tldr; it’s $900 and has very fancy audio equipment.
I really hate this kind of headlines
It’s rampant click bait. I try not to reward the behavior with clicks, but sometimes I’m genuinely interested in the topic. This is not one of those times.
From the first line:
We may receive a commission on purchases made from links.
and when I copied that string, they added this to my clipboard:
Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1347620/new-sony-walkman-cost-price/This is just an ad from a garbage blog.
The land of diminishing returns…
Sony is taking advantage of audiophiles’ desire to compulsively spend more money on better measurements with imperceptible improvements. Nothing wrong with that - most audiophiles are self-aware and know that it’s really higher prices that make music sound better. It will be interesting to see what audiophiles say about these new Walkmans.
There are already similarly priced and cheaper alternatives, including a $350 option by Sony, and $800-$1500 options by Astell & Kern. Stand-alone music players aren’t extinct as this writer seems to think.
There’s a business phone switch owned by many of our customers for which licenses for file-based music-on-hold are no longer available from the manufacturer. An old iPod / Nomad / Zune / etc. fits the bill to connect to its built-in, no-additional-license-required music-on-hold audio port perfectly. It even comes with its own built-in UPS.
Well… it won’t matter once you listen to music on them with your shitty 20 USD headphones.
Yea, I have found by far the biggest effect for me (and I have to imagine most people) is the speakers / headphones, not the digital processing or even the audio converters.
headphones or speakers can’t add the detail that mp3 (or streaming in whatever format) eliminates. Compare a CD and mp3 of the same track with a decent headphone (or a speaker) and you will hear that compression changes sounds.
but it all depends on what kind of music you listen to. For some of today’s music even laptop speakers are enough 🤷
