Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW 
But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.
)
This is my point: the Sandisk players have less bass roll-off than an iPod. Since MP3s are already slightly rolled off (as you say), then the iPod will have even more noticeable roll-off. An equalizer would help but would also add more distortion to an already distorted source. The iPod does not have user tunable EQ to make up for the bass roll-off. The predefined settings create far too much distortion. The Zune is even worse because it also has slightly rolled off bass but doesn't have EQ at all.
Your tube analogy is flawed for the simple reason that tube lovers (myself included) can forgive minor bass roll-off when the mid-range is so sweet, and the highs are so smooth. Digital players don't compensate for rolled off bass by giving up any great tube qualities. I do agree that there are no "vast" differences in sound quality among the various popular players out there, but your definition of "vast" is not likely to be the exact same as another person's. Someone who thinks that there are "vast" differences is not "delusional," in my opinion, even though I disagree.
Ultimately, I still fail to see the value or the point of a "review" that is three pages long and fails to mention the player's sound quality even once --not even a single and meaningless line like, "It sounds good." Remember that there are references with which to compare the Nano. Just tell us if you think that it sounds exactly the same as the previous version or is slightly better/worse. Would you review a televsion and tell us everything about it except its image quality? After all, most television panels are produced by the three or four same manufacturers just like most DAC chips are made by Burr Brown or Analogue Devices.
I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is.
I agree that the iPod or any portable player will never approach the quality of a home system with dedicated power supplies and discrete circuitry/point to point wired amps and pre-amps, etc, but where I do not agree is that we have to settle for mediocrity. The Sandisk players, to my ears (and to many others) clearly sound a bit better than the iPod. Why can't I get Sandisk quality sound from an iPod? I don't think it's too much to ask since the iPod generally costs more.
The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.
If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.
But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.
)This is my point: the Sandisk players have less bass roll-off than an iPod. Since MP3s are already slightly rolled off (as you say), then the iPod will have even more noticeable roll-off. An equalizer would help but would also add more distortion to an already distorted source. The iPod does not have user tunable EQ to make up for the bass roll-off. The predefined settings create far too much distortion. The Zune is even worse because it also has slightly rolled off bass but doesn't have EQ at all.
Your tube analogy is flawed for the simple reason that tube lovers (myself included) can forgive minor bass roll-off when the mid-range is so sweet, and the highs are so smooth. Digital players don't compensate for rolled off bass by giving up any great tube qualities. I do agree that there are no "vast" differences in sound quality among the various popular players out there, but your definition of "vast" is not likely to be the exact same as another person's. Someone who thinks that there are "vast" differences is not "delusional," in my opinion, even though I disagree.
Ultimately, I still fail to see the value or the point of a "review" that is three pages long and fails to mention the player's sound quality even once --not even a single and meaningless line like, "It sounds good." Remember that there are references with which to compare the Nano. Just tell us if you think that it sounds exactly the same as the previous version or is slightly better/worse. Would you review a televsion and tell us everything about it except its image quality? After all, most television panels are produced by the three or four same manufacturers just like most DAC chips are made by Burr Brown or Analogue Devices.
I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is.
I agree that the iPod or any portable player will never approach the quality of a home system with dedicated power supplies and discrete circuitry/point to point wired amps and pre-amps, etc, but where I do not agree is that we have to settle for mediocrity. The Sandisk players, to my ears (and to many others) clearly sound a bit better than the iPod. Why can't I get Sandisk quality sound from an iPod? I don't think it's too much to ask since the iPod generally costs more.
The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.
If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.
Please post the article. I no longer have the link, but I highly doubt that we are referring to the same thing. "Crazy" audiophile articles are as plentiful as Shakespearean essays, so it is easy to confuse them. The article that I'm referring to is an independent write-up from the actual builder of the rig, not a critic.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
I know that they say that any equalization reduces battery life (play time wise).
\
)
Unless they couldn't fit the needed "chip" into the unit itself.
