I don't buy iTunes songs either, for that same reason.
I think the idea of a "hinge point" is interesting, and makes sense.
The whole "audiophile/equipment snob" thing hangs on the premise that you can always improve sound reproduction and that those with discerning enough ears can always hear it.
Myself, I'm big believer in the idea that x amount of money gets you 90% of the obtainable sound and that you double the cost for each percentage point thereafter.
Sure, ears vary, but I suspect that the vast majority of people, starting with a base line reproduction chain, will be able to hear improvement up to somewhere around that "90%" level (or "hinge point", if you will) and will be hard pressed to perceive improvements thereafter, even as equipment/storage costs skyrocket.
The whole "audiophile/equipment snob" thing hangs on the premise that you can always improve sound reproduction and that those with discerning enough ears can always hear it.
Except that the vast majority of high-end audio equipment actually has lower measurable performance than mid-range stuff.
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Myself, I'm big believer in the idea that x amount of money gets you 90% of the obtainable sound and that you double the cost for each percentage point thereafter.
If you are an engineer, making your own equipment, yes. If you are end-user, buying products on the market, sadly, no.
I think the idea of a "hinge point" is interesting, and makes sense.
The whole "audiophile/equipment snob" thing hangs on the premise that you can always improve sound reproduction and that those with discerning enough ears can always hear it.
Myself, I'm big believer in the idea that x amount of money gets you 90% of the obtainable sound and that you double the cost for each percentage point thereafter.
Sure, ears vary, but I suspect that the vast majority of people, starting with a base line reproduction chain, will be able to hear improvement up to somewhere around that "90%" level (or "hinge point", if you will) and will be hard pressed to perceive improvements thereafter, even as equipment/storage costs skyrocket.
First of all I'd like to address the audiophile snob thing. I was a partner in a hi-end professional audio manufacturing concern, until we sold it to JBL.
I don't think that people who strive to get sound to the point where the experience of listening is a "fair" analog to the original, whatever that might be, can automatically be thought of as snobs.
I have a very good system myself. People have hobbies, and spend money in ways that we can't always understand. Why would someone spend $500 thousand, or more, for a car? $30 million for a home? A plane?
That's what interests them, and as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.
After all, why do some people watch every sporting event on the air? Every new movie?
A few audiophiles are snobs, just like people in all of the other categories I mentioned, and more.
But, there's nothing wrong with wanting better sound. I don't think that the category should be tarred because a few people in it are fools. we find a lot of that on these boards as it is.
Be that as it may, I've tested people in my audio group with AAC. While many thought that it would be easy to tell the difference, that wasn't always the case.
Using some very good equipment that can push content defects to the surface, we found that 128, under MOST circumstances, can be recognized.
What is interesting is that the type of music determines how easy it is to differentiate the bitrate. While 320 was very difficult to recognize (compared to music we recorded ourselves using some very good equipment, not a cd), lower rates reared their ugly head in different ways, and with different music. 256 was fine most of the time. 192 could be fine, but could also be terrible, and 128 could be fine, but rarely was.
Much of this had to do with the amount of high frequencies, what they were from, and their level in the recording. Dynamic range also played an important part. High dynamic range could be a problem, especially when accompanied with troublesome high frequencies.
Except that the vast majority of high-end audio equipment actually has lower measurable performance than mid-range stuff.
Mind you, I'm not endorsing the "audiophile" mindset, I'm just describing the phenomena.
Quote:
If you are an engineer, making your own equipment, yes. If you are end-user, buying products on the market, sadly, no.
I've actually found this to be roughly true, assuming you set the "90%" bar in the right place.
For instance, NAD makes a lovely little integrated amp for around $400 that takes you a long way toward "high end" sound. For sure, you can buy more expensive integrated amps, or much more expensive separates, that sound better.
But each notch up the "sounds better" ladder gets a lot more expensive (which is not to say that there aren't very expensive components that "sound worse", but I have to disagree that the "vast majority" of high end components have lower measurable performance.)
But each notch up the "sounds better" ladder gets a lot more expensive (which is not to say that there aren't very expensive components that "sound worse", but I have to disagree that the "vast majority" of high end components have lower measurable performance.)
Why should a more expensive product automatically "sound better"? It is not because they have higher measurable performance. It has a lot more to do with placebo. And it really is true to state that most high-end stuff has low measurable performance, because most high-end manufacturers think idiotic stuff like "negative feedback is bad!".
[B]Except that the vast majority of high-end audio equipment actually has lower measurable performance than mid-range stuff.
Now now. That's not a fair statement. Some hi-end equipment is just horrible. I know, I've heard most of it. But some is really very good indeed.
The other thing to consider is that we, as human beings, are only capable of hearing some things.
Do you know that with most music, there needs to be at least 6% HD to be audible? But, 1% IM distortion can drive many people to distraction.
It's not a simple issue.
Quote:
If you are an engineer, making your own equipment, yes. If you are end-user, buying products on the market, sadly, no.
This is an old discussion in audio. No one really knows what it means to get "90% of the obtainable sound". I sure don't. And I've designed equipment for several decades.
If you had a perfect stereo system, would you have 100% of the sound, or would you need all of the ambiance as well?
A friend has a company that goes around the world, often in conjunction with Sony, when they do recordings, to analyse, and "record" the ambiance of the concert halls.
They have designed a board that will strip the ambiance from a cd, and replace it with the hall ambiance you choose. You do need a surround system with at least 4 channels to do this.
I can tell you that you would be amazed at how this can sound. Even with a cheap Radioshack system, using small crappy Minimus speakers, you would think that you are there!
With a good, mid range system, it becomes enveloping, and with his 32 channel (custom made Sound Design electrostats) system, you can walk around the room and just think that you are walking around the concert hall while they are playing.
If the recording is done with this in mind, it's even better.
This is all experimental. Ralph made his money by selling his networking company 10 years ago for $750 million, so he can afford to sponser this. He will let anyone come to his home, with some notice, and listen. I'm not sure if this will ever be marketed.
Why should a more expensive product automatically "sound better"? It is not because they have higher measurable performance. It has a lot more to do with placebo. And it really is true to state that most high-end stuff has low measurable performance, because most high-end manufacturers think idiotic stuff like "negative feedback is bad!".
I'm not saying that more expensive "automatically" sounds better, I'm saying that "sounds better" is available for more money, but that at some point diminishing returns set in for all but the most dedicated "ultimate system" hounds, who generally have issues other than sound quality.
I've listened to $800 pairs of stereo speakers that sounded real nice, as nice as someone like me really would ever want or need.
I've listened to $10,000 pairs of speakers that sounded better to me, but not remotely $9,200 better. Better, in this case, means larger, better defined sound stage, better definition and presence of individual instruments, less strident, "etched" sounding high end, better and tighter bass, and less "congestion" through dense passages.
For me, all of those things are perfectly audible and have nothing to do with some of kind of self-deluded audio snob placebo effect.
However, as I say, I get most of what I want in those areas at a fairly "mid-line" price point.
It is not true that a $200 pair of speakers are "almost as good". (And I'm talking in general here, I know we can all cite cheaper equipment that sounds better than more expensive equipment on a case to case basis). There is a range wherein in more money gives real and rapidly increasing benefits, assuming you're judicious about picking and choosing what's on the market.
Like I say, for me, around 90% for x amount of money, depending on the specific component, and after that, for me, its not worth it.
I'm not saying that more expensive "automatically" sounds better, I'm saying that "sounds better" is available for more money, but that at some point diminishing returns set in for all but the most dedicated "ultimate system" hounds, who generally have issues other than sound quality.
I've listened to $800 pairs of stereo speakers that sounded real nice, as nice as someone like me really would ever want or need.
I've listened to $10,000 pairs of speakers that sounded better to me, but not remotely $9,200 better. Better, in this case, means larger, better defined sound stage, better definition and presence of individual instruments, less strident, "etched" sounding high end, better and tighter bass, and less "congestion" through dense passages.
For me, all of those things are perfectly audible and have nothing to do with some of kind of self-deluded audio snob placebo effect.
However, as I say, I get most of what I want in those areas at a fairly "mid-line" price point.
It is not true that a $200 pair of speakers are "almost as good". (And I'm talking in general here, I know we can all cite cheaper equipment that sounds better than more expensive equipment on a case to case basis). There is a range wherein in more money gives real and rapidly increasing benefits, assuming you're judicious about picking and choosing what's on the market.
Like I say, for me, around 90% for x amount of money, depending on the specific component, and after that, for me, its not worth it.
That's all very reasonable, and I agree wholeheartedly.
I'm not saying that more expensive "automatically" sounds better, I'm saying that "sounds better" is available for more money, but that at some point diminishing returns set in for all but the most dedicated "ultimate system" hounds, who generally have issues other than sound quality.
I've listened to $800 pairs of stereo speakers that sounded real nice, as nice as someone like me really would ever want or need.
I've listened to $10,000 pairs of speakers that sounded better to me, but not remotely $9,200 better. Better, in this case, means larger, better defined sound stage, better definition and presence of individual instruments, less strident, "etched" sounding high end, better and tighter bass, and less "congestion" through dense passages.
For me, all of those things are perfectly audible and have nothing to do with some of kind of self-deluded audio snob placebo effect.
However, as I say, I get most of what I want in those areas at a fairly "mid-line" price point.
It is not true that a $200 pair of speakers are "almost as good". (And I'm talking in general here, I know we can all cite cheaper equipment that sounds better than more expensive equipment on a case to case basis). There is a range wherein in more money gives real and rapidly increasing benefits, assuming you're judicious about picking and choosing what's on the market.
Like I say, for me, around 90% for x amount of money, depending on the specific component, and after that, for me, its not worth it.
Good post. Well said.
I'm talking a lot more about the electronics side of things. I should have made that clear. Also, I'm willing to concede that the "vast majority" comment may have been over-stating it.
There is a lot more room for improving the sound quality of speakers than there is of electronics, especially amplifiers.
Cool. We all agree that speakers are probably where you can do the most good in a system, which brings us right back around to the thread topic!
From first hand reports it sounds like Apple did, in fact, take care with the fabrication and housing of the speaker cones and porting in the iPod Hi Fi, which is all to the good.
I hope to get by the local Apple store this weekend and give em a listen.
Well, the reviews are coming in, and as I expected, they are pretty good. Here's one from one of the mags "on the dark side" so to speak, that has been giving Mac products pretty good reviews for a while now:
Well, the reviews are coming in, and as I expected, they are pretty good. Here's one from one of the mags "on the dark side" so to speak, that has been giving Mac products pretty good reviews for a while now:
I am pretty shocked at the amount of complaining about the Boombox. Don't people realize the significance of this release? Bose shouldn't be worried about competition for iPod accessories, they should be worried about their home turf - consumer sound systems. This release is merely the "iPod shuffle" of speaker systems from Apple. They are only going to get better and more competitive in this field.
The Bose sound dock is a tin can - just like all the other speaker systems for the iPod out there. I especially thought it quite funny how some here starting judging a speaker system based on how it looks, and it's spec sheet.
Sure - it doesn't look as good as it could - i have no idea why they didn't make it all white or all black, or white with black drivers or vice versa. But anyway, by initial reports it sounds great and I think that is more important considering Apple is just getting into this space.
I am pretty shocked at the amount of complaining about the Boombox. Don't people realize the significance of this release? Bose shouldn't be worried about competition for iPod accessories, they should be worried about their home turf - consumer sound systems. This release is merely the "iPod shuffle" of speaker systems from Apple. They are only going to get better and more competitive in this field.
The Bose sound dock is a tin can - just like all the other speaker systems for the iPod out there. I especially thought it quite funny how some here starting judging a speaker system based on how it looks, and it's spec sheet.
Sure - it doesn't look as good as it could - i have no idea why they didn't make it all white or all black, or white with black drivers or vice versa. But anyway, by initial reports it sounds great and I think that is more important considering Apple is just getting into this space.
In relation to that, here is a good article about why the iPod is a success. I think it also applies to this product. Actually, it applies to all of Apple's new products. by including some things that customers will want, rather than making them think about it, and then maybe having to add them later (think Mini, with WiFi and Bluetooth and remote)
In relation to that, here is a good article about why the iPod is a success. I think it also applies to this product. Actually, it applies to all of Apple's new products. by including some things that customers will want, rather than making them think about it, and then maybe having to add them later (think Mini, with WiFi and Bluetooth and remote)
Very good article. I think it's pretty spot on, too. I think a lot of hardcore Mac users forget that Apple isn't in the game to compete on hardware prices. Apple has ALWAYS been about useability, stability and design. You could start a whole new thread on why Apple got behind in the OS deal years ago, but the simple fact is Apple keeps producing products that serve a purpose, are easy to use and look good. You can buy other MP3 players with more features at better prices ... but Joe User doesn't want to read the manual and learn how to use the settings. He wants to plug it into his compiuter, install the software to go with it and be done. Don't forget ... 5 buttons and a scroll wheel is the easiest way to browse media right now. The iPod is simple ... it just *works* and the Hi-Fi is the same way. Two buttons. A dock. A power cable. That's all. It's so simple and user friendly. It's what Apple is and has been about for a long time.
I am pretty shocked at the amount of complaining about the Boombox. Don't people realize the significance of this release? Bose shouldn't be worried about competition for iPod accessories, they should be worried about their home turf - consumer sound systems. This release is merely the "iPod shuffle" of speaker systems from Apple. They are only going to get better and more competitive in this field.
I think people are just tired of all the hype, that's all. Steve Jobs is starting to sound like a snake oil salesman. It's a decent speaker for the iPod. I'm sure it's better sounding than the Bose. He makes it sound like it's some sort of momentous event in the history of audio or something though. Clearly he's caught up in his own RDF or something.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
320 seems to be the hinge point.
I don't buy iTunes songs either, for that same reason.
I think the idea of a "hinge point" is interesting, and makes sense.
The whole "audiophile/equipment snob" thing hangs on the premise that you can always improve sound reproduction and that those with discerning enough ears can always hear it.
Myself, I'm big believer in the idea that x amount of money gets you 90% of the obtainable sound and that you double the cost for each percentage point thereafter.
Sure, ears vary, but I suspect that the vast majority of people, starting with a base line reproduction chain, will be able to hear improvement up to somewhere around that "90%" level (or "hinge point", if you will) and will be hard pressed to perceive improvements thereafter, even as equipment/storage costs skyrocket.
Originally posted by addabox
The whole "audiophile/equipment snob" thing hangs on the premise that you can always improve sound reproduction and that those with discerning enough ears can always hear it.
Except that the vast majority of high-end audio equipment actually has lower measurable performance than mid-range stuff.
Originally posted by addabox
Myself, I'm big believer in the idea that x amount of money gets you 90% of the obtainable sound and that you double the cost for each percentage point thereafter.
If you are an engineer, making your own equipment, yes. If you are end-user, buying products on the market, sadly, no.
Originally posted by addabox
I think the idea of a "hinge point" is interesting, and makes sense.
The whole "audiophile/equipment snob" thing hangs on the premise that you can always improve sound reproduction and that those with discerning enough ears can always hear it.
Myself, I'm big believer in the idea that x amount of money gets you 90% of the obtainable sound and that you double the cost for each percentage point thereafter.
Sure, ears vary, but I suspect that the vast majority of people, starting with a base line reproduction chain, will be able to hear improvement up to somewhere around that "90%" level (or "hinge point", if you will) and will be hard pressed to perceive improvements thereafter, even as equipment/storage costs skyrocket.
First of all I'd like to address the audiophile snob thing. I was a partner in a hi-end professional audio manufacturing concern, until we sold it to JBL.
I don't think that people who strive to get sound to the point where the experience of listening is a "fair" analog to the original, whatever that might be, can automatically be thought of as snobs.
I have a very good system myself. People have hobbies, and spend money in ways that we can't always understand. Why would someone spend $500 thousand, or more, for a car? $30 million for a home? A plane?
That's what interests them, and as far as I'm concerned, that's fine.
After all, why do some people watch every sporting event on the air? Every new movie?
A few audiophiles are snobs, just like people in all of the other categories I mentioned, and more.
But, there's nothing wrong with wanting better sound. I don't think that the category should be tarred because a few people in it are fools. we find a lot of that on these boards as it is.
Be that as it may, I've tested people in my audio group with AAC. While many thought that it would be easy to tell the difference, that wasn't always the case.
Using some very good equipment that can push content defects to the surface, we found that 128, under MOST circumstances, can be recognized.
What is interesting is that the type of music determines how easy it is to differentiate the bitrate. While 320 was very difficult to recognize (compared to music we recorded ourselves using some very good equipment, not a cd), lower rates reared their ugly head in different ways, and with different music. 256 was fine most of the time. 192 could be fine, but could also be terrible, and 128 could be fine, but rarely was.
Much of this had to do with the amount of high frequencies, what they were from, and their level in the recording. Dynamic range also played an important part. High dynamic range could be a problem, especially when accompanied with troublesome high frequencies.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Except that the vast majority of high-end audio equipment actually has lower measurable performance than mid-range stuff.
Mind you, I'm not endorsing the "audiophile" mindset, I'm just describing the phenomena.
If you are an engineer, making your own equipment, yes. If you are end-user, buying products on the market, sadly, no.
I've actually found this to be roughly true, assuming you set the "90%" bar in the right place.
For instance, NAD makes a lovely little integrated amp for around $400 that takes you a long way toward "high end" sound. For sure, you can buy more expensive integrated amps, or much more expensive separates, that sound better.
But each notch up the "sounds better" ladder gets a lot more expensive (which is not to say that there aren't very expensive components that "sound worse", but I have to disagree that the "vast majority" of high end components have lower measurable performance.)
Originally posted by addabox
But each notch up the "sounds better" ladder gets a lot more expensive (which is not to say that there aren't very expensive components that "sound worse", but I have to disagree that the "vast majority" of high end components have lower measurable performance.)
Why should a more expensive product automatically "sound better"? It is not because they have higher measurable performance. It has a lot more to do with placebo. And it really is true to state that most high-end stuff has low measurable performance, because most high-end manufacturers think idiotic stuff like "negative feedback is bad!".
Originally posted by Mr. H
[B]Except that the vast majority of high-end audio equipment actually has lower measurable performance than mid-range stuff.
Now now. That's not a fair statement. Some hi-end equipment is just horrible. I know, I've heard most of it. But some is really very good indeed.
The other thing to consider is that we, as human beings, are only capable of hearing some things.
Do you know that with most music, there needs to be at least 6% HD to be audible? But, 1% IM distortion can drive many people to distraction.
It's not a simple issue.
If you are an engineer, making your own equipment, yes. If you are end-user, buying products on the market, sadly, no.
This is an old discussion in audio. No one really knows what it means to get "90% of the obtainable sound". I sure don't. And I've designed equipment for several decades.
If you had a perfect stereo system, would you have 100% of the sound, or would you need all of the ambiance as well?
A friend has a company that goes around the world, often in conjunction with Sony, when they do recordings, to analyse, and "record" the ambiance of the concert halls.
They have designed a board that will strip the ambiance from a cd, and replace it with the hall ambiance you choose. You do need a surround system with at least 4 channels to do this.
I can tell you that you would be amazed at how this can sound. Even with a cheap Radioshack system, using small crappy Minimus speakers, you would think that you are there!
With a good, mid range system, it becomes enveloping, and with his 32 channel (custom made Sound Design electrostats) system, you can walk around the room and just think that you are walking around the concert hall while they are playing.
If the recording is done with this in mind, it's even better.
This is all experimental. Ralph made his money by selling his networking company 10 years ago for $750 million, so he can afford to sponser this. He will let anyone come to his home, with some notice, and listen. I'm not sure if this will ever be marketed.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Why should a more expensive product automatically "sound better"? It is not because they have higher measurable performance. It has a lot more to do with placebo. And it really is true to state that most high-end stuff has low measurable performance, because most high-end manufacturers think idiotic stuff like "negative feedback is bad!".
I'm not saying that more expensive "automatically" sounds better, I'm saying that "sounds better" is available for more money, but that at some point diminishing returns set in for all but the most dedicated "ultimate system" hounds, who generally have issues other than sound quality.
I've listened to $800 pairs of stereo speakers that sounded real nice, as nice as someone like me really would ever want or need.
I've listened to $10,000 pairs of speakers that sounded better to me, but not remotely $9,200 better. Better, in this case, means larger, better defined sound stage, better definition and presence of individual instruments, less strident, "etched" sounding high end, better and tighter bass, and less "congestion" through dense passages.
For me, all of those things are perfectly audible and have nothing to do with some of kind of self-deluded audio snob placebo effect.
However, as I say, I get most of what I want in those areas at a fairly "mid-line" price point.
It is not true that a $200 pair of speakers are "almost as good". (And I'm talking in general here, I know we can all cite cheaper equipment that sounds better than more expensive equipment on a case to case basis). There is a range wherein in more money gives real and rapidly increasing benefits, assuming you're judicious about picking and choosing what's on the market.
Like I say, for me, around 90% for x amount of money, depending on the specific component, and after that, for me, its not worth it.
Originally posted by addabox
I'm not saying that more expensive "automatically" sounds better, I'm saying that "sounds better" is available for more money, but that at some point diminishing returns set in for all but the most dedicated "ultimate system" hounds, who generally have issues other than sound quality.
I've listened to $800 pairs of stereo speakers that sounded real nice, as nice as someone like me really would ever want or need.
I've listened to $10,000 pairs of speakers that sounded better to me, but not remotely $9,200 better. Better, in this case, means larger, better defined sound stage, better definition and presence of individual instruments, less strident, "etched" sounding high end, better and tighter bass, and less "congestion" through dense passages.
For me, all of those things are perfectly audible and have nothing to do with some of kind of self-deluded audio snob placebo effect.
However, as I say, I get most of what I want in those areas at a fairly "mid-line" price point.
It is not true that a $200 pair of speakers are "almost as good". (And I'm talking in general here, I know we can all cite cheaper equipment that sounds better than more expensive equipment on a case to case basis). There is a range wherein in more money gives real and rapidly increasing benefits, assuming you're judicious about picking and choosing what's on the market.
Like I say, for me, around 90% for x amount of money, depending on the specific component, and after that, for me, its not worth it.
That's all very reasonable, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by addabox
I'm not saying that more expensive "automatically" sounds better, I'm saying that "sounds better" is available for more money, but that at some point diminishing returns set in for all but the most dedicated "ultimate system" hounds, who generally have issues other than sound quality.
I've listened to $800 pairs of stereo speakers that sounded real nice, as nice as someone like me really would ever want or need.
I've listened to $10,000 pairs of speakers that sounded better to me, but not remotely $9,200 better. Better, in this case, means larger, better defined sound stage, better definition and presence of individual instruments, less strident, "etched" sounding high end, better and tighter bass, and less "congestion" through dense passages.
For me, all of those things are perfectly audible and have nothing to do with some of kind of self-deluded audio snob placebo effect.
However, as I say, I get most of what I want in those areas at a fairly "mid-line" price point.
It is not true that a $200 pair of speakers are "almost as good". (And I'm talking in general here, I know we can all cite cheaper equipment that sounds better than more expensive equipment on a case to case basis). There is a range wherein in more money gives real and rapidly increasing benefits, assuming you're judicious about picking and choosing what's on the market.
Like I say, for me, around 90% for x amount of money, depending on the specific component, and after that, for me, its not worth it.
Good post. Well said.
I'm talking a lot more about the electronics side of things. I should have made that clear. Also, I'm willing to concede that the "vast majority" comment may have been over-stating it.
There is a lot more room for improving the sound quality of speakers than there is of electronics, especially amplifiers.
Originally posted by Mr. H
There is a lot more room for improving the sound quality of speakers than there is of electronics, especially amplifiers.
That's very true.
Originally posted by melgross
That's very true.
Woohoo!!!!! Melgross agreed with me about something!
Originally posted by Mr. H
Woohoo!!!!! Melgross agreed with me about something!
Aww, we don't disagree about everything.
From first hand reports it sounds like Apple did, in fact, take care with the fabrication and housing of the speaker cones and porting in the iPod Hi Fi, which is all to the good.
I hope to get by the local Apple store this weekend and give em a listen.
Originally posted by ecking
I wonder if it'd be possible to connect two together......probably not. I wouldn't want to I just think it'd be interesting.
Sadly, no.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1933838,00.asp
I'm sure there will be plenty more.
Originally posted by melgross
Well, the reviews are coming in, and as I expected, they are pretty good. Here's one from one of the mags "on the dark side" so to speak, that has been giving Mac products pretty good reviews for a while now:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1933838,00.asp
I'm sure there will be plenty more.
I am pretty shocked at the amount of complaining about the Boombox. Don't people realize the significance of this release? Bose shouldn't be worried about competition for iPod accessories, they should be worried about their home turf - consumer sound systems. This release is merely the "iPod shuffle" of speaker systems from Apple. They are only going to get better and more competitive in this field.
The Bose sound dock is a tin can - just like all the other speaker systems for the iPod out there. I especially thought it quite funny how some here starting judging a speaker system based on how it looks, and it's spec sheet.
Sure - it doesn't look as good as it could - i have no idea why they didn't make it all white or all black, or white with black drivers or vice versa. But anyway, by initial reports it sounds great and I think that is more important considering Apple is just getting into this space.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I am pretty shocked at the amount of complaining about the Boombox. Don't people realize the significance of this release? Bose shouldn't be worried about competition for iPod accessories, they should be worried about their home turf - consumer sound systems. This release is merely the "iPod shuffle" of speaker systems from Apple. They are only going to get better and more competitive in this field.
The Bose sound dock is a tin can - just like all the other speaker systems for the iPod out there. I especially thought it quite funny how some here starting judging a speaker system based on how it looks, and it's spec sheet.
Sure - it doesn't look as good as it could - i have no idea why they didn't make it all white or all black, or white with black drivers or vice versa. But anyway, by initial reports it sounds great and I think that is more important considering Apple is just getting into this space.
In relation to that, here is a good article about why the iPod is a success. I think it also applies to this product. Actually, it applies to all of Apple's new products. by including some things that customers will want, rather than making them think about it, and then maybe having to add them later (think Mini, with WiFi and Bluetooth and remote)
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v7i07_pfeiffer.html
Originally posted by melgross
In relation to that, here is a good article about why the iPod is a success. I think it also applies to this product. Actually, it applies to all of Apple's new products. by including some things that customers will want, rather than making them think about it, and then maybe having to add them later (think Mini, with WiFi and Bluetooth and remote)
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v7i07_pfeiffer.html
Very good article. I think it's pretty spot on, too. I think a lot of hardcore Mac users forget that Apple isn't in the game to compete on hardware prices. Apple has ALWAYS been about useability, stability and design. You could start a whole new thread on why Apple got behind in the OS deal years ago, but the simple fact is Apple keeps producing products that serve a purpose, are easy to use and look good. You can buy other MP3 players with more features at better prices ... but Joe User doesn't want to read the manual and learn how to use the settings. He wants to plug it into his compiuter, install the software to go with it and be done. Don't forget ... 5 buttons and a scroll wheel is the easiest way to browse media right now. The iPod is simple ... it just *works* and the Hi-Fi is the same way. Two buttons. A dock. A power cable. That's all. It's so simple and user friendly. It's what Apple is and has been about for a long time.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I am pretty shocked at the amount of complaining about the Boombox. Don't people realize the significance of this release? Bose shouldn't be worried about competition for iPod accessories, they should be worried about their home turf - consumer sound systems. This release is merely the "iPod shuffle" of speaker systems from Apple. They are only going to get better and more competitive in this field.
I think people are just tired of all the hype, that's all. Steve Jobs is starting to sound like a snake oil salesman. It's a decent speaker for the iPod. I'm sure it's better sounding than the Bose. He makes it sound like it's some sort of momentous event in the history of audio or something though. Clearly he's caught up in his own RDF or something.