Does iAudio 7 have balance (pan) option

[durask]

Just wondering if iAudio 7 has balance adjustment (they call it "pan"). Their website doesn't have a downloadable manual yet, so I can't check there.

[Dominic]

you completely bypassed the stickies here huh? [laugh]

http://iaudiophile.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15765

Welcome to iaudiophile though, enjoy your stay.

[durask]

Thanks! Looks like it does.

I have a D2 which I bought for in-car and bike use and just can't get used to the touchscreen only interface - you need to look at it to change tracks, etc, which is unsafe when driving or biking. I think I'll get the 16 gig iAudio 7 when it comes out.

[Dominic]

Can't you use the manual buttons to change tracks?

[Sirocco]

Durask, on the iAudio 7, some of the buttons can be programmed, possibly to go to the next/previous track. Also, there isn't a 16 gig version. I wouldn't rely on a rumor.

[andyhal]

There will be a 16GB version at some point, as stated on this page on the Cowon site

http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/7/

[kaotic_azn]

Thanks! Looks like it does.

I have a D2 which I bought for in-car and bike use and just can't get used to the touchscreen only interface - you need to look at it to change tracks, etc, which is unsafe when driving or biking. I think I'll get the 16 gig iAudio 7 when it comes out.

try and use the volume buttons when they are locked they become your ff/rw buttons when you choose them in the menu

[Sirocco]

Andyhal, 8 gigs is a breakthrough for a flash memory device. It will hold the music of 96 CD's, at 196 kbps, which exceeds CD quality, which is closer to 128. That's a lot of music. There's no point in waiting for the "next best thing" because there's always something else on the horizon. As you get past 8gig storage it becomes hard to manage.

[addz]

^ Sirocco. Think you will find your kidding your self a bit with the bit rates you've listed here. If ive read your post correctly;

192kbps is no where near above CD quality, more like below. 128kbps is not CD quality. I think you will find technically mp3 V0 is more closer to CD quality as with 320kbps encoded mp3's. While flac and wav is more of a direct rip of the CD and thus on target with CD quality.

Getting back to the OP. Im sure that the i7 has a pan/balance option listed under jeteffects on the device menu.

[GSV3MiaC]

'Above CD quality' is actually pretty uninteresting, given that almost all music (that we play on a DAP) has passed through being a CD at some point. However with modern encoding formats 192 or 256kb/s is getting pretty indistinguishable from flac for 99.9% of the music for 99.9% of the population.

Yes, there are some pathological cases (usually involving cymbals and suchlike) which show up defects if you have good ears, but I am for sure not about to encode everything as flac just on the offchance there might be a cymbal in there!

[addz]

Stating "128kbps is near CD quality" is totally absurd and therefore pointing out what really is NEAR CD quality.

AND not forgetting that this choice of encoding all comes down to whether or not ones ears are satified with the quality one is ripping at.

Also i wouldent say that only 0.01% of the population can distinguish between 192kbps and flac.

[GSV3MiaC]

I wouldn't say that either. 100%-99.9% is? (you get a free second try). 8>.

It does depend on your ears, your phones, where you listen, etc. Through my PC, which has pretty reasonable speakers and sound card, I can't tell 256k .ogg from the original .wav .. I proved it using WinABX before deciding what to rip my library to. If you are up for a challenge, try it yourself.

Most people ripping to .flac are just wasting electrons, but hey, why should I care.

[Dominic]

I rip to flac, but only to archive, I would use it of course all the time if that was viable, but at its massive file sizes it simply is not.

For portable use I don't mind using compressed music, and ogg by far is one of the best compressed formats i've used.

Anyway we have all gone far off topic and the OP's question has been dealt with so If anybody feels like starting a new thread to discuss codec formats then by all means do... or keep talking until this thread is locked

[addz]

I wouldn't say that either. 100%-99.9% is? (you get a free second try). 8>.
You say:
99.9% of the population cant distinguish between flac and mp3.
Meaning your saying 0.01% can distinguish between flac and mp3.
But like i sed origionally:
i wouldent say that only 0.01% of the population can distinguish.
I would say a higher % can distinguish between flac and mp3.

Now lets lock this soab. :P

[GSV3MiaC]

100-99.9 != 0.01

Third time lucky?

[Sirocco]

It seems the comment that diverted this thread from it's original topic was my comment that 196 kbps exceeds CD quality. OK, this may be technically incorrect. My point was, at least to my ears, which are healthy (i.e. no hearing loss), 196 provides "excellent" sound quality. Subjectively, I'd say that 196 kbps is appropriate for high-quality music, 128 kbps for barely adequate music, 96 kbps for high-quality talk show, 32-48 kbps for low-quality talk show. Today, these are all popular bitrates for these purposes. Many internet radio stations broadcast music at 96 (ninety-six) kbps, and, as listened through my stereo speakers, is, well, "perfectly enjoyable". Without any "side by side" comparisons, the ear just doesn't "know" that's it's not CD quality, which, quite frankly, may be a meaningless comparison anyway, subjectively speaking, of course. Music doesn't have to be CD quality, evidently, to relax or inspire.

[addz]

:P

i think this is rapped up now. Its save to say i7 has pan feature inc in the jeteffects on the device.

[Sirocco]

Regarding the "original post", Im sure that the i7 does NOT have a pan/balance option, since it's not listed in the user manual, it's not a common feature on MP3 players. Most people would simply use the balance control of the stereo into which the i7 is plugged for this kind of adjustment.

[GSV3MiaC]

Sure it does have a pan control - page 35 of the manual, under 'pan'. The whole point of a portable player is that you don't HAVE a stereo into which it is plugged, you have a pair of earphones, few of which have any sort of balance control.

As to what bitrate is high quality, medium quality,etc, it depends on the format, the encoder used, and the type of music, ears, phones, ambient noise in the listening area, and all sorts of things. We know most people can't tell good from bad - just look at the number of iPods walking around out there.

AM (and even FM) radio is not 'CD quality', not even close, and used to be the de-facto standard for music listening.

[Sirocco]

The user manual does describe a pan feature! This i7 is amazing.

GSV, you state "AM (and even FM) radio is not 'CD quality', not even close, and used to be the de-facto standard for music listening". Isn't an analog signal actually a "perfect" representation of a sound? Since the analog "curve" is smooth, whereas the digital representation has incremental steps, which can only approximate, and never actually equal, the smoothness of the analog curve, and since FM is analog, doesn't this imply, at least in terms of capability, that FM provides superior sound reproduction?

I would expect an FM station playing a record (or magnetic tape), with the usual filters, would provide the best sound, assuming perfect reception by a stereo receiver.

[Tac21]

Stating "128kbps is near CD quality" is totally absurd and therefore pointing out what really is NEAR CD quality.

AND not forgetting that this choice of encoding all comes down to whether or not ones ears are satified with the quality one is ripping at.

Nothing else needs to be said.

[GSV3MiaC]

GSV, you state "AM (and even FM) radio is not 'CD quality', not even close, and used to be the de-facto standard for music listening". Isn't an analog signal actually a "perfect" representation of a sound? Since the analog "curve" is smooth, whereas the digital representation has incremental steps, which can only approximate, and never actually equal, the smoothness of the analog curve, and since FM is analog, doesn't this imply, at least in terms of capability, that FM provides superior sound reproduction?

I would expect an FM station playing a record (or magnetic tape), with the usual filters, would provide the best sound, assuming perfect reception by a stereo receiver.

AM radio has all of 9 or 10khz bandwidth (and in mono), which is a bit of a problem!! FM can theoretically get up there to CD quality, but rarely does in the real world (even when the signal is good, most receivers are horrible). For more than you wanted to know see something like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_station

[extc]

The user manual does describe a pan feature! This i7 is amazing.

GSV, you state "AM (and even FM) radio is not 'CD quality', not even close, and used to be the de-facto standard for music listening". Isn't an analog signal actually a "perfect" representation of a sound? Since the analog "curve" is smooth, whereas the digital representation has incremental steps, which can only approximate, and never actually equal, the smoothness of the analog curve, and since FM is analog, doesn't this imply, at least in terms of capability, that FM provides superior sound reproduction?

I would expect an FM station playing a record (or magnetic tape), with the usual filters, would provide the best sound, assuming perfect reception by a stereo receiver.

Now you're mixing the analog signal "thing" to something like vinyls. Radio is a completely different thing. In theory vinyls have the best sound quality, because it's not compressed. FM radio can't provide superior sound reproduction, since it's compressed.

[Sirocco]

But if, in theory, vinyls have the best sound quality, because it's not compressed, wouldn't that be the de facto standard, rather than CD?

For the same reason, it must be better to convert my vinyl to mp3 than CD to mp3 (even though it's more difficult, for obvious reasons, to convert an LP into mp3 files than to convert a CD).

Also, is the sound on a CD compressed? And what is the bitrate on a CD?

[GSV3MiaC]

The problem is that an LP suffers from scratches, dust, and warping. And even if there is 100Khz waveform information pressed into the surface (fat chance, given the production technology used) there is almost no chance to get it off again with a physical pickup (maybe if you read the surface with a microscope) .. but then vinyl was produced from tapes, made from microphones .. so the sound was never perfect. As soon as you run a diamond stylus over it a few times the higher frequencies are getting polished away anyway.

CDs are uncompressed wave data .. sampled as 16 bit, at 44.1Khz sample frequency, Stereo, .. so call that 1,411 kb/sec. They can convey (at 16 bit accuracy) sounds in the 0hz-22khz range before you get into aliasing problems, which is quite enough for most human ears.

[Sirocco]

Scratches, dust, and warping aren't inevitable, in which case the question remains, aren't LP's a better recording source than a CD (to create a MP3)?

You also state: "but then vinyl was produced from tapes, made from microphones .. so the sound was never perfect." But this also applies to many CD's. There used to be a notation like "ADD" or "AAD" printed on the CD, because some stages of the recording process were analog.

Also, isn't there a school of thought, among audiophiles, that LP's have "better sound" than CD's? Not just misguided Luddites, I'm sure.

[GSV3MiaC]

The answer remains 'maybe in theory, but not in the real world'.