I would actually buy a MiniPod. But only if the price was much cheaper. I can't even begin to tell you how many high schoolers that would love to own an iPod. The only problem is that no one is going to spend $300+ for something that could get broken easily. If a MiniPod went for $100 then so many people would go for it. It would be a great product that might even be bigger than the current iPod.
Not totally different, not different at all, both were new to their time as a way of delivering portable music. Both decode a source that is a spinning disc. The formats have changed and the circuirty is different, but the priciples are the same. In fact, much of the circuitry in use today should be of a better quality than that used in the days of discmen. The issue is with design choices that build in more obsolescence than need be. Batteries fail rather quickly, having them be non replacable ia a major error (not exclusive to Apple.)
Yes, they are both portable music players. But we're talking about physical products, not product definitions. iPods are light-years away from a Discman. Different circuits and all. The mechanism for a CD-Rom laser is less complicated than a hard drive, especially a hard drive that's so small.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
NO. I'm comparing cars to cars, not to iPods. Cars cost a lot in 1940's dollars too! It's a product that has gotten more complicated and more reliable at the same time. Complexity is not an excuse for unreliable product, as complexity increases, so too does manufacturing competence, usually, complexity can only increase as manufacturing capabilities increase. So while an iPod might bring new difficulties, it is also made by people with production advantages that didn't exist when my discman was built.
Then compare the iPod version 1 to the iPod version 3 and the iPod version 5. If things get worse, then you'll have a point. Until there's a protracted period of built in obsolescence your point is moot. The iPod version 3 now has the ability to connect to an external battery pack. That's one point in favor of an increased life-span iPod.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Being especially dense today? I don't want a 20 dollar iPod. I don't mind paying for something that will last, but I won't pay (much) for something I have to throw away in a short period of time, hence the example of the toaster as disposable consumer technology. iPods are NOT disposable, I should be able to get 5-10 years use from it, just as I do any other piece of portable consumer audio. The battery issue pretty much guarantees that I won't be able to keep my iPod alive that long. Pity.
Being especially prickish as usual?
The battery issue is a 'problem', but the best solution is available: an external battery pack. Anything else would increase the size of the product. As it stands, the size of the product now only increases in case of failure rather than the default.
Your 5-10 year number is just that, a number. It's something you've plucked out of the sky. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's just a guess. It's absolutely not concrete. Get over it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
I believe I already said they're the best player going, but they do have some bad design elements from the perspective of consumer technology.
I swear, it's like I'm talking about your mother's vaginal yeasts or something -- the way some of you react to legitimate criticisms of Apple's products.
Don't pretend that I defend Apple's products simply because it helps yoru argument. And don't attack my mom or me personally because it just makes you look like a prick. When have I defended Apple's products when they've faced with legitimate criticisms? Go find an example. The search function now works.
I have plenty of problems with the iPod, some of the same ones that you do. It's just that you can't see that YOUR opinion is just an opinion and not necessarily correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
What I said, I said in the spirit of how the product could be better. Functionally, it's great. For durability, it's suspect. Why are you all so sensitive to that? Are you afraid Steve won't like you any more if you think bad thoughts about Apple?
You need some help. You must be one of the least secure people I've communicated with in a long time. Someone disagrees and you go ape-shit. It's kind of sad, in that pathetic little kid next door kind of way.
Durability of the iPod is suspect. About the only problem is the drive, and Apple doesn't make the drive. As soon as Toshiba makes better small drives Apple will buy them. Until then, Apple is at the mercy of the suppliers. I guess they shouldn't have released the iPod until the Toshiba drives were better? Or it should be larger to accomodate 4 AAA batteries? Neither case is as good as a product that lasts at least a year.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
PS. back to complexity. I tend to look at things by the jobs they do. Cars of today versus cars of yesterday, or any mechanical or electronic device vs it's forebear. Almost without fail, these devices have become both more complex and more reliable at the same time. Cars once had wooden spoke wheels and no suspensions, they were truly "horseless buggies" by your criteria they should not be compared to cars of today, since there are so many differnt technologies at work. But the principles and purpose of the device have not changed. So it is with music players: newer tech, but same principles and purpose, to read stored music from a disc media in a portable device.
Cars didn't go from carrying one CD worth of people to carrying 100+ CDs worth of people. The iPod is a different product. It's a portable hard drive. CD Players aren't.
The mechanism for a CD-Rom laser is less complicated than a hard drive, especially a hard drive that's so small.
Optical drive storage technology is much more complex than magnetic storage in basically every way, whether it's the chemistry behind the writable layer substrate or the design of the laser or whatever. That's the whole reason why optical storage lags so far behind...
Optical drive storage technology is much more complex than magnetic storage in basically every way, whether it's the chemistry behind the writable layer substrate or the design of the laser or whatever. That's the whole reason why optical storage lags so far behind...
I'll get one of those players when hard drives are large enough to store a bunch of albums in a listenable format...ie AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate, non compressed. MP3 sounds wretched compared to uncompressed audio....ie "hazy", "burbly" and the stereo image is completely confused and messed up...specially in decent headphones or speakers in a quiet room, undistracted by the noise of a car engine etc. It's easiest to tell when you're listening to music where the instruments are non-synthetic...ie you know what they are supposed to sound like...but voices are a really tough test. Even A-B'ing between MP3 and uncompressed audio on the tinny little built-in speakers on a G4 titanium powerbook reveals an audible difference. When those little hard disks are $50 for 100 terabytes capable of storing a bunch of albums like today's drives do with MP3, we could all be listening to music the way the artist intended. Far more pleasing experience for us all! Until then...count me out
I'll get one of those players when hard drives are large enough to store a bunch of albums in a listenable format...ie AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate, non compressed ... Until then...count me out
AIFF is compressed. All digital formats are compressed. If you want no compression, stick to vinyl. Do I smell patchouli?
No, it's not, but there is AIFF-C (AIFF Compressed), but I have never seen that used anywhere.
It may be ~1400 kbps and bit-for-bit equivalent to the CD-A, but it's still compressed. If it's on a digital medium, it's compressed data...end of story.
If 44.1 KHz 16-bit AIFF is 'uncompressed' as you say, than what is the data stream from a stereo SACD or DVD-A? Super-uncompressed? You're sampling audio at a certain frequency, you're dropping infinitesimally small frames of sound no matter how thin use slice it. Sound is also not bound to 16-bits of resolution.
Whether you call that compression or downsampling, it's still lossy!
It may be ~1400 kbps and bit-for-bit equivalent to the CD-A, but it's still compressed. If it's on a digital medium, it's compressed data...end of story.
If 44.1 KHz 16-bit AIFF is 'uncompressed' as you say, than what is the data stream from a stereo SACD or DVD-A? Super-uncompressed? You're sampling audio at a certain frequency, you're dropping infinitesimally small frames of sound no matter how thin use slice it. Sound is also not bound to 16-bits of resolution.
Whether you call that compression or downsampling, it's still lossy!
Converting to a digital format does not equal compression. Do you compress an image when you scan it? TIFFs are compressed? They downsample an image to 24bit and a ppi density of your choice.
Converting to a digital format does not equal compression. Do you compress an image when you scan it? TIFFs are compressed? They downsample an image to 24bit and a ppi density of your choice.
We're dealing with infinity and semantics then here. SJO specifically referred to her precious "AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate" which, while not literally compressed, is far from lossless when the source approaches infinity bits deep and a sample rate of infinity KHz.
So, yes, you're right, the data is just discarded. But then SJO's not really complaining about compression then, is she? FLAC is compressed and every bit as good as AIFF or WAV at any given sample rate and bit depth.
Even little nits like error correction are much more impressive on the optical storage side.
The number of platters on a hard drive increases complexity over the CD-Rom drive. The R/W capabilities of a hard drive increase complexity. Storing the OS for an iPod on a R/W media adds complexity to an iPod over CD-Rom drives reading just audio from a permenant media.
Error correction? Sorry. A discman is far less complicated than an iPod. I want them to last 5 years too (I'm on my 4th iPod), but the problems are mainly not Apple's to fix.
I have plenty of problems with the iPod, some of the same ones that you do. It's just that you can't see that YOUR opinion is just an opinion and not necessarily correct.
You need some help. You must be one of the least secure people I've communicated with in a long time. Someone disagrees and you go ape-shit. It's kind of sad, in that pathetic little kid next door kind of way.
The number of platters on a hard drive increases complexity over the CD-Rom drive. The R/W capabilities of a hard drive increase complexity. Storing the OS for an iPod on a R/W media adds complexity to an iPod over CD-Rom drives reading just audio from a permenant media.
Error correction? Sorry. A discman is far less complicated than an iPod. I want them to last 5 years too (I'm on my 4th iPod), but the problems are mainly not Apple's to fix.
Uh, there is R/W optical media out there. There is RAM type optical media out there too. I'm talking about optical vs magnetic media in general. You seem to be trying to compare last decade's technology with today's. Optical media based digital audio players are continually evolving.
We're dealing with infinity and semantics then here. SJO specifically referred to her precious "AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate" which, while not literally compressed, is far from lossless when the source approaches infinity bits deep and a sample rate of infinity KHz.
So, yes, you're right, the data is just discarded. But then SJO's not really complaining about compression then, is she? FLAC is compressed and every bit as good as AIFF or WAV at any given sample rate and bit depth.
Yes...I understand that digital audio is a compromise. Sampling at 44.1 khz only allows some 2 samples at 20khz, (the upper limit of (most)) human hearing. Two or so samples per cycle at high frequencies is a very poor representation of the original waveform so filters are used to 'round off' the signal ...which does reduce "brittleness and harshness", but does not allow for an accurate rendition of the original waveform. The problem with filters (specially at higher frequencies), is that they cause the phase angle of the signal is relatively more distorted at high frequencies compared to lower frequencies...and since we get our "directional" perception of sound via the higher frequency components, maintaining the phase angle of reproduced sound is essential to accurate reproduction of sound, specially regarding the "stereo or surround sound image).
Yes I agree that "CD quality" is a poor compromise...but it is *hugely* superior to MP3...which takes that already compromised source, and then mangles it into something barely recognizable. Even the best MP3 encoding algorithm wrecks the sound. Listening to MP3 encoded music is OK in high noise situations, like in a convertible on a busy freeway, with semi trailers roaring away either side of you....or on a sound system like the run of the mill boombox or an off-the shelf Circuit City stereo system..which is electrically incapable of reproducing an accurate sound ain the first place. Put an MP3 on a worthy sound system and all the nasty artifacts of the encoding become immediately apparent...and for me..that wrecks all aspects of the listening experience. I love music and MP3 just doesn't work for these ears...I get "listening fatigue" in minutes.
Apologies for being an audio snob....but music is too valuable. I don't possess a $4000 turntable, and my music collection is im digital format as opposed to "virgin vinyl"...so I have to make do with CDs.....
The number of platters on a hard drive increases complexity over the CD-Rom drive. The R/W capabilities of a hard drive increase complexity. Storing the OS for an iPod on a R/W media adds complexity to an iPod over CD-Rom drives reading just audio from a permenant media.
There are other variables here: The CD-ROM and its kin also have to deal with the fact that the platter is of arbitrary quality and arbitrary cleanliness, and the read/write mechanism is subject to both the vagaries of open air and the state of the platter. Furthermore, the platter might wiggle side to side or up and down.
Hard drives are sealed and self-contained. And yes, the mechanisms in hard drives can be astonishingly simple. IBM, while they were in the business, had a featherweight head on a single joint that was positioned by a tiny magnetic field. It had two moving parts. The arm on my turntable is more complicated.
Quote:
Error correction? Sorry. A discman is far less complicated than an iPod. I want them to last 5 years too (I'm on my 4th iPod), but the problems are mainly not Apple's to fix.
Error correction is a huge and complicated concern (because no assumptions can be made about the quality of the media), and so a lot of cheap CD players simply ignore it. Consequently, they skip and fail given a less than pristine CD, and they sound poor no matter what. Back when CD-ROM drives were only at 2x and required carriages, they made 800 read errors per second, best case. The CDs in most audio products are built to a poorer standard than computer CD-ROMs (which is why some high-end audio products use computer CD-ROM parts).
Trust me on this: Optical - and particularly removable optical - drives have much more to cope with than hard drives do. Everything is more complicated. Cheap CD players that skimp on some of the complexity suck, and then break.
I'll get one of those players when hard drives are large enough to store a bunch of albums in a listenable format...ie AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate, non compressed. MP3 sounds wretched compared to uncompressed audio...
Have you actually used an iPod? With properly encoded MP3's or AAC's and good headphones? Me thinks you haven't.
Have you actually used an iPod? With properly encoded MP3's or AAC's and good headphones? Me thinks you haven't.
You're right I haven't. But I have heard a number of other MP3 playback systems, and they do *not* sound pleasant..to my ears at least. One thing though...the perception of fidelity is largely dependent upon familiarity of the material, and the instruments being played. For example, to put it over simplistically... if you are familiar with what an orchestra should sound like in a concert hall, and the sounds of the instruments in that hall, either in ensemble or solo, you have a reference to judge fidelity. Similarly with other "acoustic" source recordings where the processing stages between the player and the listener are the microphone/s, the mic. pre-amp and the analog to digital converter/electronics of the mixing board (and then the listeners playback system).
With many of todays (non classical) recordings, sound sources are often synthesized and/or sampled, or played through signal processing units that deliberately distort the sound of a conventional instrument (guitar, piano, whatever) to create different, often unique, sometimes completely unrecognizable timbres. Almost always in the end, the full mix has artificially generated reverb, and then it is compressed, limited and normalized so there is often a dynamic range of 2 or 3 dB between the "loudest and quietest passages". The only reference in these situations is what the producer and engineer heard in the recording studio, played through very high-end, high definition amplifiers and speakers. Basically...there is no reference for the listener..and in most listening situations, ambient noise or poor quality playback equipment will compromise the musical experience anyway.
But anyway....it's academic...I'd prefer to listen to wonderful music through a shitty system, than cookie-cutter music through a $20000 playback system...any day.
You're right I haven't. But I have heard a number of other MP3 playback systems, and they do *not* sound pleasant..to my ears at least.
I have read your post in detail. I still believe you have either listened to crappie encoded MP3's and made your decision based on those or... to be honest and upfront, there's some deeper "anti-something" you aren't disclosing. No insult intended.
My old stereo has plenty of power and a very "full" sound. I find that the differnce between MP3 and CD can become apparent at different bit rates on different equipment, yet disappear on other equipment.
A for instance:
At 192-224 my PB doesn't really show the difference between the MP3 and the CD for most tracks. Take over to the stereo, and it's a bit different, 224-320VBR makes more of a differnce there, and my stereo is far from "accurate" the big towers keep things warm and punchy, and the treble is "up front." They're pleasant to listen too, especially for rock/acoustic tracks, but I know they're not accurate representations of the "recording"
The recording itself may not be an accurate representation of the performance. There are a lot of steps to keep straight when you want to achieve fidelity. But anyway, the tone of my stereo might mask the deficiencies of MP3 more than a precise stereo, and still I can hear the difference just moving from PB audio, to seperates audio.
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
Go back, I compared both!
Go back and look at what I quoted!
Originally posted by Matsu
Not totally different, not different at all, both were new to their time as a way of delivering portable music. Both decode a source that is a spinning disc. The formats have changed and the circuirty is different, but the priciples are the same. In fact, much of the circuitry in use today should be of a better quality than that used in the days of discmen. The issue is with design choices that build in more obsolescence than need be. Batteries fail rather quickly, having them be non replacable ia a major error (not exclusive to Apple.)
Yes, they are both portable music players. But we're talking about physical products, not product definitions. iPods are light-years away from a Discman. Different circuits and all. The mechanism for a CD-Rom laser is less complicated than a hard drive, especially a hard drive that's so small.
Originally posted by Matsu
NO. I'm comparing cars to cars, not to iPods. Cars cost a lot in 1940's dollars too! It's a product that has gotten more complicated and more reliable at the same time. Complexity is not an excuse for unreliable product, as complexity increases, so too does manufacturing competence, usually, complexity can only increase as manufacturing capabilities increase. So while an iPod might bring new difficulties, it is also made by people with production advantages that didn't exist when my discman was built.
Then compare the iPod version 1 to the iPod version 3 and the iPod version 5. If things get worse, then you'll have a point. Until there's a protracted period of built in obsolescence your point is moot. The iPod version 3 now has the ability to connect to an external battery pack. That's one point in favor of an increased life-span iPod.
Originally posted by Matsu
Being especially dense today? I don't want a 20 dollar iPod. I don't mind paying for something that will last, but I won't pay (much) for something I have to throw away in a short period of time, hence the example of the toaster as disposable consumer technology. iPods are NOT disposable, I should be able to get 5-10 years use from it, just as I do any other piece of portable consumer audio. The battery issue pretty much guarantees that I won't be able to keep my iPod alive that long. Pity.
Being especially prickish as usual?
The battery issue is a 'problem', but the best solution is available: an external battery pack. Anything else would increase the size of the product. As it stands, the size of the product now only increases in case of failure rather than the default.
Your 5-10 year number is just that, a number. It's something you've plucked out of the sky. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's just a guess. It's absolutely not concrete. Get over it.
Originally posted by Matsu
I believe I already said they're the best player going, but they do have some bad design elements from the perspective of consumer technology.
I swear, it's like I'm talking about your mother's vaginal yeasts or something -- the way some of you react to legitimate criticisms of Apple's products.
Don't pretend that I defend Apple's products simply because it helps yoru argument. And don't attack my mom or me personally because it just makes you look like a prick. When have I defended Apple's products when they've faced with legitimate criticisms? Go find an example. The search function now works.
I have plenty of problems with the iPod, some of the same ones that you do. It's just that you can't see that YOUR opinion is just an opinion and not necessarily correct.
Originally posted by Matsu
What I said, I said in the spirit of how the product could be better. Functionally, it's great. For durability, it's suspect. Why are you all so sensitive to that? Are you afraid Steve won't like you any more if you think bad thoughts about Apple?
You need some help. You must be one of the least secure people I've communicated with in a long time. Someone disagrees and you go ape-shit. It's kind of sad, in that pathetic little kid next door kind of way.
Durability of the iPod is suspect. About the only problem is the drive, and Apple doesn't make the drive. As soon as Toshiba makes better small drives Apple will buy them. Until then, Apple is at the mercy of the suppliers. I guess they shouldn't have released the iPod until the Toshiba drives were better? Or it should be larger to accomodate 4 AAA batteries? Neither case is as good as a product that lasts at least a year.
Originally posted by Matsu
PS. back to complexity. I tend to look at things by the jobs they do. Cars of today versus cars of yesterday, or any mechanical or electronic device vs it's forebear. Almost without fail, these devices have become both more complex and more reliable at the same time. Cars once had wooden spoke wheels and no suspensions, they were truly "horseless buggies" by your criteria they should not be compared to cars of today, since there are so many differnt technologies at work. But the principles and purpose of the device have not changed. So it is with music players: newer tech, but same principles and purpose, to read stored music from a disc media in a portable device.
Cars didn't go from carrying one CD worth of people to carrying 100+ CDs worth of people. The iPod is a different product. It's a portable hard drive. CD Players aren't.
The mechanism for a CD-Rom laser is less complicated than a hard drive, especially a hard drive that's so small.
Optical drive storage technology is much more complex than magnetic storage in basically every way, whether it's the chemistry behind the writable layer substrate or the design of the laser or whatever. That's the whole reason why optical storage lags so far behind...
Originally posted by Eugene
Optical drive storage technology is much more complex than magnetic storage in basically every way, whether it's the chemistry behind the writable layer substrate or the design of the laser or whatever. That's the whole reason why optical storage lags so far behind...
Drive mechanisms.
Originally posted by bunge
Drive mechanisms.
What about them?
Even little nits like error correction are much more impressive on the optical storage side.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I'll get one of those players when hard drives are large enough to store a bunch of albums in a listenable format...ie AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate, non compressed ... Until then...count me out
AIFF is compressed. All digital formats are compressed. If you want no compression, stick to vinyl. Do I smell patchouli?
Originally posted by Eugene
AIFF is compressed.
No, it's not, but there is AIFF-C (AIFF Compressed), but I have never seen that used anywhere.
Originally posted by JLL
No, it's not, but there is AIFF-C (AIFF Compressed), but I have never seen that used anywhere.
It may be ~1400 kbps and bit-for-bit equivalent to the CD-A, but it's still compressed. If it's on a digital medium, it's compressed data...end of story.
If 44.1 KHz 16-bit AIFF is 'uncompressed' as you say, than what is the data stream from a stereo SACD or DVD-A? Super-uncompressed? You're sampling audio at a certain frequency, you're dropping infinitesimally small frames of sound no matter how thin use slice it. Sound is also not bound to 16-bits of resolution.
Whether you call that compression or downsampling, it's still lossy!
Originally posted by Eugene
It may be ~1400 kbps and bit-for-bit equivalent to the CD-A, but it's still compressed. If it's on a digital medium, it's compressed data...end of story.
If 44.1 KHz 16-bit AIFF is 'uncompressed' as you say, than what is the data stream from a stereo SACD or DVD-A? Super-uncompressed? You're sampling audio at a certain frequency, you're dropping infinitesimally small frames of sound no matter how thin use slice it. Sound is also not bound to 16-bits of resolution.
Whether you call that compression or downsampling, it's still lossy!
Converting to a digital format does not equal compression. Do you compress an image when you scan it? TIFFs are compressed? They downsample an image to 24bit and a ppi density of your choice.
Originally posted by JLL
Converting to a digital format does not equal compression. Do you compress an image when you scan it? TIFFs are compressed? They downsample an image to 24bit and a ppi density of your choice.
We're dealing with infinity and semantics then here. SJO specifically referred to her precious "AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate" which, while not literally compressed, is far from lossless when the source approaches infinity bits deep and a sample rate of infinity KHz.
So, yes, you're right, the data is just discarded. But then SJO's not really complaining about compression then, is she? FLAC is compressed and every bit as good as AIFF or WAV at any given sample rate and bit depth.
Originally posted by Eugene
What about them?
Even little nits like error correction are much more impressive on the optical storage side.
The number of platters on a hard drive increases complexity over the CD-Rom drive. The R/W capabilities of a hard drive increase complexity. Storing the OS for an iPod on a R/W media adds complexity to an iPod over CD-Rom drives reading just audio from a permenant media.
Error correction? Sorry. A discman is far less complicated than an iPod. I want them to last 5 years too (I'm on my 4th iPod), but the problems are mainly not Apple's to fix.
Originally posted by bunge
I have plenty of problems with the iPod, some of the same ones that you do. It's just that you can't see that YOUR opinion is just an opinion and not necessarily correct.
You need some help. You must be one of the least secure people I've communicated with in a long time. Someone disagrees and you go ape-shit. It's kind of sad, in that pathetic little kid next door kind of way.
Take that back!!!
Originally posted by bunge
The number of platters on a hard drive increases complexity over the CD-Rom drive. The R/W capabilities of a hard drive increase complexity. Storing the OS for an iPod on a R/W media adds complexity to an iPod over CD-Rom drives reading just audio from a permenant media.
Error correction? Sorry. A discman is far less complicated than an iPod. I want them to last 5 years too (I'm on my 4th iPod), but the problems are mainly not Apple's to fix.
Uh, there is R/W optical media out there. There is RAM type optical media out there too. I'm talking about optical vs magnetic media in general. You seem to be trying to compare last decade's technology with today's. Optical media based digital audio players are continually evolving.
Originally posted by Eugene
We're dealing with infinity and semantics then here. SJO specifically referred to her precious "AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate" which, while not literally compressed, is far from lossless when the source approaches infinity bits deep and a sample rate of infinity KHz.
So, yes, you're right, the data is just discarded. But then SJO's not really complaining about compression then, is she? FLAC is compressed and every bit as good as AIFF or WAV at any given sample rate and bit depth.
Yes...I understand that digital audio is a compromise. Sampling at 44.1 khz only allows some 2 samples at 20khz, (the upper limit of (most)) human hearing. Two or so samples per cycle at high frequencies is a very poor representation of the original waveform so filters are used to 'round off' the signal ...which does reduce "brittleness and harshness", but does not allow for an accurate rendition of the original waveform. The problem with filters (specially at higher frequencies), is that they cause the phase angle of the signal is relatively more distorted at high frequencies compared to lower frequencies...and since we get our "directional" perception of sound via the higher frequency components, maintaining the phase angle of reproduced sound is essential to accurate reproduction of sound, specially regarding the "stereo or surround sound image).
Yes I agree that "CD quality" is a poor compromise...but it is *hugely* superior to MP3...which takes that already compromised source, and then mangles it into something barely recognizable. Even the best MP3 encoding algorithm wrecks the sound. Listening to MP3 encoded music is OK in high noise situations, like in a convertible on a busy freeway, with semi trailers roaring away either side of you....or on a sound system like the run of the mill boombox or an off-the shelf Circuit City stereo system..which is electrically incapable of reproducing an accurate sound ain the first place. Put an MP3 on a worthy sound system and all the nasty artifacts of the encoding become immediately apparent...and for me..that wrecks all aspects of the listening experience. I love music and MP3 just doesn't work for these ears...I get "listening fatigue" in minutes.
Apologies for being an audio snob....but music is too valuable. I don't possess a $4000 turntable, and my music collection is im digital format as opposed to "virgin vinyl"...so I have to make do with CDs.....
Originally posted by bunge
The number of platters on a hard drive increases complexity over the CD-Rom drive. The R/W capabilities of a hard drive increase complexity. Storing the OS for an iPod on a R/W media adds complexity to an iPod over CD-Rom drives reading just audio from a permenant media.
There are other variables here: The CD-ROM and its kin also have to deal with the fact that the platter is of arbitrary quality and arbitrary cleanliness, and the read/write mechanism is subject to both the vagaries of open air and the state of the platter. Furthermore, the platter might wiggle side to side or up and down.
Hard drives are sealed and self-contained. And yes, the mechanisms in hard drives can be astonishingly simple. IBM, while they were in the business, had a featherweight head on a single joint that was positioned by a tiny magnetic field. It had two moving parts. The arm on my turntable is more complicated.
Error correction? Sorry. A discman is far less complicated than an iPod. I want them to last 5 years too (I'm on my 4th iPod), but the problems are mainly not Apple's to fix.
Error correction is a huge and complicated concern (because no assumptions can be made about the quality of the media), and so a lot of cheap CD players simply ignore it. Consequently, they skip and fail given a less than pristine CD, and they sound poor no matter what. Back when CD-ROM drives were only at 2x and required carriages, they made 800 read errors per second, best case. The CDs in most audio products are built to a poorer standard than computer CD-ROMs (which is why some high-end audio products use computer CD-ROM parts).
Trust me on this: Optical - and particularly removable optical - drives have much more to cope with than hard drives do. Everything is more complicated. Cheap CD players that skimp on some of the complexity suck, and then break.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I'll get one of those players when hard drives are large enough to store a bunch of albums in a listenable format...ie AIFF 16bit+ and 44.1khz sample rate, non compressed. MP3 sounds wretched compared to uncompressed audio...
Have you actually used an iPod? With properly encoded MP3's or AAC's and good headphones? Me thinks you haven't.
Originally posted by iPeon
Have you actually used an iPod? With properly encoded MP3's or AAC's and good headphones? Me thinks you haven't.
You're right I haven't. But I have heard a number of other MP3 playback systems, and they do *not* sound pleasant..to my ears at least. One thing though...the perception of fidelity is largely dependent upon familiarity of the material, and the instruments being played. For example, to put it over simplistically... if you are familiar with what an orchestra should sound like in a concert hall, and the sounds of the instruments in that hall, either in ensemble or solo, you have a reference to judge fidelity. Similarly with other "acoustic" source recordings where the processing stages between the player and the listener are the microphone/s, the mic. pre-amp and the analog to digital converter/electronics of the mixing board (and then the listeners playback system).
With many of todays (non classical) recordings, sound sources are often synthesized and/or sampled, or played through signal processing units that deliberately distort the sound of a conventional instrument (guitar, piano, whatever) to create different, often unique, sometimes completely unrecognizable timbres. Almost always in the end, the full mix has artificially generated reverb, and then it is compressed, limited and normalized so there is often a dynamic range of 2 or 3 dB between the "loudest and quietest passages". The only reference in these situations is what the producer and engineer heard in the recording studio, played through very high-end, high definition amplifiers and speakers. Basically...there is no reference for the listener..and in most listening situations, ambient noise or poor quality playback equipment will compromise the musical experience anyway.
But anyway....it's academic...I'd prefer to listen to wonderful music through a shitty system, than cookie-cutter music through a $20000 playback system...any day.
Originally posted by sammi jo
You're right I haven't. But I have heard a number of other MP3 playback systems, and they do *not* sound pleasant..to my ears at least.
I have read your post in detail. I still believe you have either listened to crappie encoded MP3's and made your decision based on those or... to be honest and upfront, there's some deeper "anti-something" you aren't disclosing. No insult intended.
A for instance:
At 192-224 my PB doesn't really show the difference between the MP3 and the CD for most tracks. Take over to the stereo, and it's a bit different, 224-320VBR makes more of a differnce there, and my stereo is far from "accurate" the big towers keep things warm and punchy, and the treble is "up front." They're pleasant to listen too, especially for rock/acoustic tracks, but I know they're not accurate representations of the "recording"
The recording itself may not be an accurate representation of the performance. There are a lot of steps to keep straight when you want to achieve fidelity. But anyway, the tone of my stereo might mask the deficiencies of MP3 more than a precise stereo, and still I can hear the difference just moving from PB audio, to seperates audio.