Clix vs Clix2 Sound Quality

[owlyn12345]

After comparing the mp3 sound quality of Clix vs Clix2, I am disappointed to have to report that the original Clix has better sound quality. I first set the Clix2 to have the same Custom EQ as my Clix. The sound from the Clix2 was not nearly as rich and had a thin, hollow quality to it. Further EQ adjustments did not help. I then played around with the various SRS WOW HD features and was able to get it to sound fairly close to my original Clix, but still not quite up to the same quality.

I tested side-by-side using Sony MDRv6 headphones (a recording industry long-time "standard") and Shure E2C earbuds. Because volume has a psycho-acoustic effect in that louder volume is perceived as sounding better, I had to adjust the volume on each device to be approximately the same. This varied on the Clix2 depending on how I adjusted the various SRS WOW HD settings- it is impossible to be scientific without a db meter. I used several different pieces of music, but my two favorite tests are "Dontcha" by The Pussycat Dolls, and "Maria Maria" by Santana. Both of these have very deep, rich bass, as well as clear, distinct, highs. One has a Phil Spector-ish "wall of sound" production value while the other has a more sensitive, individual instrumentation. The Clix2 was inferior to the Clix in all cases. On a subjective scale of 1 to 10, with Clix being 10, the Clix 2 varied from 7 to 9.

I wish the problem was due to a firmware difference, but I suspect that an inferior DAC was used.

I had considered returning the Clix2, but there is still enough that I like about the Clix2 to outweigh the slight difference in overall sound quality. In my case, about 90% of my listening is done on noisy public transit, so the slight differences in sound aren't extremely critical to me, as they tend to get drowned out by the background noise of train motors and the HVAC system- basically, it just needs to sound "good enough", and at home, I plug it into my amp and add additional EQ there. The screen is awesome, and 30fps video playback is nice. The sound quality in videos does seem to be better on the Clix2. The "resume" feature for video is also nice, as is the ability to listen to music while playing games.

BTW, I got the unit with one of Jeff's special packages- the black silicone case with the full body BSE pre-installed. Jeff does a great job installing the BSE. The silicone case came with an armband and a belt clip. The arm band looks to be excellent, but the belt clip is an accident waiting to happen. The clip pops off of the silicone case too easily (at least mine does, or maybe I am installing it incorrectly). Not a problem for me, as I have enough gizmos on my utility belt as it is The clix2 fits nicely in a shirt pocket, and protected by the silicone case and BSE, I don't worry about it falling.

[shadesbass]

Interesting, thanks for sharing your opinions.
Did you try the two players with no EQ? Although you started off with the same custom EQ, the two players may implement the EQ feature differently, so a flat response (no EQ) would be the fairest way to compare the two.

PS: I think you mean DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter), not DAP (Digital Audio Player).

[owlyn12345]

I didn't try that flat EQ, but I'll give it a shot for the heck of it. Yes, I did mean DAC- thanks for catching that- I'll fix it in the origianal post in case someone doesn't read this far.. I really do hope it's firmware, though.

[clieos]

I am glad someone bring this topic up as I was planning to write a review but didn't really have the time.

For the first few days of using a clix2, I was also wondering why I kept feeling that clix2 SQ isn't as good as clix1, as I was trying so hard to get the all familiar clix1 sound on my clix2.

Something I am sure: this isn't a problem of hardware. Clix2 (as are all recently produced iriver DAPs) DAC is from the same company (Wolfson). Although it isn't the best DAC there is, but there is no reason to suspect the DAC is below standard. I think the main 'issue' is the transformation from Samsung to TeleChips ARM processor, where both are also double as the DAP decoder. It could also be the combination of both the processor and the DAC.

The new processor is needed for the AMOLED screen to work, but it also changes the sonic characteristic of the U series. Both U10 and clix1 have a warm sound signature, but clix2 is a lot more analytical than the above two. As I was trying to match the sound of my clix2 to that of my clix1, I realize that really isn't possible. In a sense, if clix1 is a Sennheiser headphone (warm), clix2 will be the opposite, like that of an Etymotic IEM (analytical). It took me a few days to understand that a clix2 doesn't sound like a clix1at all. So if you have accustomed to clix1 SQ, you might not be able to turn your mind fast enough to accept clix2 SQ.

The strange thing is, clix1 works a lot better with SRS WOW, as the EQing fills in the detail that are missing in its big warm sound. However, clix2 works horribly with SRS WOW HD, as the EQing makes the already detail sound too bright to enjoy (also screw up the balance) . For now, I usually keep my clix2 on custom EQ by tuning up the bass and mid a bit, just enough to bring out more bass without affecting the detail. On flat EQ, I am very certain that clix2 SQ is better (especially on detail) and more balance than that of clix1.

[owlyn12345]

Clieos,

I came to the same conclusion as you. They just don't sound the same and never will. I wish there was a firmware fix for this...

As I played around with the EQ settings some more today, I found that I had to dramatically reduce the levels of the 200 and 1K ranges (more than I usually do), and actually turned the 1K range down all the way. But I disagree with you on the SRS. I find that it is better on the Clix2. I never found a satisfactory setting on the Clix. It took some playing around, but here is what I wound up with for use with my Sure e2c earbuds and the Clix2:

SRS 3
TruBass 10 (of course)
Focus 1
WOW 1
Definition 4

My Custom EQ is:
50 10 bars
200 5 bars
1K no bars
3K 7 bars
14K 10 bars

I compared the two settings with various songs, and found that some sounded better on SRS and others with Custom EQ. The majority sounded better (more "presence") with SRS, so I'll probably leave it that way, although it does have a bit of an artificial quality to it.. I also found that adjusting the Definition to 2 or 3 improved some songs. I'm still on the fence about leaving it at 3 or 4. I moved Focus around quite a bit too, but I found that with the settings the way I have them, I can just play with definition to make the biggest change.

I have it sounding as close to the Clix as I can, but you are right- it does not have the full, rich, warm sound that the Clix has. I also found that highly compressed songs (like on the Joss Stone CD) are handled better on the Clix than on the Clix2. The Clix2 seems to highlight the compression, sometimes to the point of distortion.

Overall, it's not that the sound on the Clix2 is bad. While it may be not quite as good as the Clix, mainly it is just different than the Clix. You get used to hearing songs sound a certain way, and that way becomes the "correct" sound in your mind. So, when you start hearing it differently, you think it's not right- but it's really just different. I remember when i switched from my Palm-based player, I was disappointed in the Clix sound. AFter a while, that sound became the right sound. Hopefully, the same will happen with the Clix 2.

["haxx0"]

Clieos, could you explain how the type of CPU can affect the sound quality? I'm confused. I thought the CPU was 100% digital and that the characteristics of the CPU didn't affect the results (i.e. of decoding of MP3s) as long as software was the same.

Off topic: Will the new CPU affect the chance that Rockbox is ported to clix2?

[clieos]

Different hardware makes a lot of different on sound quality. For example, although all solid stage operational amplifier chips do more or less the same kind of work, you will find that (on a portable amplifier) an OPA2134 sounds only 'okay', while an OPA2227 will give better detail but less warmness, and an AD8620 will have fantastic sound.

The internal design of the CPU used in DAP, such as those from Samsung or TeleChips, all come with their own decoding codec built in (on a hardware level). When a company choose to use certain CPU, it will of course utilize the built in codec. This will reduce the processing power needed to decode music (compare to a fully software decoding). Of course, this is why CPU from one company will tend to have the same 'sound characteristic' as the company often use the same hardware design on their CPU (as well as the codec).

Another point is, if a company is using a new CPU, it will have to redesign its firmware to adapted to the new CPU functions. Therefore, the software will not likely to be the same from generation to generation.

Rather than saying it is only the CPU, the firmware, or the DAC that affects the sound, I am more willing to think that it is the result from the combination of the three. Unless iriver is willing to share its source code (not going to happen), it will be difficult to tell which is the most important factor (same goes for rockbox).

[owlyn12345]

Clieos:

I did some research into what each SRS setting does, and I tinkered around some more. I came up with a few small changes:

SRS = 5
TruBass = 10
Focus = 1
WOW = 1
Definition =3

The Clix2 now sounds almost as good as the Clix through my Sure e2c phones.

Care to give it a try and report back on how it sounds to you?

[clieos]

Doesn't really sound that similar with my headphones (Altec Lansing iM716 / Yuin PK1).

I use these cumtomEQ on clix2 , which I think compare well to clix1 flat EQ:
50 : 7
200: 7
1K : 7
3K : 6
14k : 5