Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP (Read 8025 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

I was wondering if anybody did any ABX (it should be the only thing that doesn't violate the TOS, right?) between the audio quality provided by iPod Nano 3g (4g or 5g is ok, by the way) DAC and the DSP included in many Samsung mp3 players and smartphones, DNSe 2.0.
Just to be more strict on forum rules, I already know that anything you will say will likely be personal and will not be THE TRUTH, but I'd be interested in reading some opinions.
Thanks

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #1
Can't you look up which DAC they both use? Many players from different manufacturers use the same DACs as there is only a limited choice. If the iPod 3G turns out to use the same DAC as the Samsung your question is answered.

I believe Apple used Wolfson DACs in many of its products until two years ago, that would mean all the iPod models you mention.
Every night with my star friends / We eat caviar and drink champagne
Sniffing in the VIP area / We talk about Frank Sinatra
Do you know Frank Sinatra? / He's dead

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #2
I've done controlled volume matched tests between a number of portable devices, including cell phones.  PMPs from a reasonably known brands (Apple, Sansa, Sony, Cowon, etc) basically measure well and sound the same.  There is a wider variety with cell phones.  Some phones are basically sonically identical to a good PMP.  Others have some serious problems that are measurable and audible.

**edit** Some PMPs have a non-flat EQ for their "flat" EQ setting.  I believe this was the case with some Sony players.  This led many people to claim the "Sony" sound was superior to other players, but it turned out this was from a bass boost with the flat EQ setting.  The "flat" setting could actually be made flat only through the service menu.

Such deviations from a flat FR can lead people to incorrectly conclude the sound of a device in superior/inferior, even in a controlled test.

There are some other confounding variables pertaining to the design of the portable device, but in many cases they matter for more measurement than audibility.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #3
We've seen reports of the iPod Touch creating audible noise associated with the touch screen:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=65929
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=617422

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #4
**edit** Some PMPs have a non-flat EQ for their "flat" EQ setting.  I believe this was the case with some Sony players.  This led many people to claim the "Sony" sound was superior to other players, but it turned out this was from a bass boost with the flat EQ setting.  The "flat" setting could actually be made flat only through the service menu.

Such deviations from a flat FR can lead people to incorrectly conclude the sound of a device in superior/inferior, even in a controlled test.


That's an interesting point.
I did some research in the last days, but couldn't find any info on the DAC used in the Samsung players/smartphones (ie. innov8, Spica).
I always read on the web about their DSP DNSe 2.0 which is "far superior" compared to iPod's DAC. Maybe this is due to the fact that DNSe should be a system involving custom EQ settings which causes a bass boost and leads to wrong conclusions, isn't it?

I only found out that Wolfson will feature their DACs in the future Samsung smartphones (and maybe PMP, I think)

Quote
The latest Samsung smartphones will contain a Wolfson audio chip Edinburgh-based company Wolfson Microelectronics has announced a contract with Samsung.
A Wolfson audio chip is included in Samsung's soon to be released smartphones, Wave and Galaxy S.


If anybody has any informations on the DAC included in the Samsung PMP/smartphones using DNSe 2.0, I'll be glad to hear any opinions regarding their sound quality.


@greynol
To be honest, I hear some noise from 2g and 3g iPod Nanos too, and that's annoying.
I can consider swapping the Nano (and my oldphone) with an Android phone using this so called DNSe 2.0 DSP and a "misterious" DAC on which there will be further investigation, considering that it will be used for casual listening on the street.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #5
I recommend you not worry too much about the particular DAC chip in any device.  It's quite easy to take the best DAC chip in the world and make a total disaster of the audio output.  Some people worry too much about particular DAC chips when it comes to audio quality.  The overall implementation of the audio circuit is much more important.

Honestly speaking, when companies brag about using a Wolfson, Burr Brown, Akai Kashi, ESS Sabre, or whatever other DAC chip, this is just marketing for the people who think DACs have audible differences.  Using a particular DAC doesn't automatically mean anything as far as quality of audio output.  I'd rather have an unknown DAC+well designed circuit with good measurements at the output than the best DAC chip+terrible circuit and measurements.

Here is an RMAA of a Sony player and the Samsung YP-P2.  There is nothing particularly magical about the YP-P2 - it measures pretty well.  The Sony has slightly boosted bass.  The stereo crosstalk of the YP-P2 decreases under load but this happens with many players and is expected.

http://www.prohost.org/~hackie/audio/YP-P2.../Comparison.htm

I always read on the web about their DSP DNSe 2.0 which is "far superior" compared to iPod's DAC. Maybe this is due to the fact that DNSe should be a system involving custom EQ settings which causes a bass boost and leads to wrong conclusions, isn't it?


Where did you read this?  Many people comparing devices do not do so in a controlled manner and so many claims are not accurate.  I'll bet if you put a Samsung player in some new housing with an unknown brand label  (e.g. "Cyberlink") people would claim it sounds much worse than the same player in a Samsung housing.  That's placebo for you.

If you are interested in the audio quality of cell phones I recommend http://www.gsmarena.com/  Their reviews include RMAA measurements of the audio output.  There are some limitations since the measurements are done without a headphone load, but it's easy to see which phones to avoid if you want a high quality audio output.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #6
Every word is precious for me.
Thanks.

RMAA, using gsmarena and kimicat as sources:

Test, unloaded (well, we'd need the load tests :\ )
-Samsung I5700 Galaxy Spica
-iPod Nano 3g     

Frequency response
+0.26 -3.47
+0.04, -0.16





Noise level   
-88.6   
-93.5

Dynamic range
88.5
93.5

THD
0.011
0.0048

IMD + Noise
0.774
0.0082

Stereo crosstalk
-80.2
-92.5


Telling if the differences are a noticeable matter is hard to say, owning Nano 3g only.
On the paper it seems that Samsung cuts off the extreme basses freqs and has a high IMD.
Any personal non-rilevant opinions on these data?

P.S
I googled but those statements regarding the superiority of the DNSe were everything but trustworthy because they were written in generic IT forums, that's why I chose to ask here.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #7
Telling if the differences are a noticeable matter is hard to say, owning Nano 3g only.
On the paper it seems that Samsung cuts off the extreme basses freqs and has a high IMD.
Any personal non-rilevant opinions on these data?


There are certain limitations to unloaded RMAA tests.  For one, certain measurements (e.g. stereo crosstalk, distortion) may get worse when they are loaded with low impedance headphones.  So the Samsung IMD may actually increase!  The FR can also change a lot depending on the headphone being used.  From measurements from another member (shigzeo) the ipod touch can handle a wide variety of headphones without issue.  I would not be surprised if the nano was just as capable.

This makes me think of a funny idea.  What if the type of distortion from the Samsung is actually *subjectively* improving the sound quality like the euphonic distortion typically associated with tube amps?

Cell phone audio output quality is also improving very rapidly from even a year ago.  Look at the RMAA (gsmarena.com) for the galaxy S.  Great (unloaded) measurements!

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #8
Every word is precious for me.
Thanks.

RMAA, using gsmarena and kimicat as sources:

Test, unloaded (well, we'd need the load tests :\ )
-Samsung I5700 Galaxy Spica
-iPod Nano 3g


Unloaded tests don't really mean anything unfortunately.  As soon as you connect a pair of headphones the results will change significantly (for the worse).  You'll need to find loaded tests (preferably at 16 ohms) to figure out if the device is any good.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #9
Right, we can't exclude anything.
In fact the latest models don't sound bad at all!
Of course the headphones play an important role: Yesterday I tried a friend's i7500 (the older Spica's brother). The stock Samsung in-ear headphones were probably specific for audio talks, and in fact the music output quality was *really* (even by him, non audiophile) worse than using the iPod nano headphones I brought for the occasion.
I couldn't abx without my Nano, but the impression was that i7500 didn't sound bad at all using the iPod headphones and NeroAAC q0.65 files.

@saratoga
Good point. Unfortuntately I didn't manage to find them.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #10
Quote
Unloaded tests don't really mean anything unfortunately.  As soon as you connect a pair of headphones the results will change significantly (for the worse).  You'll need to find loaded tests (preferably at 16 ohms) to figure out if the device is any good.



While I do agree with you in a general sense, there are inexpensive ways to address this.  If an audio output has serious problems with low impedance headphones you can always use an inexpensive portable headphone amp.  This will help alleviate these issues.

Also, good measurements are good measurements.  If all I have are unloaded measurements then I'll be inclined to buy the product with the best measurements.  You can't improve a 0.7% IMD with extra gear.

Quote
I couldn't abx without my Nano, but the impression was that i7500 didn't sound bad at all using the iPod headphones and NeroAAC q0.65 files.


Nowadays PMPs and cell phones are rarely going to sound "bad" in that sense of the word.  Some devices are just more sonically transparent than others.  This may not even be that big an issue considering that the audio quality of many earphones is far worse than the output quality of these devices.  So blaming the device is putting the blame on the wrong equipment. 

Typically the worst part is just that some devices hiss a lot with certain earphones.

iPod Nano 3g DAC and Samsung DNSe 2.0 DSP

Reply #11
While I do agree with you in a general sense, there are inexpensive ways to address this.  If an audio output has serious problems with low impedance headphones you can always use an inexpensive portable headphone amp.  This will help alleviate these issues.


The purpose of a portable amplifier in that case is to help correct for poor output on a device.  The purpose of testing a device before purchasing it is to avoid getting a device with poor output in the first place.  While you're right that adding an amplifier can help, its not really a helpful suggestion here, since the objective is to avoid the problem, rather then spend money after the fact trying to mitigate it.

In my opinion the best solution here is to simply test devices properly, rather then to test them incorrectly and leave the decision up to chance.

Also, good measurements are good measurements.  If all I have are unloaded measurements then I'll be inclined to buy the product with the best measurements.  You can't improve a 0.7% IMD with extra gear.


Since an unloaded measurement represents the idealized case of driving no load at all, I would not expect to improve on it.  Quite the opposite.  Instead, I would consider it as an upper bound that the device would never reach in normal use. 

I also strongly recommend that you not be inclined to buy the device with the best unloaded score, as that is fundamentally misunderstanding what the measurement means.  An upper bound on performance can tell you that a device will never meet your specification, so it lets you rule out badly scoring devices.  But it cannot tell you that a device will meet you needs, so it cannot be used to choose which device to purchase.


Nowadays PMPs and cell phones are rarely going to sound "bad" in that sense of the word.  Some devices are just more sonically transparent than others.  This may not even be that big an issue considering that the audio quality of many earphones is far worse than the output quality of these devices.  So blaming the device is putting the blame on the wrong eqiupment. 

Typically the worst part is just that some devices hiss a lot with certain earphones.


I agree completely, and for MP3 players I think its at the point were testing is almost unneeded.  But for cell phones its still useful, given that they still make devices with surprisingly bad output.