or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's 4GB iPod mini outselling newer models, more...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's 4GB iPod mini outselling newer models, more... - Page 3  

post #81 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Something is wrong somewhere then. That should not be. John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile, has owned and tested both the full size and the Shuffles, and he finds the sound to be excellent. I have to agree.

Maybe it is just the mini then, or maybe it was an interaction. John Atkinson likes tons of stuff that I don't, (and vice versa) though.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Maybe it is just the mini then, or maybe it was an interaction. John Atkinson likes tons of stuff that I don't, (and vice versa) though.

Me too. But this is basic stuff, not esoteric.
post #83 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Me too. But this is basic stuff, not esoteric.

This was obviously hideous, everyone present noticed it (the mini was being compared to a Onkyo DVD changer). When my wife gets her piano out of my listening room I will re-try it with my iPod photo.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
This was obviously hideous, everyone present noticed it (the mini was being compared to a Onkyo DVD changer). When my wife gets her piano out of my listening room I will re-try it with my iPod photo.

Believe me, I feel your pain. I've had experiences like that. Your hair stands on end. Not even because it's so bad, but because you didn't expect it.
post #85 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Playing back the recordings is a very different proposition. Besides an iPod is a playback device. $4,000 microphones are part of the recording process. so are $250,000 digital mixing consoles, and $200,000 digital decks.

fine, i'm with you, now -

you talk of certain manufacturers having a certain sound, - isn't the obvious goal of high end equipment to have a sound thats as close to the real-life experience as possible?

Doesn't a certain manufacturers 'sound' then defeat the very reason of buying this high end kit?
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
fine, i'm with you, now -

you talk of certain manufacturers having a certain sound, - isn't the obvious goal of high end equipment to have a sound thats as close to the real-life experience as possible?

Doesn't a certain manufacturers 'sound' then defeat the very reason of buying this high end kit?

No - there is room for considerable variation, because all systems would only sound the same if they are perfect (and even at 100K, you still have a very hard time getting anywere close to perfect).

It is like art - children's art is all similar, just as low-end audio is all very similar (although there are still considerable differences if you pay attention).

As you get into more realistic art there are many styles - pencil line art, oil painting, etc. Audio also branches out as it becomes more realistic.

Finally, with a photograph you have perfect fidelity, and likewise the very best high end setups start to converge on similar sound again.

Also, the earlier argument about "reproduction equipment being a waste if it costs more than the recording equipment" does not make sense to me. Each piece of equipment that you pass the signal through can cause distortion. During the recording phase that distortion is added for effect, but the playback should reflect the recording as clearly as possible.

Its like bread - most wheat flour has a certain percentage or rat parts, because rats get ground up in the flour mills. Would you argue "the bread has rat parts in it anyway, why not eat a rat sandwich?"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
post #87 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
fine, i'm with you, now -

you talk of certain manufacturers having a certain sound, - isn't the obvious goal of high end equipment to have a sound thats as close to the real-life experience as possible?

Doesn't a certain manufacturers 'sound' then defeat the very reason of buying this high end kit?

It's very complex. Let's say that there are a hundred ways in which a speaker can be wrong. If you can't eliminate all hundred problems, you have to select.

Some problems are dependant on other problems. Eliminate that one, and several others go away too.

Sometimes getting rid of one causes others.

It's a juggling act. The better ones can get rid of more problems than the worst ones, but not all.

Designers have their own subjectiveness. They decide that some problems are worse than others. They don't all agree. So the results are not the same.

Some deliberately change their product, not to sound better, but to convey a certain "feel".

Cary amps, for example, have been described as a tone control with gain. I certainly agree with that. But some like them. When he came to our club last to demo, we seriously disliked what we heard (didn't tell him that of course).

On the other hand, whenever Joseph Audio comes to us, we almost all very much like what we hear. But not everyone buys his stuff either.
post #88 of 89
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
No - there is room for considerable variation, because all systems would only sound the same if they are perfect (and even at 100K, you still have a very hard time getting anywere close to perfect).

It is like art - children's art is all similar, just as low-end audio is all very similar (although there are still considerable differences if you pay attention).

As you get into more realistic art there are many styles - pencil line art, oil painting, etc. Audio also branches out as it becomes more realistic.

Finally, with a photograph you have perfect fidelity, and likewise the very best high end setups start to converge on similar sound again.

Also, the earlier argument about "reproduction equipment being a waste if it costs more than the recording equipment" does not make sense to me. Each piece of equipment that you pass the signal through can cause distortion. During the recording phase that distortion is added for effect, but the playback should reflect the recording as clearly as possible.

Its like bread - most wheat flour has a certain percentage or rat parts, because rats get ground up in the flour mills. Would you argue "the bread has rat parts in it anyway, why not eat a rat sandwich?"

I like your rat analogy.

One problem we do have is that very hi-end speakers often sound so verey different that none of them are even close. At that level they should be converging, not diverging. The problem is that many of those designs are eccentric.

For instance, the Wilson Whamm's were first designed by a cabinet designer to look the way they did (expensive and imposing), then he hired a designer to fill them with drivers and crossovers.

I don't know anyone who has ever thought that they sounded good.

Many expensive pieces of equipment are just junk, and have almost no resale value either.
post #89 of 89
This thread was about the sales results of iPods. Since no one cares about that anymore.... goodbye.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's 4GB iPod mini outselling newer models, more...