I would recommend a Roku soundbridge over a squeezebox.
Thanks. Good points. I was steering away from the Roku because reviews I've seen dinged its interface and made it sound hard to use compared to the Squeezebox, reviews of which have been ectstatic. Price not too much of an issue, since we're talking about $200 for the Roku vs. $300 for the S-box, from what I see in a cursory check (I haven't cruised eBay or Craigslist). Hadn't thought about the the proprietary S-box software vs. vanilla iTunes. Hmmm.
I'll check out the Roku more carefully. Appreciate the thoughtful reply.
Step 2: Buy a RCA->Minipin cable and an iPOD dock(the dock gives line level out, the jack on the iPod is headphone level.)
Step 3: connect to your sound system and enjoy.
But that's so ... inelegant and low-tech. And would kill my iPod battery quicker than using the iMac. On the other hand, I've already got a dock and the appropriate cable, and this would clearly work, so ... good idea. Thanks.
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM.
Apple added DRM to an open format, so I doubt keeping it closed would be necessary for this reason. The AAC codec is an international, available standard which you can find alternative decoders, open source or not, unless it's been protected.
Quote:
Anyone dumb enough to use this codec instead of FLAC or leaving it as Aiffs, is in for a wake up call in about 10 months. Have fun re-ripping all of your CDs when you want files that will play on something other than an iPod.
Re-ripping shouldn't be necessary. Select a bunch of tracks, right click and select "Convert Selection To...".
What is this about ten months claim? What really will happen then? Are you thinking that Apple and all their music players are going to die then?
I am skeptical that a lossless codec incurs changes to the audio. I would think that there would have been a big stink if Apple Lossless really was changing the audio. You mentioned Airport Express, maybe there are issues with the decoder in that thing, I don't know. The real way to tell if the Apple lossless encoder or decoder is problematic is to convert an AIFF ripped from CD to AL and back to AIFF, and then run "diff" on the two AIFF files.
RE: 10 months I'm not a ROLO claiming insider info by any means, but I will bet that you won't be using ALAC more than a year from now. It is a bridge codec,
Other than that, I am staying out of this conversation. This thread is not supposed to be about formats. I just know what my ears hear. I'm not going to get in some silly war about formats. I'll just crank up the HiFi tonight and enjoy some music.
RE: 10 months I'm not a ROLO claiming insider info by any means, but I will bet that you won't be using ALAC more than a year from now. It is a bridge codec,
Other than that, I am staying out of this conversation. This thread is not supposed to be about formats. I just know what my ears hear. I'm not going to get in some silly war about formats. I'll just crank up the HiFi tonight and enjoy some music.
Audio quality? We don?t ever like to comment on this until we?ve done straight comparisons, but it was evident in each of Apple?s four demo rooms that the Hi-Fi is capable of revealing flaws in compressed audio - good for audiophiles, perhaps less so for average people or those accustomed to iTunes Music Store downloads. Apple claims to have focused tremendous energy on getting the stereo soundstaging and spacialization right, as well as eliminating distortion at top (room-filling) volume. We?ll have more to say on this in the days to come
I listened to the iPod HiFi yesterday - in the Regent's Street Store.
Some first-hand observations
1) Apple had a *lot* of these in stock - so someone expects them to sell like crazy.
2) The warehouse-like space of the store is not the best place to judge audio quality.
3) People were really interested. They were drawing a sizable crowd - people were lining up to select a track and listen
4) The design looks nice to my eyes. I guess Ives would call it "essential". Others might describe it plain to the point of being Amish.
5) I didn't get much of an impression of stereo imaging - but that might be because of the open space in the store.
6) I am no audiophile ( In fact I hold audiophiles in the same low-regard as train-spotters and homeopaths.) But in my opinion - they were the best sounding speakers in the store. The Bose setup sounded particularly weak and tinny at low volumes in the same enviroment.
7) Last- but not least - These suckers are *LOUD* - and seemed to go all the way up to eleven with little or no distortion. They were so loud that the security guy had come in and shut them down because the sound was drowning-out the people upstairs. (Which is impressive if you know how big that store is)
I listened to the iPod HiFi yesterday - in the Regent's Street Store.
Some first-hand observations
1) Apple had a *lot* of these in stock - so someone expects them to sell like crazy.
2) The warehouse-like space of the store is not the best place to judge audio quality.
3) People were really interested. They were drawing a sizable crowd - people were lining up to select a track and listen
4) The design looks nice to my eyes. I guess Ives would call it "essential". Others might describe it plain to the point of being Amish.
5) I didn't get much of an impression of stereo imaging - but that might be because of the open space in the store.
6) I am no audiophile ( In fact I hold audiophiles in the same low-regard as train-spotters and homeopaths.) But in my opinion - they were the best sounding speakers in the store. The Bose setup sounded particularly weak and tinny at low volumes in the same enviroment.
7) Last- but not least - These suckers are *LOUD* - and seemed to go all the way up to eleven with little or no distortion. They were so loud that the security guy had come in and shut them down because the sound was drowning-out the people upstairs. (Which is impressive if you know how big that store is)
C.
Mine should arrive in 5-6 hours. I'll post my opinions then.
I listened to the iPod HiFi yesterday - in the Regent's Street Store.
Some first-hand observations
1) Apple had a *lot* of these in stock - so someone expects them to sell like crazy.
2) The warehouse-like space of the store is not the best place to judge audio quality.
3) People were really interested. They were drawing a sizable crowd - people were lining up to select a track and listen
4) The design looks nice to my eyes. I guess Ives would call it "essential". Others might describe it plain to the point of being Amish.
5) I didn't get much of an impression of stereo imaging - but that might be because of the open space in the store.
6) I am no audiophile ( In fact I hold audiophiles in the same low-regard as train-spotters and homeopaths.) But in my opinion - they were the best sounding speakers in the store. The Bose setup sounded particularly weak and tinny at low volumes in the same enviroment.
7) Last- but not least - These suckers are *LOUD* - and seemed to go all the way up to eleven with little or no distortion. They were so loud that the security guy had come in and shut them down because the sound was drowning-out the people upstairs. (Which is impressive if you know how big that store is)
C.
I just went to the store in Aventura, Florida and received a full demonstration, and a side by side comparison with both the Klipsch and the Bose - my impressions:
1.) Sound quality/fidelity was excellent and blew away both the Bose and Klipsch.
2.) Compared to those two, this unit is HI-FI - compared to a 5 speaker $1200+ system, no, but then this isn't supposed to compare to a system like that - it is a Hi-Fi boom box, not a hi-fi reference audio system.
3.) Sound volume not only blew away the other two, but was enough to fill the store and bring everyone in it over to see what the heck was making so much noise.
4.) The soundstage was pretty darn good given it is only one box and not two.
5.) It synchs the volume control on the unit with that on the iPod, unlike the other tw, which remain independent. Very nice feature.
6.) Like everything else Apple, it is beautifully and solidly crafted.
7.) It is larger than either the Klipsch or Bose systems.
8.) It is heavy.
9.) Yes, it is a boom box. No, a boom box is no longer defined as a stereo you walk around with on your shoulder while it plays Liscense to Ill from a cassette. A boom box is a stereo you can take with you or put on a shelf.
10.) They sold out of their 1st day allotment within a few hours and if they had any more there i would have bought one on the spot. I await tommorrow.
Hmmm.... I apparently stand corrected on my "optimized for 128k AAC content" theory.
According to the new owner of an iPod Hi Fi on his concurrently running thread here,, it sounds much worse, loud, with iTMS downloads than with CD rips, suggesting that Apple is selling a box capable of highlighting the shortcomings of their own product.
Oh well, I guess it's no different than cinema displays and iTMS video...
According to the new owner of an iPod Hi Fi on his concurrently running thread here,, it sounds much worse, loud, with iTMS downloads than with CD rips, suggesting that Apple is selling a box capable of highlighting the shortcomings of their own product.
It's not that hard to do as compressed audio sounds like garbage on anything halfway decent.
It's not that hard to do as compressed audio sounds like garbage on anything halfway decent.
You might want to pop over to the "iTunes, time for 256kbps AAC music" thread, which is full of people who swear they can't hear the difference between lossless and 128k iTunes downloads, and consider people who listen to things at CD bits rates to be "audiophiles".
which is full of people who swear they can't hear the difference between lossless and 128k iTunes downloads
Full of people like that? I don't think so. When I read the thread, it had some people stating that most other people can't tell the difference, or just don't care. Unfortunately, that is true. That's why I suggested higher bit-rates as a more expensive option.
I think the main reason most people can't tell is they just don't have good enough speakers. That said I do think the difference between some bit rates is over stated. 128 I can notice 192kbps it starts becoming a lot less noticeable. At 320 I really struggle to notice a difference between it and lossless.
Full of people like that? I don't think so. When I read the thread, it had some people stating that most other people can't tell the difference, or just don't care. Unfortunately, that is true. That's why I suggested higher bit-rates as a more expensive option.
Yes, you're right, I was just overstating the case for purposes of dramatic enhancement.
I do wonder if some of the same people who feel that they either can't hear or don't care about differences in bit rates and codecs will get an iPod Hi Fi and suddenly realize that their iTMS downloads sound inferior to CDs, which would in the nature of ironic.
OTOH, most such probably won't have any lossless rips on their playlists and wouldn't bother to hook up a CD player to the Hi Fi.
I think the main reason most people can't tell is they just don't have good enough speakers. That said I do think the difference between some bit rates is over stated. 128 I can notice 192kbps it starts becoming a lot less noticeable. At 320 I really struggle to notice a difference between it and lossless.
320 seems to be the hinge point.
I don't buy iTunes songs either, for that same reason.
Comments
Originally posted by buckeye
Flame on fanboys.
Actually, you started the flame with me.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I would recommend a Roku soundbridge over a squeezebox.
Thanks. Good points. I was steering away from the Roku because reviews I've seen dinged its interface and made it sound hard to use compared to the Squeezebox, reviews of which have been ectstatic. Price not too much of an issue, since we're talking about $200 for the Roku vs. $300 for the S-box, from what I see in a cursory check (I haven't cruised eBay or Craigslist). Hadn't thought about the the proprietary S-box software vs. vanilla iTunes. Hmmm.
I'll check out the Roku more carefully. Appreciate the thoughtful reply.
Originally posted by a_greer
Step 1: BREATHE
Step 2: Buy a RCA->Minipin cable and an iPOD dock(the dock gives line level out, the jack on the iPod is headphone level.)
Step 3: connect to your sound system and enjoy.
But that's so ... inelegant and low-tech. And would kill my iPod battery quicker than using the iMac. On the other hand, I've already got a dock and the appropriate cable, and this would clearly work, so ... good idea. Thanks.
I'll work on the breathing.
Originally posted by buckeye
Apple "lossless" codec is a closed codec so that apple can later include DRM.
Apple added DRM to an open format, so I doubt keeping it closed would be necessary for this reason. The AAC codec is an international, available standard which you can find alternative decoders, open source or not, unless it's been protected.
Quote:
Anyone dumb enough to use this codec instead of FLAC or leaving it as Aiffs, is in for a wake up call in about 10 months. Have fun re-ripping all of your CDs when you want files that will play on something other than an iPod.
Re-ripping shouldn't be necessary. Select a bunch of tracks, right click and select "Convert Selection To...".
What is this about ten months claim? What really will happen then? Are you thinking that Apple and all their music players are going to die then?
I am skeptical that a lossless codec incurs changes to the audio. I would think that there would have been a big stink if Apple Lossless really was changing the audio. You mentioned Airport Express, maybe there are issues with the decoder in that thing, I don't know. The real way to tell if the Apple lossless encoder or decoder is problematic is to convert an AIFF ripped from CD to AL and back to AIFF, and then run "diff" on the two AIFF files.
Other than that, I am staying out of this conversation. This thread is not supposed to be about formats. I just know what my ears hear. I'm not going to get in some silly war about formats. I'll just crank up the HiFi tonight and enjoy some music.
Originally posted by buckeye
RE: 10 months I'm not a ROLO claiming insider info by any means, but I will bet that you won't be using ALAC more than a year from now. It is a bridge codec,
Other than that, I am staying out of this conversation. This thread is not supposed to be about formats. I just know what my ears hear. I'm not going to get in some silly war about formats. I'll just crank up the HiFi tonight and enjoy some music.
It's not off topic.
Originally posted by melgross
It's not off topic.
The topic is the Apple Boombox, not codecs. If you want to debate codecs with me let's be respectful posters and start another thread.
Audio quality? We don?t ever like to comment on this until we?ve done straight comparisons, but it was evident in each of Apple?s four demo rooms that the Hi-Fi is capable of revealing flaws in compressed audio - good for audiophiles, perhaps less so for average people or those accustomed to iTunes Music Store downloads. Apple claims to have focused tremendous energy on getting the stereo soundstaging and spacialization right, as well as eliminating distortion at top (room-filling) volume. We?ll have more to say on this in the days to come
Some first-hand observations
1) Apple had a *lot* of these in stock - so someone expects them to sell like crazy.
2) The warehouse-like space of the store is not the best place to judge audio quality.
3) People were really interested. They were drawing a sizable crowd - people were lining up to select a track and listen
4) The design looks nice to my eyes. I guess Ives would call it "essential". Others might describe it plain to the point of being Amish.
5) I didn't get much of an impression of stereo imaging - but that might be because of the open space in the store.
6) I am no audiophile ( In fact I hold audiophiles in the same low-regard as train-spotters and homeopaths.) But in my opinion - they were the best sounding speakers in the store. The Bose setup sounded particularly weak and tinny at low volumes in the same enviroment.
7) Last- but not least - These suckers are *LOUD* - and seemed to go all the way up to eleven with little or no distortion. They were so loud that the security guy had come in and shut them down because the sound was drowning-out the people upstairs. (Which is impressive if you know how big that store is)
C.
Originally posted by Carniphage
I listened to the iPod HiFi yesterday - in the Regent's Street Store.
Some first-hand observations
1) Apple had a *lot* of these in stock - so someone expects them to sell like crazy.
2) The warehouse-like space of the store is not the best place to judge audio quality.
3) People were really interested. They were drawing a sizable crowd - people were lining up to select a track and listen
4) The design looks nice to my eyes. I guess Ives would call it "essential". Others might describe it plain to the point of being Amish.
5) I didn't get much of an impression of stereo imaging - but that might be because of the open space in the store.
6) I am no audiophile ( In fact I hold audiophiles in the same low-regard as train-spotters and homeopaths.) But in my opinion - they were the best sounding speakers in the store. The Bose setup sounded particularly weak and tinny at low volumes in the same enviroment.
7) Last- but not least - These suckers are *LOUD* - and seemed to go all the way up to eleven with little or no distortion. They were so loud that the security guy had come in and shut them down because the sound was drowning-out the people upstairs. (Which is impressive if you know how big that store is)
C.
Mine should arrive in 5-6 hours. I'll post my opinions then.
- Xidius
Originally posted by Carniphage
I listened to the iPod HiFi yesterday - in the Regent's Street Store.
Some first-hand observations
1) Apple had a *lot* of these in stock - so someone expects them to sell like crazy.
2) The warehouse-like space of the store is not the best place to judge audio quality.
3) People were really interested. They were drawing a sizable crowd - people were lining up to select a track and listen
4) The design looks nice to my eyes. I guess Ives would call it "essential". Others might describe it plain to the point of being Amish.
5) I didn't get much of an impression of stereo imaging - but that might be because of the open space in the store.
6) I am no audiophile ( In fact I hold audiophiles in the same low-regard as train-spotters and homeopaths.) But in my opinion - they were the best sounding speakers in the store. The Bose setup sounded particularly weak and tinny at low volumes in the same enviroment.
7) Last- but not least - These suckers are *LOUD* - and seemed to go all the way up to eleven with little or no distortion. They were so loud that the security guy had come in and shut them down because the sound was drowning-out the people upstairs. (Which is impressive if you know how big that store is)
C.
I just went to the store in Aventura, Florida and received a full demonstration, and a side by side comparison with both the Klipsch and the Bose - my impressions:
1.) Sound quality/fidelity was excellent and blew away both the Bose and Klipsch.
2.) Compared to those two, this unit is HI-FI - compared to a 5 speaker $1200+ system, no, but then this isn't supposed to compare to a system like that - it is a Hi-Fi boom box, not a hi-fi reference audio system.
3.) Sound volume not only blew away the other two, but was enough to fill the store and bring everyone in it over to see what the heck was making so much noise.
4.) The soundstage was pretty darn good given it is only one box and not two.
5.) It synchs the volume control on the unit with that on the iPod, unlike the other tw, which remain independent. Very nice feature.
6.) Like everything else Apple, it is beautifully and solidly crafted.
7.) It is larger than either the Klipsch or Bose systems.
8.) It is heavy.
9.) Yes, it is a boom box. No, a boom box is no longer defined as a stereo you walk around with on your shoulder while it plays Liscense to Ill from a cassette. A boom box is a stereo you can take with you or put on a shelf.
10.) They sold out of their 1st day allotment within a few hours and if they had any more there i would have bought one on the spot. I await tommorrow.
I kind of like the whole single speaker near field aspect of it.
The drivers look real and heavy means great magnets for bass damping and extension.
Not sure how the white would clash with my darker wood but I'll seriousy consider iBoombox when the time comes
Think about how clean the setup will be.
With a Sub/Sat system you have all these wires dangling. With iPod Hifi you have one clean connection.
Hell I'm selling myself on these.
According to the new owner of an iPod Hi Fi on his concurrently running thread here,, it sounds much worse, loud, with iTMS downloads than with CD rips, suggesting that Apple is selling a box capable of highlighting the shortcomings of their own product.
Oh well, I guess it's no different than cinema displays and iTMS video...
Originally posted by addabox
According to the new owner of an iPod Hi Fi on his concurrently running thread here,, it sounds much worse, loud, with iTMS downloads than with CD rips, suggesting that Apple is selling a box capable of highlighting the shortcomings of their own product.
It's not that hard to do as compressed audio sounds like garbage on anything halfway decent.
Originally posted by 1984
It's not that hard to do as compressed audio sounds like garbage on anything halfway decent.
You might want to pop over to the "iTunes, time for 256kbps AAC music" thread, which is full of people who swear they can't hear the difference between lossless and 128k iTunes downloads, and consider people who listen to things at CD bits rates to be "audiophiles".
Originally posted by addabox
which is full of people who swear they can't hear the difference between lossless and 128k iTunes downloads
Full of people like that? I don't think so. When I read the thread, it had some people stating that most other people can't tell the difference, or just don't care. Unfortunately, that is true. That's why I suggested higher bit-rates as a more expensive option.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Full of people like that? I don't think so. When I read the thread, it had some people stating that most other people can't tell the difference, or just don't care. Unfortunately, that is true. That's why I suggested higher bit-rates as a more expensive option.
Yes, you're right, I was just overstating the case for purposes of dramatic enhancement.
I do wonder if some of the same people who feel that they either can't hear or don't care about differences in bit rates and codecs will get an iPod Hi Fi and suddenly realize that their iTMS downloads sound inferior to CDs, which would in the nature of ironic.
OTOH, most such probably won't have any lossless rips on their playlists and wouldn't bother to hook up a CD player to the Hi Fi.
Originally posted by Telomar
I think the main reason most people can't tell is they just don't have good enough speakers. That said I do think the difference between some bit rates is over stated. 128 I can notice 192kbps it starts becoming a lot less noticeable. At 320 I really struggle to notice a difference between it and lossless.
320 seems to be the hinge point.
I don't buy iTunes songs either, for that same reason.