abi>>forums

abi>>forums (http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/index.php)
-   Samsung R0 / Q3 / Z3 (http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=213)
-   -   Samsung YP-R0 RMAA Tests (http://www.anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59713)

dfkt 12-09-2010 02:39 PM

Samsung YP-R0 RMAA Tests
 
All in all, the R0 is a player that measures well enough. It has its share of small flaws, but it's way better than the Sony A845 or the Hifiman HM-801, for example.

Here are the full results:
RMAA Samsung YP-R0 Loads
RMAA 16 Ohm dynamic driver comparisons
RMAA 32 Ohm multi-armature comparisons

Frequency response: some bass roll-off, and some output impedance that doesn't go well with multi-armature IEMs, but nothing to be worried about. Sansa Clip+ is the reference, the overall best performing player of the bunch - then Cowon J3 and Samsung R0 - Sony A845 is the worst (by far).

http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Compa...20Loads/fr.png
http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Compa...20Clip+/fr.png
http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Compa...%20A845/fr.png

Stereo crosstalk, noise level, harmonic and intermodulation distortions are average, same as most every other quality player out there.

Adub 12-09-2010 02:49 PM

Not bad at all, WTB rockbox omg!

Marvin the Martian 12-09-2010 02:56 PM

Does the R0 have the DNSe 3.0, or does it have the newer stuff? The Samsung Q2, once I spent time tweaking it, sounded better to me than anything else I'd had, up until I Rockboxed my Sansas. It took a while though, because it was easy to go too far with the DNSE enhancements and end up with an unnatural sound.

dfkt 12-09-2010 03:01 PM

The DNSe stuff on the R0 is rather awful. I don't know what it is, but it's not really in the same league as BBE.

rohit3192 12-09-2010 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin the Martian (Post 520610)
Does the R0 have the DNSe 3.0, or does it have the newer stuff? The Samsung Q2, once I spent time tweaking it, sounded better to me than anything else I'd had, up until I Rockboxed my Sansas. It took a while though, because it was easy to go too far with the DNSE enhancements and end up with an unnatural sound.

DNSe version is 3.
Latest Samsung players like Q3 have this feature renamed as Sound Alive(I do not know how different it is from DNSe).
I have owned in the past Samsung R0 ,T10,P2,P3 and I like DNSe Customs setting BUT DNSe feature has its toll on battery.
DNSe : Gsmarena Glossary

lebellium 12-09-2010 03:12 PM

The R0 has DNSe 3.0 like the Q2.

The new technology SoundAlive is only on the YP-RB, the U6 and the Q3.

I compared the DNSe 3.0 of the P3 to the BBE+ of my J3 and I liked both of them, I don't think they sound awful like Dfkt says. The main difference is that there are more settings in the BBE so the sound can be closer to what you are looking for

edit: owned^^

WalkGood 12-09-2010 03:31 PM

Seems to measure well enough, if and when rb is finished it would be in a new league, thanks for the testing :)

dfkt 12-09-2010 04:02 PM

What, 68 hits for this thread already? That *never* happens, people can't be that interested in this. ;)

rohit3192 12-09-2010 04:43 PM

^You (dfkt) are taking interest in R0 that's why this thread has so many hits.
I believe R0 is "potentially" good player but problematic FW has made buyers to stay away.
Sansa Fuze+ in this form factor could have been ideal.

dfkt 12-09-2010 04:48 PM

The R0 hardware is great: all metal, nine tactile buttons, decent enough screen, SD slot. The firmware is mediocre, at best - it lacks *all* advanced audio features (gapless, good EQ, Replaygain, pan/balance, scrobbling, etc), but instead has all that useless animation crap and whatnot. Typical Korean, I guess. If that thing really gets a working Rockbox port, it will be truly awesome.

lebellium 12-09-2010 05:12 PM

Hum I don't think you can blame Samsung for not providing the features you request (Replaygain, pan/balance, scrobbling)
Samsung release attractive mp3 players for the general public, they do not release devices for a niche market of audiophiles. That's already surprising the sound quality is so good for such a mainstream device. Most buyers won't replace the original earphones so the R&D could have used a cheaper audio chip and a crappy output but it seems that they are a minimum conscientious!

Releasing devices with the rockbox interface and the rockbox features would be a commercial suicide.
For me the firmware is not mediocre in term of features, we cannot expect much more from a mainstream company (except gapless perhaps) but it is mediocre in term of stability and bugs.

dfkt 12-09-2010 05:21 PM

Compared to the J3 or Clip+ the R0 firmware is not great at all - but the same goes for most other players out there, so I'm not specifically dissing the R0, I know that most players are crap (Sony, Creative, Iriver, Zune, etc) - at least for my needs. *All* companies target a mainstream market (except niche garbage not even worth mentioning, like Hifiman, AMP3, s-flo, etc), so there's no excuse for having less features than an iPod - the pinnacle of mainstream marketing, the proverbial target to aim for.

Of course nobody expects Samsung to embrace Rockbox with open arms - but the first steps in the right direction have been made, by independent hackers, documented right here on the forums. 99.999% of all people don't care, but I'm talking about the 0.001% I belong to. :) I wonder how strictly Samsung follow the GPL, since they didn't release the relevant source code, as you said.

I have to add that of course the price of the R0 is amazing - you get an exceptionally well built 16GB player for less than EUR 100. That puts everything in perspective, and the R0 is really awesome for that price.

Anyways, this was supposed to be an RMAA thread, but I guess such discussions are inevitable.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.