM open-standards version of AAC. MPEG-4 (AAC) standard is based on Apple’s QuickTime and now Quicktime includes other open standards such as 3GPP and 3GPP2 (H.264) for cellphones.
WMA, Artac3Plus, and RM, on the other hand, ARE proprietary and ARE NOT a open standards.
So what exactly makes the Sony NW-HD5 Walkman better than the iPOD, besides fudged numbers?
“AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia�companies that have also been involved in the development of audio codecs such as MP3 and AC3 (also known as Dolby Digital). The AAC builds upon new, state-of-the art signal processing technology from Dolby Laboratories and brings true variable bit rate (VBR) audio encoding to QuickTime.”
Sony? That’s right. Sony. Because the only intended purpose of ATRAC was to bind you to Sony’s Music Store DRM.
April 16th, 2005 at 6:18 am
Yikes, it is a portable audio player! And yes AAC is not proprietary (my mistake, I was refering to iTunes and their DRM attachment). All I am saying is that Atrac is a good compression codec, better IN MY OPINION than other codecs. Also ATRAC has been around since long before any online music store. Once again we are talking about poratable music players, everyone needs to take a chill pill. I happen to not mind Sonicstage, it is a perfectly functional program that allows me to transfer all of my music to my player. This is what the vast majority of people do with the softwear, NOTHING MORE. We could all argue semantics for ever, but why? Ultimately it comes down to preference. I like the look of this player and already have all my CD’s ripped in Atrac3plus 64kbps. All of my 450 or so CDs will fit on the Sony 20gb player. No other player can do that and still sound good, because at 128kbps they won’t all fit.
April 16th, 2005 at 8:35 am
Yikes, did you really miss my point?
You said, “[I] already have all my CD�s ripped in Atrac3plus 64kbps. All of my 450 or so CDs will fit on the Sony 20gb player. No other player can do that and still sound good, because at 128kbps they won�t all fit.” – Alisdair
Alisdair, AAC can be encoded at any bit rate from 48, 64, 96, 128kbps, or whatever. In contrast, don’t quote me, but I’ve heard that Atrac3Plus only comes in two flavors 64 or 256kbps, is this right?
In any case, like I said before, AAC can be encoded at 64kbps and used on the iPod, since the iPod can use AAC or MP3 at any bit rate. So the iPod can already match the NW-HD Walkman in storage capacity and probably even battery life, if an iPod user so chooses to encode at 64kbps.
Also, like I said, the average user probably can’t tell the difference between AAC encoded at 64kbps and Atrac3Plus encoded at the same bit rate.
While its true that ORIGINAL Atrac (1991) has been around long before any music store, it’s quality was about the same as that old MP3 codec you dislike so much, and Atrac only came out a year before the MP3 (aka MPEG-1 audio). AAC has be around since 1997 and Atrac3Plus followed in 2000 and another version in 2003.
Maybe none of theses codecs were designed with online music stores in mind, but the use of proprietary formats to keep users locked into a product line is not a new concept (WMA, RM, etc,.) , and I doubt Atrac3Plus found its way into the Sony Music Store and NW-HD Player for any other reason but to keep you in Sony’s pocket. The fact that Sony had to add MP3 compatibility to later versions of the NW-HD Walkman player, in part to due to dismal sales, does not bode well for the Atrac format.
Sure the songs from the iTunes music store have proprietary DRM code attached to the open-standard based AAC (MPEG-4), but of course I don’t know of any open-standards based DRM for Apple or anyone else to use. DRM is a fact of life. But at least Apple’s lets you use the non-proprietary version of AAC (MPEG-4) to rip your CD’s to. And you can also burn the DRM’d AAC files to CD and rip them back to the open version of AAC, if you don’t mind a little generation loss.
So what exactly makes the Sony NW-HD5 Walkman better than the iPOD, besides fudged numbers and your odd sense of taste?
PS – I’m not trying to be mean. I’m just trying to clear out the FUD that seems to surrounds the iPod. Maybe its time for me to buy one now.
April 16th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
I think you are also missing the point. Your posts mostly seem angry and petty. I don’t think anyone would argue that 48kbps Atrac3plus is the way people would record all of their music. However it actually does sound quite good. I have used iPods, they are great, well built, have great softwear, and are very easy to use. To listen to your statements though is to preclude anything different as inferior or sub-standard. Have you ever listened to the two types of players side by side playing different bit rates and comparing them? I have, more than a few times. I have friends who have iPods, and I own an MZ-NH1, we tried playing Atrac3plus 64kbps, and then an iPod playing AAC 128kbps, the minidisc just sounded better on a full sized stereo. The iPod owners agreed. Now maybe this is a function of the amp built into each of the players, or maybe it is the codec. None of this is scientific. All of that being said I think that many of your assumptions are based in what you have read, not on any real world experience of either format. I also never personally said the NW-HD5 was an ‘iPOD Killer’. Lets face it’s a stupid thing to say. However I have noticed owners of, and proponents of iPods do have a tendancy to dismiss any competition out of hand. Maybe its time you backed up your statemnts about which is better with a little experience. I’ve noticed all of your basis for comparison comes in statements like “the average user probably can�t tell the difference between AAC encoded at 64kbps and Atrac3Plus encoded at the same bit rate”, have you ever done a listening test yourself?. iPods rule, but is it possible that someone else could make a product as good, maybe better in some ways, but certainnly different? All I am saying and I’ll say it again IN MY OPINION Atrac3plus just sounds better. The quality of sound at low bit rates seems to be quite superior to mp3, AAC, and WMA. Try a listening test on a good stereo yourself, with an open mind. This would be my point.
April 17th, 2005 at 5:11 am
Nothing petty or angry about getting the facts straight.
My point to begin with is that SONY uses the 48kbps bit rate to inflate the capacity of the NW-HD5 Walkman (20GB) in comparison to the iPod (20GB). Like I said in my very first post, “What a load of marketing crap. 48kbps? No one would use that bit rate!”
Then in your first post, after hurling an insult at me, telling me I was “seriously ignorant of Atrac3plus”, you later admitted that YOU don’t even use the 48kbps bit rate to encode your own music or that anyone else would either…
“I have re-ripped my cds into atrac3plus 64kbps and i have a collection that is 1/3 of the size that is was in mp3″ – Archibald
“I don�t think anyone would argue that 48kbps Atrac3plus is the way people would record all of their music.” – Archibald
One thing I’ve learned after years of doing to research and production in graduate school (digital video/audio & multimedia), is that most people talk all over the place when it comes to presenting the facts. In my first post, I refuted Sony’s claims as an “unethical marketing ploy”, based on Sony’s use of 48kbps for measuring storage capacity in comparison to the iPod at 128kbps. Then in your first post, in response to me, you start talking all over the place…
“48kbps atrac3plus is comparable to 128kbps mp3 (using the latest lame), but slightly �warmer� (read �less defined”).” – Archibald
The iPod’s primary format is AAC not MP3, right? Apple’s numbers are based on AAC.
“I have re-ripped my cds into atrac3plus 64kbps and i have a collection that is 1/3 of the size that is was in mp3 192kbps and to me sounds better.” – Archibald
There you go with that 64kbps bit rate. I was talking about Sony’s use of the 48kbps bit rate to determine “capacity”, a bit rate that you admit to not even using on your own player, right?
“so yes, i will be putting 3 times as much music onto my brand new HD5 that i could fit on my decrepid old ipod.” – Archibald
How exactly does that work? Forget that the iPod/iTunes uses 128kbps AAC by default. So how do you get “3 times” as many songs on your HD5 at 64kbps, when Sony’s quotes 13,000 songs at 48kbps using Atrac3Plus v.s 5,000 songs on the iPod using AAC at 128kbps, both with a 20GB hard drive? Thats a neat trick, you should give Sony a call and let them know how you did that. Your math just doesn’t add up. Maybe you should get a job at Napster (jab).
Dude, you’re just talking all over the place comparing things in a way that doesn’t make any sense, doing funny math, and later contradicting yourself at best.
Skipping all the way down to your last post, you used a MZ-NH1 (mini-disc player) to compare sound quality with an iPod. Now your not even using the same device that we were ogrinally talking about to compare sound quality. We were talking about the HD5 and the iPod, right? Each device even using the same codec will sound a bit different than another, so throwing a Mini-Disc player into the mix makes little sense. Were you using the same headphones on each device? What type of music did you compare? What sample rate (not bit rate) was each music file compressed at and format were they compressed from (CD, Music Store, etc,.)? Were the AAC files compressed using Apple’s iTunes? Maybe you should toss a $99 iPod (shuffle) into the mix to really throw us for a loop?
At best listening tests are really very subjective, if even done blindly, being that the type of music (audio) can dramatically affect the perception of a codec’s quality, as well as how that music (audio) track was mastered (pre-rip) to begin with. Like I’ve said, most people probably wouldn’t notice (or even care), because the difference in quality is so small these days.
The bottom line is that Sony’s use of 48kbps to determine storage capacity of the HD5 vs. the iPod, is unrealistic, unethical, marketing FUD. I don’t need to stick an earbud in each ear to know what is already so self-evident. Sony’s numbers are a misleading marketing ploy and the difference in sound quality is so small that its not going to compel most people to buy an HD5 Walkman over an iPod (period).
Nothing petty or angry about getting the facts straight. Actually I have an old Nike MP3 Player.
And thanks for pointing out how “ignorant” I am.
April 17th, 2005 at 5:18 am
This website keeps mauling the text in each of my posts, by inserting strange characters. The funny thing is that it looks alright in the preview, then bam its messed up after I tell it to post my comments. I don’t recall having this problem on other sites before.
April 17th, 2005 at 6:03 am
The quotes you attributed to me, are not mine, or are strangely not very accurate quotes(two of them belong to lukarse). This is all getting a little silly, much of the arguement is subjective.Any way who cares, I like Sony, I want a hard drive player, I’ll probably buy the NW-HD5. You have lots of great points between the anger and miss quotes. You also very likely have a better understanding of the technology behind the different codecs. However I am simply saying that iPod is not the only player worth peoples attention.
The NW-HD5, and MZ-NH1 are very similar electronically, the NH1 only really differs in that it uses minidiscs instead of a hard drive. The D/A converter, and amp etc. are much the same, so I feel it is a reasonable comparison. We also ripped the same tracks off of CD for the comparison. We also connected the player to a stereo system (as I stated earlier)a Yamaha amp conected to Energy speakers. Once again as I stated, NOT scientific, just my opinion. And for the record I never called you ignorant lukarse did.
April 17th, 2005 at 7:29 am
ok, i agree, this is getting confusing and non-productive. all of you Sony people are starting to look and sound alike to me.
sorry about the misquotes. it all started to blur at some point as I been bouncing between comments on different sites.
enjoy the HD5
April 19th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Wow! This debate must be about some alternative strategies for curing cancer or creating world peace. But no! It’s about a consumer product, a music player. Should it be Unix or Windows. Oops! I mean Atrac or some Appley stuff or something. Chill out, get a life and listen to the music – not the software!
April 20th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
hey guys,
you all talk al lot about the files that are played with the sony. but what about the features? what does it feature?
if it has a clock build inside and some nice playlistfeatures I will probably buy the 30 gb version.
thanks
April 21st, 2005 at 2:59 am
Their are plenty of applications and games that run on the iPod, including an Alarm Clock and the game DOOM, yes DOOM. The iPod has the potential to be more than an MP3 player, with its 133MHz, 32-bit ARM7TDMI processor core.
You can also use the iPod to store any kind of file and use it as a Macintosh boot disk, just like a Firewire/USB drive.
Did you know that there is a version of Linux that can run on your iPod independent of a computer, side-by-side with the OS that runs the iPod (see links below)?
Apple obviously designed the iPod to be a platform for future expansion into other areas besides music. Try that with the NW-HD5.
DOOM Ported To iPod
http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=741
“The clever folks over at CodeARM have ported the popular mid-90’s id Software title, DOOM, to the 3G iPod and iPod mini”
Developing Quicktime Applications For The iPod
http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=944
“In the article, Tim dispells the widely held belief that the iPod is a closed system and that writing custom applications…”
iPod-Linux Installer
http://ipodlinuxinstl.sourceforge.net/
“Installing linux on your iPod gives you more functionality in terms of games, recording, image viewing, and more! Because linux is open source, installing it on iPods also gives you the change to make your own applications.”
HACK #49 Run Linux on Your iPod
http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/digitalmedia/2004/10/28/ipoditunes_hcks.html?page=3
April 21st, 2005 at 7:14 am
Very cool.
April 21st, 2005 at 7:27 am
Damn, I’ve really sold myself on the iPod. I really need to get one.
April 27th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
In search of an ideal portable audio setup that will live up to my serious audiophile expectations, I have recently reviewed the sound quality from both an iPod and the SONY HD5. Comparison was performed based on audiophile recordings that were directly ripped from CD into AAC and ATRAC3+ of similar bit rate (256Kbps).
To get the most neutral sound possible, I used my beloved SONY QUALIA 010 Headphones to monitor the playback from both the headphone jack, as well as via Headroom MAX amp connected to the line-out of these devices — in case their output stage is insufficient to completely drive the Qualia 010.
The iPod sound is not bad, and I suspect it will please most if they are not as critical as I am…but I must say at the same sampling rate, the ATRAC3+ is by far my preferred recording format. Tracks recorded in ATRAC3+ captures the essence of live music superbly. In comparison, the AAC sounds a bit dull & less lively. The Qualia 010 is ruthless in terms of revealing any minor audio distortions. And I cannot fault the recordings made by the ATRAC3+. To get a similar quality in AAC, I must encode in AAC lossless, which will consume far too much space to make the 20GB an interesting and representative collection of my favorite tracks.
Having seriously addicted to the live concert sound, I have recently augmented my JBL Project K2 speaker system with the UT045Be super-tweeter, and upgraded from a passive-crossover bi-amping setup, to full active crossover (using DEQX) and quad-amping(Goldmund JOB4 & Jeff Rowland 501s) just to get the extra edge in sonic realism. The final result is certainly superb…to the extend that I am struggling to part from this sound whenever I need to leave home :( And for those brief moments when I really need to, I can be rest assured that the SONY HD5 + SONY Qualia 010 headphones will serve to temporarily restore the sanity in me!
Once again well done SONY!
April 28th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Audiophile, I have a question.
Did you use “Apple’s Lossless Encoder”? Apple’s Lossless Encoder runs at 256kbps and is AAC, I think, although it’s not labeled as such. Actually, I think it’s AACPlus.
Also, did you measure the size of the files, both ATRAC3Plus and Apple’s Lossless Encoder at 256kbps? This is an important point since the heart of this debate has been focused on file size & quality at a fixed bit rate, wether that be 48, 64, 128, or 256kbps.
In other words can the HD5 using ATRAC3Plus really hold twice as many songs as the iPod using AAC or AACPlus, at a comparable level of sound quality. So far the answer still seems to be no.
Like I’ve said, ATRAC3Plus might sound a little better at the same bit rate, but then again who will notice on the average set of headphones that most users have. Plus, the HD5 isn’t going to be able to get anymore music on their device than an iPod user using the same size drive.
So again, Sony’s claim to hold twice as many songs on the HD5 vs. the iPod is still nothing more than unethical marketing FUD. That’s my point.
April 28th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Audiophile, I have a question.
Did you use “Apple’s Lossless Encoder”? Apple’s Lossless Encoder runs at 256kbps and is AAC, I think, although it’s not labeled as such. Actually, I think it’s AACPlus.
Also, did you measure the size of the files, both ATRAC3Plus and Apple’s Lossless Encoder at 256kbps? This is an important point since the heart of this debate has been focused on file size & quality at a fixed bit rate, wether that be 48, 64, 128, or 256kbps.
In other words can the HD5 using ATRAC3Plus really hold twice as many songs as the iPod using AAC or AACPlus, at a comparable level of sound quality. So far the answer still seems to be no.
Like I’ve said, ATRAC3Plus might sound a little better at the same bit rate, but then again who will notice on the average set of headphones that most users have. Plus, the HD5 isn’t going to be able to get anymore music on their device than an iPod user using the same size drive.
So again, Sony’s claim to hold twice as many songs on the HD5 vs. the iPod is still nothing more than unethical marketing FUD. That’s my point.
April 28th, 2005 at 6:45 pm
hi there,
questions for ‘audiophile’: where did you get your hands on the nw-hd5?(im in ireland) i’ve been reading a lot of these comment pages, with great amusement, and am fairly well convinced sony is worth the investment.have you encountered any problems? i must also look into a good set of headphones, i take it the qualia ones you speak of are high end stuff?thanks for your help!! jay
May 5th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
oh crud !!i already bought my hd5 20g off amazon!!
May 6th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
I guess there might be some confusion between AAC (Advance Audio Coding) and ALE (Apple Lossless Encoder). Please refer to their respective definitions here: http://www.georgehernandez.com/XComputers/zMisc/Audio.htm
With reference to http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html please be aware that the average file size for Apple lossless encoded files should be around half the size of the original WAV file. This compression ratio is akin to those of the WMA lossless. For argument sake, most of the lossless encoding formats follow the half of original WAV size rule. In my own opinion, both lossless formats (WMA and Apple) are sonically superb, and are equally good if you need Absolute quality. The challenge to getting the best sound from these portable devices is more so on the output stage of the built-in op-amp, which should be taken into consideration, and not so much on which lossless format to choose over.
A quick check on the average file size from your AAC 256kbps will quickly reveal that it is far from being lossless, it is actually quite lossy indeed. ATRAC3+ is also a lossy format. The question is, which is the Better one?
I would imagine that the answer to this question will not be an easy one, and that depending on each personâ??s preference, the answer may differ. However, I shall try to put my thoughts into perspective.
For this discussion, I have performed quite an extensive comparison amongst the following 3 encoding formats (WMA is included just for reference):
(1) AAC/Apple-Lossless,
(2) ATRAC3+ and
(3) WMA9/WMA-Lossless
The Reference Audio track was chosen from Track 11 (Tin Pan Alley â?? Steve Ray Vaughan) of the â??Burmester CD II â?? Art For The Earâ??. The CD track was first ripped into WAV file using Nero, via an External Yamaha F1 CD-ROM (which is 3-point mechanically grounded), with the Jitter-correction option enabled. The WAV file is then encoded into one of the compressed format, using Alcohol-120 to emulate a virtual Audio-CD. Direct read from HDD ensures that the jitter factor is reduced to minimal (as HDD is jitter-free). And for the best possible reading condition for the rip process, the CD is further demagnetised (both surfaces) using the Furutech RD-2 Disc Demagnetiser prior to use.
Here are the file sizes:
Original WAV (9â??14â??) 95,567KB
WMA-Lossless 47,149KB
WMA-Pro 440Kbps CBR 29,861KB
WMA 320Kbps CBR 21,730KB
WMA 256Kbps CBR 17,394KB
WMA 128Kbps CBR 8,722KB
WMA 64Kbps CBR 4,386KB
WMA 48Kbps CBR 3,302KB
Apple Lossless 49,244KB
AAC 320Kbps 21,750KB
AAC 256Kbps 17,442KB
AAC 128Kbps 8,826KB
AAC 64Kbps 4,520KB
AAC 48Kbps 3,413KB
ATRAC3+ 256Kbps 17,366KB
ATRAC3 128Kbps 8,964KB
ATRAC3 105kbps 7,097KB
ATRAC3 66Kbps 4,484KB
ATRAC3 64Kbps 4,391KB
ATRAC3 48Kbps 3,271KB
At 256Kbps, as you would have noticed: The most compact file is generated by the ATRAC3+, followed closely by WMA CBR, then finally AAC. The difference is actually quite small. I general, in terms of the file size, I would conclude that they are all about the same size for a given Kbps. There are no significant variations.
Given that file sizes are about the same for a given Kbps encoded file, the remaining consideration will be the sound quality. Here are my general impressions after the detailed listening session. At any common bit rate, the ATRAC3+ sounds better than the WMA, and significantly better than the AAC. Towards the lower bit rates such as 48/64Kbps, there is only minor sonic degradation on the ATRAC3+ and is actually (and surprisingly) quite listenable; however at 48/64Kbps the AAC performed very poorly, making it â??non-listenableâ??, according to my standards.
However, instead of comparing the sound quality directly against various encoding formats with same/similar bit rate, I find it more fruitful to define the Lower and Upper bounds within each encoding format. Here is how I would define them:
Lower bound of encoding bit rate: the lowest recording bit rate, which is acceptable or barely acceptable for prolonged listening.
Upper bound of encoding bit rate: the bit rate at which there is a demonstrable good or excellent sonic quality. And beyond which has only marginal difference to the next lower bit rate available. In general, this should be the encoding bit rate, which sonically is very close to the Lossloss encoded track.
Why do I find using this method more meaningful? Quite simple, different people have different demands and expectations from their portable player:
(1) On one extreme, there will be some people who just want a large music library and is less discerning on the sonic quality. To this group of users, they should choose the bit rate as defined by their respective Lower bound;
(2) On the other extreme, there are serious Audiophiles, who will not settle for anything but the best possible sonic qualities. Yet, to be sensible and practical, they would often try to determine the compression bit rate, above which the Law-of-Diminishing-Return applies. For this group of users, they should choose the bit rate as defined by the Upper bound.
As can be seen, the effective number of songs which can be stored on the 20GB HDD of usable space can vary significantly, based on the performance of the codec, as well as the hearing abilities and listening preference of the user, in concern.
The first factor is quite straight forward, and although rely on subjective evaluations; it is quite easy to arrive at a general consensus, provided that the sampled population is representative.
The second factor is more dynamic. Different people due to various genetic factors, different body build and environmental factors have different hearing response to the audio frequency spectrum. In addition, being able to hear a high frequency is one matter, but being able to process the signal and correlate it within the mind into a meaningful timing/spatial cue is another matter. The latter is certainly an acquired skill, and will only get better with more exposure and training, as is evident in audiophileâ??s critical listening sessions. It is amazing how one can train the mind to track concurrently the various pieces of instruments, in a good piece of busy recording.
Without a serious consideration of the second factor, any discussion over which codec and portable device combo as best becomes meaningless and unfounded.
Hence as can be seen, the final result is highly dependant on the end-user.
For the purpose of this discussion, I shall present my personal version of the evaluation between the AAC Vs ATRAC3+ codec. And based on this finding, I shall comment on the validity of SONY̢??s statement that HD5 offers РDoubling the music storage Рon the same 20GB over the iPod.
Here are my â??lowerâ?? and â??upperâ?? bounds for each codec:
AAC lower bound: 128Kbps
AAC upper bound: Between AAC 320 and Apple Lossless
ATRAC3+ lower bound: 48Kbps
ATRAC3+ upper bound: Between 128bKps and 256Kbps (very close tie between the two, with 256Kbps approximating those of WMA Lossless)
If we correlate these criteria with the file size factor, if I use the ATRAC3+ on its lower bound definition, SONY HD5 actually has a 3x advantage over the iPod; whereas if I use the ATRAC3+ on its upper bound definition, SONY HD5 has approx a 2x advantage over the iPod (I am taking the file size average between AAC 320 and Apple Lossless).
Hence do I believe that SONYâ??s proclamation is founded?
YES! And with ease I may addâ?¦: )
May 6th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
A reply to Jaymoo42:
My HD5 was acquired in Tokyo Japan, with the help of my Japanese colleague, as she was in Japan to visit her parents. The Qualia 010 was acquired during the same trip.
I consider the iPod and the SONY HD5 are designs that appeal to different end-user groups.
Glad to know that we both have similar taste in our audio gear. I demand a certain level of engineering excellent and superb build quality in a product, which (in this case) only SONY can offer. The iPod to me, just does not make the cut. The bulky plastic exterior is just one factor, but to knowingly purchase a product that only in 1 year or 2 will stop operating due to an imminent battery failure, in addition that it will need to be shipped back to factory for replacement at a cost of US$99 (excluding shipment) is just plain ridiculous! If you consider the sonic quality review, which Iâ??ve posted earlier, and take into consideration the SONYâ??s 40 hour play time Vs the 18 hours of iPodâ??sâ?¦the choice become very clear.
Have not experienced a single problem with the HD5 unit at all. It works superbly.
Just treat the unit with the same respect as youâ??d with any electronic device, such as a digital camera, and the HD5 will serve you well for a long time to come.
As to the SONY Qualia 010 headphone, it is indeed a superb performer. With an amazing frequency response of 5-120,000Hz and a 50mm diaphragm made from Nano-composite material, the Qualia 010â??s performance is second to none.
As you might be aware, SONY Qualia products (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QUALIA/) are quite exclusive, and are only available from designated Qualia outlets (In Japan, there is one in Tokyo, and another in Osaka). Qualia products cannot be brought via normal retail. SONY Qualia Tokyo shop will only accept order either in person (via concierge service) or over the phone.
RRP for Qualia 010 is US$2,600.
Now for your application, I would like to recommend something, which is not as extreme, but possibly good value for money. For home use, the SONY MDR-SA5000 or Sennheiser HD-650 will be a good buy. I personally have preference over the SA5000: as for almost 1/8th the cost of the Qualia 010, you get a stunning performance (almost 90% of the 010â??s 120kHz frequency response and 82% of 010â??s 440kJm3 magnetic strength to handle difficult transients)! It is hard to beat this deal. If u want a cool pair of ear plugs from the Qualia range, you cannot go pass the Qualia MDR-EXQ1. It is so affordable, yet inheriting the same technology developed for the Qualia 010â?¦
Too bad the waiting list for the EXQ1 is a good 5-6 monthsâ?¦.yes, the queue is long! This is â??oneâ?? popular item from the Qualia range in Japan.
Waiting period for Qualia 010 is around 4 weeks.
May 6th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Reply to Jaymoo42:
For your information, the 30GB NW-HD5H is actually now available from:
http://www.jp.sonystyle.com/Product/Paudi/Nw-hd5h/Store/index.html
with a RRP of 37,800Yen; the standard 20GB NW-HD5 RRP is 34,800Yen.
This price difference is actually quite small. And with a massive 50% increase in storage capacity, I would highly recommend the NW-HD5H as well, given that is it exactly the same size as its 20GB cousin.
With the NW-HD5H, SONY has really made the decision even easier, when one is presented with the choice of choosing between it and the iPod.
There is only one small caveat with the NW-HD5H: it comes in one and only one colour, Silver casing with black buttons. I personally reckon that this is a nice colourâ?¦but it would be nice if they provide one with Black casing and Red buttons!
In Japan, if you are after the 20GB HD5, it is quite easy to hunt for even cheaper bargain via sites like this:
http://www.kakaku.com/prdsearch/detaillowprice.asp?PrdKey=01307210842
As can be seen, the lowest going rate for the HD5 is only 30,440Yen.
The average retail price for the HD5 in Japan is currently at 32,998Yen.
It is nice to see via the graphical plot on how the HD5 managed to settle in a more competitive pricing over the past 7 days.
Glad that you enjoy the Qualia site as much as I did!
I am particularly impressed and enlightened by the short and candid interview between Dr. Ken Mogi and Nobuyuki Idei (Sony Corp. CEO), regarding â??The Awakening of Qualiaâ??:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QUALIA/meets/meets_1.html
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QUALIA/meets/meets_2.html
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/QUALIA/meets/meets_3.html
It is so nice to know that in todayâ??s modern world, a Company can dedicate all its resources to chase after a dream with philosophy to achieve a special type of perfection — one that will truly move our hearts.
In this regard, the Qualia has a similar impact on me as the JBL Project K2 development: one that is in search of perfection, without much economic constrains. For once, engineers can fully concentrate to chase after their dreams without restrictions. With access to any company resources they need to fulfil and realize they dreams:
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/k2.htm
http://www.jbl.com/home/k2_story/k2_intro.asp
I hope more companies can follow this trend: Instead of just being single-mindedly pursuing product development for gaining market share and profit, that they will take time to develop a product that will truly connect to our hearts, make people feel happy and derive pleasure from the experience!
May 8th, 2005 at 5:11 am
Hey studentx Thanks a lot u just sold the ipod to me!!! Cheers mate!!!
May 8th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Hi all,
Thanks very much for the invaluable review information posted by Audiophile. I was just about to purchase an iPod when I came across this article. Luckily I was just in time to back out from the purchase. Once again, thanks for saving me $$$ and plenty of nightmare with the battary and inefficient codec issues you’ve raised. I will be saving my money for the 30GB NW-HD5H which will be coming out in late May.
Cheers mate!
May 8th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Reply to StudentX:
I guess there might be some confusion between AAC (Advance Audio Coding) and ALE (Apple Lossless Encoder). Please refer to their respective definitions here: http://www.georgehernandez.com/XComputers/zMisc/Audio.htm
With reference to http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html please be aware that the average file size for Apple lossless encoded files should be around half the size of the original WAV file. This compression ratio is akin to those of the WMA lossless. For argument sake, most of the lossless encoding formats follow the half of original WAV size rule. In my own opinion, both lossless formats (WMA and Apple) are sonically superb, and are equally good if you need Absolute quality. The challenge to getting the best sound from these portable devices is more so on the output stage of the built-in op-amp, which should be taken into consideration, and not so much on which lossless format to choose over.
A quick check on the average file size from your AAC 256kbps will quickly reveal that it is far from being lossless, it is actually quite lossy indeed. ATRAC3+ is also a lossy format. The question is, which is the Better one?
I would imagine that the answer to this question will not be an easy one, and that depending on each personâ??s preference, the answer may differ. However, I shall try to put my thoughts into perspective.
For this discussion, I have performed quite an extensive comparison amongst the following 3 encoding formats (WMA is included just for reference):
(1) AAC/Apple-Lossless,
(2) ATRAC3+ and
(3) WMA9/WMA-Lossless
The Reference Audio track was chosen from Track 11 (Tin Pan Alley â?? Steve Ray Vaughan) of the â??Burmester CD II â?? Art For The Earâ??. The CD track was first ripped into WAV file using Nero, via an External Yamaha F1 CD-ROM (which is 3-point mechanically grounded), with the Jitter-correction option enabled. The WAV file is then encoded into one of the compressed format, using Alcohol-120 to emulate a virtual Audio-CD. Direct read from HDD ensures that the jitter factor is reduced to minimal (as HDD is jitter-free). And for the best possible reading condition for the rip process, the CD is further demagnetised (both surfaces) using the Furutech RD-2 Disc Demagnetiser prior to use.
Here are the file sizes:
Original WAV (9â??14â??) 95,567KB
WMA-Lossless 47,149KB
WMA-Pro 440Kbps CBR 29,861KB
WMA 320Kbps CBR 21,730KB
WMA 256Kbps CBR 17,394KB
WMA 128Kbps CBR 8,722KB
WMA 64Kbps CBR 4,386KB
WMA 48Kbps CBR 3,302KB
Apple Lossless 49,244KB
AAC 320Kbps 21,750KB
AAC 256Kbps 17,442KB
AAC 128Kbps 8,826KB
AAC 64Kbps 4,520KB
AAC 48Kbps 3,413KB
ATRAC3+ 256Kbps 17,366KB
ATRAC3 128Kbps 8,964KB
ATRAC3 105kbps 7,097KB
ATRAC3 66Kbps 4,484KB
ATRAC3 64Kbps 4,391KB
ATRAC3 48Kbps 3,271KB
At 256Kbps, as you would have noticed: The most compact file is generated by the ATRAC3+, followed closely by WMA CBR, then finally AAC. The difference is actually quite small. I general, in terms of the file size, I would conclude that they are all about the same size for a given Kbps. There are no significant variations.
Given that file sizes are about the same for a given Kbps encoded file, the remaining consideration will be the sound quality. Here are my general impressions after the detailed listening session. At any common bit rate, the ATRAC3+ sounds better than the WMA, and significantly better than the AAC. Towards the lower bit rates such as 48/64Kbps, there is only minor sonic degradation on the ATRAC3+ and is actually (and surprisingly) quite listenable; however at 48/64Kbps the AAC performed very poorly, making it â??non-listenableâ??, according to my standards.
However, instead of comparing the sound quality directly against various encoding formats with same/similar bit rate, I find it more fruitful to define the Lower and Upper bounds within each encoding format. Here is how I would define them:
Lower bound of encoding bit rate: the lowest recording bit rate, which is acceptable or barely acceptable for prolonged listening.
Upper bound of encoding bit rate: the bit rate at which there is a demonstrable good or excellent sonic quality. And beyond which has only marginal difference to the next lower bit rate available. In general, this should be the encoding bit rate, which sonically is very close to the Lossloss encoded track.
Why do I find using this method more meaningful? Quite simple, different people have different demands and expectations from their portable player:
(1) On one extreme, there will be some people who just want a large music library and is less discerning on the sonic quality. To this group of users, they should choose the bit rate as defined by their respective Lower bound;
(2) On the other extreme, there are serious Audiophiles, who will not settle for anything but the best possible sonic qualities. Yet, to be sensible and practical, they would often try to determine the compression bit rate, above which the Law-of-Diminishing-Return applies. For this group of users, they should choose the bit rate as defined by the Upper bound.
As can be seen, the effective number of songs which can be stored on the 20GB HDD of usable space can vary significantly, based on the performance of the codec, as well as the hearing abilities and listening preference of the user, in concern.
The first factor is quite straight forward, and although rely on subjective evaluations; it is quite easy to arrive at a general consensus, provided that the sampled population is representative.
The second factor is more dynamic. Different people due to various genetic factors, different body build and environmental factors have different hearing response to the audio frequency spectrum. In addition, being able to hear a high frequency is one matter, but being able to process the signal and correlate it within the mind into a meaningful timing/spatial cue is another matter. The latter is certainly an acquired skill, and will only get better with more exposure and training, as is evident in audiophileâ??s critical listening sessions. It is amazing how one can train the mind to track concurrently the various pieces of instruments, in a good piece of busy recording.
Without a serious consideration of the second factor, any discussion over which codec and portable device combo as best becomes meaningless and unfounded.
Hence as can be seen, the final result is highly dependant on the end-user.
For the purpose of this discussion, I shall present my personal version of the evaluation between the AAC Vs ATRAC3+ codec. And based on this finding, I shall comment on the validity of SONY̢??s statement that HD5 offers РDoubling the music storage Рon the same 20GB over the iPod.
Here are my â??lowerâ?? and â??upperâ?? bounds for each codec:
AAC lower bound: 128Kbps
AAC upper bound: Between AAC 320 and Apple Lossless
ATRAC3+ lower bound: 48Kbps
ATRAC3+ upper bound: Between 128bKps and 256Kbps (very close tie between the two, with 256Kbps approximating those of WMA Lossless)
If we correlate these criteria with the file size factor, if I use the ATRAC3+ on its lower bound definition, SONY HD5 actually has a 3x advantage over the iPod; whereas if I use the ATRAC3+ on its upper bound definition, SONY HD5 has approx a 2x advantage over the iPod (I am taking the file size average between AAC 320 and Apple Lossless).
Hence do I believe that SONYâ??s proclamation is founded?
YES! And with ease I may addâ?¦: )
May 8th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Totally agree with Tom. I recalled reading Audiophile’s comments last week from this web page. He presented such a convincing case on how superior the ATRAC3 Plus is, over the AAC. What happened to his comments? It seems to have disappeared into the thin air!? Or may be his comments were delibrately removed by some iPod-biased site policy or what? Please bring his comments back! There seems to be some cover-up operation happening here…readers beware of the neutrality of the information you read here!
May 8th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Reply to MarkL:
Not sure why the review was removed.
I shall try to re-post my ATRAC3+ Vs AAC review again soon.
May 8th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
This is a re-post of my review: Total 5 parts.
Part (I) â?? Apple Lossless encoding and File sizes
I guess there might be some confusion between AAC (Advance Audio Coding) and ALE (Apple Lossless Encoder). Please refer to their respective definitions here: http://www.georgehernandez.com/XComputers/zMisc/Audio.htm
With reference to http://www.apple.com/itunes/import.html please be aware that the average file size for Apple lossless encoded files should be around half the size of the original WAV file. This compression ratio is akin to those of the WMA lossless. For argument sake, most of the lossless encoding formats follow the half of original WAV size rule. In my own opinion, both lossless formats (WMA and Apple) are sonically superb, and are equally good if you need Absolute quality. The challenge to getting the best sound from these portable devices is more so on the output stage of the built-in op-amp, which should be taken into consideration, and not so much on which lossless format to choose over.
A quick check on the average file size from your AAC 256kbps will quickly reveal that it is far from being lossless, it is actually quite lossy indeed. ATRAC3+ is also a lossy format. The question is, which is the Better one? See Part (II).
May 8th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Part (I) â?? Apple Lossless encoding and File sizes
I guess there might be some confusion between AAC (Advance Audio Coding) and ALE (Apple Lossless Encoder). They are indeed quite different standards. Please refer to their respective definitions here (www.georgehernandez.com/XComputers/zMisc/Audio.htm)
With reference to (www.apple.com/itunes/import.html) please be aware that the average file size for Apple lossless encoded files should be around half the size of the original WAV file. This compression ratio is akin to those of the WMA lossless. For argument sake, most of the lossless encoding formats follow the half of original WAV size rule. In my own opinion, both lossless formats (WMA and Apple) are sonically superb, and are equally good if you need Absolute quality. The challenge to getting the best sound from these portable devices is more so on the output stage of the built-in op-amp, which should be taken into consideration, and not so much on which lossless format to choose over.
A quick check on the average file size from your AAC 256kbps will quickly reveal that it is far from being lossless, it is actually quite lossy indeed. ATRAC3+ is also a lossy format. The question is, which is the Better one? See Part (II).
May 8th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
Can someone confirm that the 30g version is same size and weight as 20g?
Also does either version come with a remote control?
cheers
May 9th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
why do people defend Apple with such vigour. Have you all shares in Apple. You you think Apple really cares about you ?
May 10th, 2005 at 4:43 am
Reply to Jamie May, (Part I)
Yes, I can confirm that the 20GB (NW-HD5) and 30GB (NW-HD5H) versions have identical dimension and weight. See (www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.1394)
In fact, with the current technology, and with reference to Toshibaâ??s 1.8â?? HDD specs, it is indeed possible to produce a 60GB version of the HD5 without any size or weight penalty. The only remaining factor is cost.
May 10th, 2005 at 4:44 am
Reply to Jamie May, (Part II)
Here are the specs for the 1.8â?? format HDDs:
20GB: (sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=/818200000007000000010000659800000940/81820000011d000000010000659c000003fd/8182000001c8000000010000659c00000599/8182000001df000000010000659c000005c1/8182000001e2000000010000659c000005c6)
30GB: (sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=/818200000007000000010000659800000d2a/81820000011d000000010000659c000003fd/8182000001c8000000010000659c00000599/8182000001df000000010000659c000005c1/818200000658000000010000659c00001418)
60GB: (sdd.toshiba.com/main.aspx?Path=818200000007000000010000659800001516/81820000011d000000010000659c000003fd/8182000001c8000000010000659c00000599/8182000001df000000010000659c000005c1/8182000009e9000000010000659c00002243)
As can be seen, the number of disk platter and heads are the same, the only factor that changes is recording density. And hence you will notice an increase in the User-Data-Cylinders figure.
Another bonus with the larger capacity drives is their Energy-Consumption-Efficiency. From 20GB, 30GB to 60GB, their respective values are 0.02W/GB, 0.013W/GB and 0.005W/GB! The higher the capacity, the more efficient it is.
May 13th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
for audiophile: only one week till i get my hd5 delivered!!
cant wait!!any other advice to get the best outta this little gem of science !!
May 14th, 2005 at 7:16 am
Reply to jaymoo42:
Congratulations on your new acquisition!
I am sure you will enjoy the unit as much as I do.
I have to assume that the BEST you were referring to means sonic quality, right?
Well, it depends on how and where you will be using it.
My personal preference is to go with an open-air design first, if the environment permits, as it sounds best to me. But this means that the environment must be relatively quiet, and also that you will not be interfering with others with the sound emanating from the rear sides of the drivers. Likely scenarios are places at home or at office.
However, if your listening environment is quite noisy, eg. Commuting in a subway, you definitely want to go with the closed/sealed type headphones. They provide excellent noise isolation from the environment.
You can read up some good advice from the HeadRoom site:
(www.headphone.com/layout.php?topicID=2)
I shall post my personal recommendations in my next post.
May 14th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Part I: Portable Headphone choice
In choosing a headphone for a portable device, other than sound quality, you may also want to consider:
(1) Headphone with high sensitivity / efficiency
(2) Headphone compatibility (impedance matching) with the output stage of the built-in amplifier in the portable device
(3) Ability to isolate from noise
(4) Mechanical construction
Headphone driver and speaker drivers are very much alike.
The driving force on the driver is directly proportional to:
(1) Electric current passing thru the voice coil
(2) Number of wounds on the voice coil
(3) The strength of the magnetic flux within which the voice coil operates
You have little control over (2), but when choosing a suitable headphone, you can pay attention to factors (1) and (3).
Portable headphones tend to have lower impedance. This is because lower impedance causes higher current (see factor 1) to pass thru for a given potential difference (voltage), hence generating more driving force. This also usually means the number of wounds on the voice coil is generally lower to keep both the impedance and mass down, and sensitivity high. It will play louder for a given volume setting, but may not have as good a control over the diaphragm movement as the higher impedance version w/ higher number of wounds on the voice coil.
May 14th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Part II: Portable Headphone choice
Here are the brief specs for some of the nice sounding headphone (both portable and full-sized) on my preference list:
SONY Qualia 010 Impedance 70 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 100 db/mW; Freq Response 5-120kHz; Magnet 440kJ/m3 Traverse-pressed Neodymium; Diaphragm: 50mm Nano-Composite HD
SONY Qualia MDR-EXQ1 Impedance 16 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 101db/mW; Freq Response 5-24kHz; Magnet 440kJ/m3 Neodymium; Diaphragm: 9mm
SONY MDR-SA5000 Impedance 70 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 102db/mW; Freq Response 6-110kHz; Magnet 360kJ/m3 Neodymium; Diaphragm: 50mm Nano-Composite HD
SONY MDR-SA3000 Impedance 70 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 100db/mW; Freq Response 8-100kHz; Magnet 360kJ/m3 Neodymium; Diaphragm: 50mm Nano-Composite HD
SONY MDR-R10 Impedance 40 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 100db/mW; Freq Response 20-20kHz; Diaphragm 50mm Bio-cellolose
SONY MDR-E888LP Impedance 16 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 108db/mW; Freq Response 8-27kHz; Diaphragm: 16mm Bio-cellolose
SENNHEISER HD-650 Impedance 300 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 103db/mW; Freq Response 10-39.5kHz
Shure E2c Impedance 16 Ohm; Sensitivity 105db/mW; Freq Response 20Hz-16kHz
Etymotic ER-4P Impedance 27 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 102db/mW; Freq Response 20-16kHz; Accuracy Score 86%
Etymotic ER-4S Impedance 100 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 90 db/mW; Accuracy Score 92%
UE-10Pro Impedance 13.3 Ohm at 1kHz; Sensitivity 119db/mW; Freq Response 20Hz-16kHz
May 14th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Part III: Portable Headphone choice
You will notice that those Hi-End headphones generally have higher impedance. Consider the case for ear-plugs, the ER-4S is better sounding over the ER-4P; but ER-4S has a higher impedance and lower sensitivity than the ER-4P.
So it seems like it is a case of striking a good compromise. There is always a give-n-take between striving for loudness/sensitivity and sonic quality/superb control over the driver.
Another factor to consider is that low-impedance generally also presents as a more difficult load to the headphone amplifier, as it always demands more current to drive at a given voltage. If the amp-stage and power-supply stage are strong, then this is no issue, otherwise it may cause current overload on the output-stage and audio distortion will be eminent.
Pure specification only provides a slight clue to the performance of a pair of headphones. You will also need to look at its construction and the material used. It is difficult to express how accurate a pair of headphones are, in simple figures (even THD does not tell you the whole picture).
In this aspect, what I generally look for is the material used in baffle & housing, material used in building the diaphragm, and the magnetic system (see factor 3). Good housing and diaphragm should have both high rigidity (good strength to mass ratio) and exhibit superb damping factor. Magnetic field should be both uniform, stable and strong (the higher the better).
May 14th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Part IV: Portable Headphone choice
Two of the most best sounding diaphragm materials I have experienced so far come from SONY:
(1) Bio-cellulose, found R10 and E888LP
(2) Nano-composite HD, found in Qualia 010, Qualia EXQ1, SA5000, SA3000
In terms of magnetic strength, the New SONY headphones also exhibit impressive and distinct advantage over other designs:
(1) 440kJ/m3 Neodymium, found in Qualia 010 and EXQ1
(2) 360kJ/m3 Neodymium, found in SA5000 and SA3000
Open-air design also generally sounds better than closed-sealed type because the secondary sound wave behind the diaphragm has a chance to escape and is less likely to rebound within the housing cavity to cause interference and resonance.
However the inner ear sealed type does allow playing at even lower volume (due to high noise isolation factor). This saves both power and reduces the risk of permanent hearing damage. This is why my preference is to choose the inner-ear-canal sealed type headphones if I need something portable.
May 14th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Part V: Portable Headphone choice
Another factor to consider is whether to go w/ a 1-way, 2-way or 3-way crossover/driver design.
My opinion is, I always apply the same principle as those I use for choosing speakers:
(1) The fewer crossover-point the better, provided that the driver can display full control and minimal distortion during playback over the entire audible spectrum;
(2) A superior 1-way single-driver is my preference over a traditional 3-way triple-driver design. Passive crossover introduces extra phase-distortion, which affects the harmonic accuracy during playback. Being able to accurate replay higher-order of harmonics is vital to sonic realism.
(3) It is more difficult to build a 1-way single-driver that will reproduce a coherence sound wave over a very wide audio frequency spectrum. But if this can be achieved (as in the case for SONY), it should out perform a similar system done in 2-way or 3-way design. As 1-way system will produce a single coherent wave-front to the ears, which is always more accurate than having multiple-wave fronts emanating from various drivers and trying to sync them properly over entire frequency spectrum, not to say dealing with comb-filter effect (due to destructive-interference), phase-error and propagation-delay…etc. introduced by the complexity in a multi-way design.
May 17th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
question for the ever wise audiophile: a little birdie told me that 64 kbps is mono? is that true?
May 17th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Reply to jaymoo42:
I suppose the 64kbps you were referring to was ATRAC3 right?
Using SonicStage v3.0 or v3.1, both the 48kbps and 64kbps are STEREO.
There is no option to set recording in MONO using this software.
Other codecs like WMA, if you encode the file via NERO, then at around 20kbps, you have got the option to record/rip in MONO. Cannot imagine anyone using this low-bit-rate on recordings made for portable audioâ?¦maybe appropriate for web page application, where bandwidth is limited, this maybe an alternative.
May 18th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
reply to audiophile:
yeah …i was…my friend is an i pod nut so he was bad mouthing sony sayin 64kbps is mono…thats probably only true of aac format? what do you reccomend …i have abou 500 cds and then all my friends together we have 1000’s will 64kbps really sound ok? ive been looking for headphones im thinkin of going with a pair of schure/or some other in ear type with the cushion for reducing noise…
once again thank you!!
May 18th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Reply to jaymoo42:
If you refer to my earlier post, in which there is a listing of file sizes and bit-rate for ATRAC3/ATRAC3+, you may have noticed an interesting fact regarding the unusual sampling rate offerings at 66kbps and 105kbps. These sampling rates are neither available from AAC nor from WMA. They are specifically designed to satisfy those audio fans who, on one hand, have a good ear for quality recording; but on the other, wants to pack as much music on their portable audio device as possible. In this regard, it reflects the maturity, vast experience and care-factor, over which SONY has, in offering a codec that truly satisfies their customer. It shows that they actually took the trouble of evaluating their codecâ??s performance as well as giving some serious thoughts on drawing a fine balance between file size Vs sonic quality, before providing the ATRAC3+ codec to their customer.
Moving up the sampling rate scale on the ATRAC3 does progressively makes a demonstrable difference. I seriously suggest you evaluate the sonic quality of the 48kbps/64kbps/66kbps/105kbps/128kbps in detail, when your unit arrives, and evaluate which suits you best.
If I were to summarize the difference in one word for the increased ATRAC3 bit-rate, I would use the term — DENSITY. Even at very low bit-rate such as 48kbps, the ATRAC3 does not sound as if it is suffering from a serious compromise on the frequency range extremes; the same cannot be said for AAC. It is indeed quite listenable, especially for those who are happy with using the standard set of headphones. However, if you are any more serious in regards to sonic quality, and are prepared to invest on a pair of serious headphones, like I did, then the 66kbps and 105kbps is worth considering. Especially, for 66kbps, compared to the 64kbps the file size difference is minimal, but because the 66kbps is an ATRAC3+ whilst 64kbps is an ATRAC3, the sonic improvement is actually quite noticeable and rewarding. There is definitely more â??bodyâ?? in a recording encoded in 66kbps compared to the 64kbps. Anymore serious, you will have to consider the 105kbps and 128kbps. At 105kbps and 128kbps, they are very much performing on a different level to the lower bit-rates. I would imagine they should satisfy 90%-95% of the music fans out there. If you are not listening with a top-quality headphone in a very quiet environment, I suspect most people cannot tell the different between the 128kbps to the 256kbps, which is itself performing very close to the lossless-encoded file / CD-quality.
However, at the end of the day, the optimal bit-rate is very much a function of:
(1) your personal preference (what level of sonic quality that satisfies you)
(2) your headphone quality
(3) your listening environment
If you are listening in a noisy environment, then you will hardly notice the improved density on a recording done in a higher bit-rate; you would be better off using a lower bit-rate, as a constant and random background white-noise does have an interesting dithering effect on your music, which increases its apparent s/n (signal/noise) ratio. With a higher-quality headphone, the resolution power increases, hence it provides the listener better appreciation on the increased density of a high bit-rate recording. The higher the recording density (sampling rate), the less digital it is, and the more analogue it becomes (more natural sounding). Denser recording also provides your brain with more continuous sonic cues for processing. Hence the brain has to do less error-correction/guesswork and interpolation on the missing info. This in essence put less strain in your listening experience, and thus less fatigue. So the real question for evaluation should indeed be: At what bit-rate does it make your listening experience relaxing?
I am not sure if I raised more questions for you than those I have answered.
But hopefully I have increased your general awareness towards the various aspects of high-quality music reproduction.
May 18th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
reply to audiophile:
wow ! yes that did raise more questions…how do you know so much about this??i hadnt even noticed that there was 66kbps or 105!ill spend a good while listening to all the different bit rates…again thanks
May 25th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Dear Audiofile,
I’m a little confused. I have taken delivery of the wonderful little gem but am unclear still regarding the sampling rates. YOu have mentioned 66kbs as Altrac3 PLUS. But the associated PDF Help File states the following:- and I quote…..
Specified bit rate transfer mode
Tracks are converted at a specified bit rate and then transferred. Click to select from one of the following bit rates:
256 kbps
132 kbps (ATRAC3)
105 kbps (ATRAC3)
66 kbps (ATRAC3)
64 kbps
48 kbps
This implies to me only 48, 64 and 256 are available in PLUS mode?
can you clarify please?
June 1st, 2005 at 8:11 pm
audiophile: can u work this out?!!? i got this hack from amazon…but i cant get it to work!! can YOU??RSVP
if anyone else can figure it out please post ur result
1. Be in playback mode (playing a tune)
2. Press stop.
3. Straight away, flick the ‘hold’ button on the top of the player.
4. Hold the Search/Menu button down and enter the following combination of buttons in quick succession:
RIGHT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT UP DOWN
5. Stop pressing the Search / Menu button and flick off the ‘hold’ switch. The backlight will turn off and the display will say “POWER”. This means you are in the service menu.
6. Press UP until you get to “OTHER”.
7. Press RIGHT until you get to “G TEST”.
8. Press UP until you get to “SP SET”.
9. Press PLAY button. If the display says “OFF”, you have a non-EU player and the limiter is not in place. If it says “ON”, the volume is limited.
10. Press the Search/Mode button so that the display shows “OFF”.
11. Press the PLAY button to store the new setting. Now the display should say “SP SET”.
12) Hold down the Stop button until the unit performs a normal startup and displays the WALKMAN logo. Go to the normal options screen and switch the backlight back on.
Be careful with this; it does get noticeably louder (maybe too loud at top volume). Also, you can do all sorts of damage to the player in the service menu; make sure you don’t mess with anything else or your lovely new player could be irreperably damaged!
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:16 am
The above seems to work fine to me (thanks by the way!) apart from a few minor details. Step 6 – “OTHER” should read “OTHERS”. Step 7 – my player reads “LCD NP” not “G TEST”. Ignore this difference and press up anyway until you get to “SP SET” as in Step 8. Follow the rest of the steps as listed and you too can enjoy music at a decent volume!!!
I believe Audiophile’s hardware was from Japan, so would have had the higher volume setting anyway (i.e. in Step 9 the player would already say “OFF”).
For anyone else buying UK spec, I found that the lower EU volume setting isn’t too bad for newer CD’s, but some of my older ones were too quiet – presumably this is due to recording technology improving over the years (one for Audiophile?!).
Audiophile – found the above comments v. helpful. However, as per Jamie May above, was slightly confused by the fact that my player & software lists 64kbps as ATRAC3plus, not 66kps which it lists as ATRAC3. Presumably it’s the ATRAC3plus that we should be going for?
Another question for you while I’m on a roll. I’ve invested in some new headphones. I only wanted to pay £25-£30, so I went for Sony MDR-EX71SLB Fontopia Headphones. Have I made a terrible mistake or are these ok for my budget? Are they actually much better than the ones that come with the player?
By the way, as a definite non-expert, I find the ATRAC3plus at 64kbps to produce pretty acceptable sound quality. However, I did find that I could tell a difference between this and the 256kbps setting, particularly on certain tracks such as “Street Spirit” by Radiohead. However, you are definitely limiting how much stuff you can put on if you go for the 256kbps setting. If you can be bothered swapping around, guess you could just select it for certain tracks/artists.
Anyway, over all Iâ??m very pleased with my purchase, and would recommend the HD5 to anyone. Have found the software fine (the source of the majority of complaints about Sony players), although admittedly I’ve never owned an I-pod to compare I-tunes to it.
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:18 am
I’ve got an iRiver MP3 CD player and I am planning to buy this Sony HD5. But I gotta a couple of question for Audiophile (or anyone for that matter):
1. What’s the frequency response of the HD5 output?
2. What’s the SNR/dynamic range for it?
Is it anywhere as good as say, my Luxman CD player? Better than ipod, zen, iriver and archos?
I want to know this because then I can buy an appropriate pair of nice headphones for it… No point in buying a pair of good headphones with heaps of frequency response to listen to an average audio source…
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:04 pm
More volume on the sony nw-hd5 (revised) thanks to mr jumping bean!!
1. Be in playback mode (playing a tune)
2. Press stop.
3. Straight away, flick the â??holdâ?? button on the top of the player.
4. Hold the Search/Menu button down and enter the following combination of buttons in quick succession:
RIGHT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT UP DOWN
5. Stop pressing the Search / Menu button and flick off the â??holdâ?? switch. The backlight will turn off and the display will say â??POWER”. This means you are in the service menu.
6. Press UP until you get to â??OTHER”.
7. Press RIGHT until you get to â??LCD NP”.
8. Press UP until you get to â??SP SET”.
9. Press PLAY button. If the display says â??OFF”, you have a non-EU player and the limiter is not in place. If it says â??ON”, the volume is limited.
10. Press the Search/Mode button so that the display shows â??OFF”.
11. Press the PLAY button to store the new setting. Now the display should say â??SP SET”.
12) Hold down the Stop button until the unit performs a normal startup and displays the WALKMAN logo. Go to the normal options screen and switch the backlight back on.
n.b. this also appears to switch on the repeat function â?¦easily fixed thoughâ?¦..ENJOY
Be careful with this; it does get noticeably louder (maybe too loud at top volume). Also, you can do all sorts of damage to the player in the service menu; make sure you donâ??t mess with anything else or your lovely new player could be irreperably damaged!
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Headphones
Ofcourse the standard ones can be improved upon as is always the case. WHAT HI-FI magazine rates -in the under gbp 30 range -2 sennheiser models, which I have bought and am pleased with. In ear model MX 500 under a tenner; and collapseable/travel model PX100 around 28 pounds. Both are good, obviously in-ear model gives louder – not better- performance.
Maybe I am missing the point with comments re volume limitations, my UK bought version allows me to simply go from Menu via SOUND to AVLS and set it to OFF.
Having loaded up over 100 cds now, I can confirm that Audiphile was wrong with bit rates. On screen display confirms 66 is NOT Atrac3 PLUS. I am a pretty serious music listener and when I recorded a track at 256 and 64 and then played randomly, I could not tell the difference; but it is only a portable for gods sake. Good news with this is approx 650 CDs can be recorded at what I think is a perfectly acceptable quality. Finally I too have never used music software previously and I find the sonic stage 3.1 perfectly ok, especially the ease and amount of playlists.
June 2nd, 2005 at 8:44 pm
to: jamie may.
yes u are missing the point about more volume….it doubles the volume output of the unit….try it!!!!(be careful it gets LOUD!!!) the difference between 64 and 256 is dramatic…try plugging the unit into your home unit ….it will be apparent immediately!!
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:09 pm
I thought I must have missed something. But why on earth would I want it any louder? already it could potentially annoy people on trains or beaches etc and surely that’s all it’s for, isn’t it? A bit of fun? I wouldn’t contemplate connecting it to my/any SERIOUS home kit. For that usage, I suggest people look at the Yamaha CDR HD-1300, which is superb. A pocket walkman or similar is just for fun/travelling.
June 14th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
ok i just wanna know which one would be better for those of us who are not dorks and just like to listen to music for long periods of time. does one sound better than the other? i dont care about the software.which has better features?
June 14th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
ok me: buy the sony for these reasons…the battery lasts ages,its small,has a graphic equalizer,its not an i pod,read earlier posts and u can boost the volume,battery is easily replacable(unlike i pod),the sound rocks!! i use 132kbps and sometimes 105kbps.
June 14th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
I thoroughly recommend the Sony. It looks good; big screen; it’s well-built; battery seems to last at least 24 hours; software is easy to use and it sounds great. As I said before, for personal (travel) use, I have been surprised at the quality of sound generated at just 64kbs (Atrac 3 PLUS) , at which setting over 650 CDs can be recorded. I don’t suppose there will be a noticeably different sound between one player and another, so it is just down to personal choice re preferences and style and look & feel.
June 14th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
I thoroughly recommend the Sony. It looks good; big screen; it’s well-built; battery seems to last at least 24 hours; software is easy to use and it sounds great. As I said before, for personal (travel) use, I have been surprised at the quality of sound generated at just 64kbs (Atrac 3 PLUS) , at which setting over 650 CDs can be recorded. I don’t suppose there will be a noticeably different sound between one player and another, so it is just down to personal choice re preferences and style and look & feel.
June 20th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Nice discussion. I’m about to buy my first MP3 player, and I intend to use it for both music (I’m a fairly serious music listener – I want to hear a guitar string vibrate and I don’t listen to hiphop) AND for digital books. It seems Audible.com doesn’t support the Sony device. Is this true, and is there any way around this? Thanks in advance.
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Hi guys, all you guys are getting well to technichal, I have a 40GB 4G iPod and I love it, and yes the battery is brutally bad at times (but I use it as an in-car stereo broadcasting it into my radio throught he genius of the griffin iTrip so battery life is not a drawback for me) maybe if your seriously on the move all day and you need serious battery power, then try the sony but I heard its very slow to scroll through your music library (which is very important when you have up to 15,000 tracks to look through) something which the iPod excells at. I am a graduate of a sound production / music tech course in Ireland but I’m not getting into which sounds better, if your walking are cycling around town all day the’re gonna sound pretty simillar anyway.
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Man, I had no idea this was all so complicated! Next time Iâ??ll do a bit more reading BEFORE I buy a portable music player. Took delivery of my Sony HD5 yesterday and thoroughly impressed.
BUT, Iâ??m not sure what bit rate to go for when loading on tunes. I put a few CDs on in Atrac 3 PLUS at 64kbps and it sounded pretty good but was clearly not near CD quality.
From the above, and another site, I suspect plain old Atrac 3 with 132 kbps might be the way to go in terms of trade off between quality/size/battery-life.
That said, I know I’ll get frustrated that I could have them near CD with Atrac 3 Plus and 256kbps. Storage isn’t a big issue as I’ve ‘only’ got a couple of hundred CDs. Battery-life is, as I’m off travelling for 6 months in forn parts, and may not always have access to a charging point.
Does anyone know of a link to a table showing (or is able to tell me from experience) the approximate battery life of the NW5 when files are stored at a) Atrac3 Plus 64kbps b) Atrac3 Plus 256kbps c) Atrac3 (standard) 132kbps?
Any advice gratefully received, cheers…
August 6th, 2005 at 5:31 am
I would advice you to get a Sony. Despite of all the discussion up there about numbers and encoding, I find my new Sony much better than the IPod I had until last month: great sound and marvellous battery life. I dont care about the brand (I have also seen stupid discussions like those up there between users of Nokia and Ericsson mobile phones), and I cant understand how some people defend or attack a brand or the other (new religions, perhaps? ;-)). NW-HD5 is simply better. I just want music player, and I still prefer playing Doom in my computer. :-)
August 14th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I got the HD5 and was hoping it will display unicode as almost every player does nowadays. This stupid HD5 DOES NOT DISPLAY UNICODE. That means I can’t show Chinese song titles :( .
The top cover is not just flimsy; it’s EXTREMELY flimsy! The construction quality is NOT SONY. It looks like they paid Aiwa to build it.
It sounds good or does it really sound thin…
August 27th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Previous posts mentioned the low volume when connecting to HI-Fi Systems. I’m sure most people know already but for those unaware, there is a tremendous difference when adjusting the AUDIO OUTPUT from HEADPHONE to LINE OUT. I haven’t messed around with the left/right/left sequence mentioned by others; but by adjusting the audio output this morning, I could reduce the sound level on my hi-fi system to level 2 out of 10 – for window rattling sound.
September 11th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
Been reading all this with interest as I’m just thinking of getting the Sony HD-5 specifically to connect to my stereo at work (self-employed! and don’t want to keep carting my CD’s between the two places). Sorry to be so ignorant, will I be able to plug it into the power supply and just connect it up (line out mode) and run it through the stereo as simple as that, with no need to worry about battery life? Cheers and thanks in advance for your time…..
December 8th, 2005 at 4:06 am
i have a question regarding the software that can be used, i have heard it said that another type of software can be used for dropping mp3 files directly into your mp3 player i believe its VAIO but am not sure, could an owner get back to me on whether this is true or not
Thanks
December 24th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Used loads of different machines, iPod is well decent but having used both and compared them back to back, the HD5 pips it in my book. Only gripe is there is nowhere near enough accessories available. In particular, I would love a version of the ‘iTrip’ for my Sony. Does anyone know of a product that matches this?
January 30th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Are there any portable devices other than Ipods that play aac format? Atrac rules!!!!!
July 11th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I’ve been a fan of Md’s ever since I saw an MO in the original Mission impossible. When I went to the store’s electronics section (Northern Japan), I saw something similar, and was like.. Bam! It’s gotta be mine. Then they started coming out with MDLP.. which sacrificed sound quality for quantity.. During this era, i’d always still record on SP.. (80 min per MD..or 74, depending on which).. and use digital SPDIF connections with CD players to transfer music. I broke each of my recorders one got stolen, etc. lived without Md’s for awhile, when I came to america, but then.. one day.. on the 25th of December, Santa gave me a sony MZ-NH1. It is a beauty, and I can definitely say it’s an all purpose instrument for those that like sound. I use it to record lectures, I use it to record my music, and then x-fer all of it to PC.. where I can cut.. and paste songs, changing all sorts stuff with Goldwave, and Fruity Studio.. x-fer it to my mac, play with garageband, export it as a PCM wav. file…send it to my PC.. have sonicstage put it into MD-SP (I do not use Hi-MD’s much. I only have one, and I use it to store files, along with songs that I need to listen to to see if I like or not (from downloading)) Atrac3 (not plus) format, and import into my MD.. or.. just plug my MD recorder to my mac, using an analog 3.5 mm cable and record directly.. Put track marks later. It’s good to walk with it.. Running with it, is a hassle, so I’m gonna get an i-shuffle for my really active-activities. I have a pair of fontopia ear buds that serve me well.. Too bad Qualia is no longer, their ear buds were next on my plate..
Peace all!