And here I sit honestly unable to tell the difference between any speakers of decent (>$100) quality.
Probably the same people who fell for those CD 'balancing' kits back in the 80's....
People who are audiophiles, I've noticed, are either people with really good hearing "resolution," or are just complete chumps (or, I suppose, both). There are computer programs you can use to generate pure tones at different frequencies, and you can test yourself to see how narrow your hearing resolution is. That is, you can find how much frequency difference your hearing can distinguish.
Mine is crap. Not "tone deaf" crap, but still pretty crap. So I'm with you that a set of reasonable speakers is just as good as a set of high-end components. Being easy to please has its advantages.
On another note, for the first time I'm going to AVOID going into the tubes vs. linear transistors vs. digital debate. Audiophiles are a tender bunch, which you'd expect them to be after dropping a stupifying amount of coin on a tube amp.
People who are audiophiles, I've noticed, are either people with really good hearing "resolution," or are just complete chumps (or, I suppose, both). There are computer programs you can use to generate pure tones at different frequencies, and you can test yourself to see how narrow your hearing resolution is. That is, you can find how much frequency difference your hearing can distinguish.
Sounds fun. Just like calibrating my TV and monitors!
Granted, this type of fun is not for everyone.
Somewhat related, go buy HDMI cables for your TV or whatnot. It is worth it! Component output is so passé.
From everything I've read, it's just as good as a digital signal without the potentially limiting DRM included.
From what I've seen with my eyes and my TV I was shocked at the improvement when switching away from Component Video to HDMI. While the picture was only slightly more vivid, the amount of compression and digital artifacts was greatly reduced.
If the new videopod rumors are true, how will that mount into the top of the HiFi?
I would think the widescreen mode would be what you want to see, especially since you can see video on the iPod and hear sound from the HiFi. Standing it vertical like they do now just doesn't seem right.
Anyway, I am off to the Apple Store to check on this and the MacBook. Haven't been there in a while. Nice review.
On another note, for the first time I'm going to AVOID going into the tubes vs. linear transistors vs. digital debate. Audiophiles are a tender bunch, which you'd expect them to be after dropping a stupifying amount of coin on a tube amp.
I have a McIntosh tube system that sounds very nice. That said, I've heard a lot of tube systems that sounded pretty bad including some that were several times more expensive. Used correctly they can produce very beautiful sounding music.
By the way, all highly compressed music sounds horrid on good audio equipment. I purposely buy mid to low-end speakers and headphones because all of my music is compressed. [/B]
Absolutely, this is exactly the reason why i ceased to buy classical
and other "accustical" pieces from the iTMS. The overall experience
is just too poor. Rock, Pop and the like sound pretty decent in
128kb/s AAC (well to some extent) but Music you really have
to listen to, no offend here -- i gonna rate a BIG NO.
Just for the record we are talking about an all-in-one
active soundsystem for less then $1.000, especially designed
for usage with an iPod, right? What do you expect so far?
The BOSE Dock sounds pretty decent for what it is build
for, the iPod (average 128kb/s streams). But even the
BOSE dock is by no means an "audiophile" audio system,
you know what i mean. The same goes for the iPod Hi-Fi,
probably. If you want a serious talk about "audiophile"
audiosystems you have to factor in certain other brands like
Harman Kardon, Yamaha, Linn, JBL, Genelec,
Tannoy (best price/performance ratio if you ask me), Kloss, Hummel,
H&H, and so on, well, just to name a few.
But than we're certainly talking about a whole
different price tag anyway, $300 and beyond for ONE Speaker.
Not to mention the appropriate amplifier you have to buy first.
The bottom line: i've got that hunch that the iPod Hi-Fi
is probably a pretty good purchase for everyone who cares about
sound, but doesn't want to spent too much money for
an uberclass audiosystem, which he isn't able to hear
I think that about sums it up though even on my Bose it songs bough off iTMS sound very dull and flat. It seems to vary depending on the type of music as well. When I buy something off eMusic I'm always astounded by how much better it sounds. It's a night and day difference to me. They are using VBR MP3 as their format of choice.
In the early days of iTMS it seems to me like Apple (or whoever encodes the music) took greater care in doing so. Lately most of what I've bought sounds terrible regardless even on the iPod with standard earbuds. Lots of shimmer in the high frequencies.
I have a McIntosh tube system that sounds very nice. That said, I've heard a lot of tube systems that sounded pretty bad including some that were several times more expensive. Used correctly they can produce very beautiful sounding music.
Tubes are interesting, since the reason why people like them is that they introduce a little bit of noise and "distortion" into the system in a way that's somewhat unique. So it's a preferential thing. My usual argument is that the fact that modern components can simulate tube effects digitally with excellent accuracy. Factor in the elimination of line noise (digital signals to the speakers), and it ends up giving the digital system the upper hand over any other sound system.
But the trouble is, the people in the market to buy such a system are very much glued to analog systems, be they tube or transistor based. They have their reasons, and I'm not saying they're wrong, but it does make it hard to compare high end analog equipment with high-end digital equipment, since there isn't a lot of really cutting-edge digital stuff out there at the moment.
And here I sit honestly unable to tell the difference between any speakers of decent (>$100) quality.
Probably the same people who fell for those CD 'balancing' kits back in the 80's....
Speakers in the $100-$500 range are often hard to tell apart, but when you get past that into more expensive speakers is when the obvious differences start to show up.
Speakers can sound dramatically different from each other - I can somewhat agree when people balk at the differences in speaker cables, but everyone can hear the differences in speakers.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
there isn't a lot of really cutting-edge digital stuff out there at the moment.
Yes there is ($20,000 CD players and the like) - and they sound good, just not as good as vinyl.
Speakers in the $100-$500 range are often hard to tell apart, but when you get past that into more expensive speakers is when the obvious differences start to show up.
Speakers can sound dramatically different from each other - I can somewhat agree when people balk at the differences in speaker cables, but everyone can hear the differences in speakers.
Very true indeed. And now back to topic, if the
iPod Hi Fi sounds at least as it is advertised (promised),
than this is a pretty good deal regarding the price tag.
It is an all in one (active) soundsystem for $350, that's
more than "just okay", it is quite a bargain, IMHO.
I am really excited about how the new iPod Hi Fi
really sounds. If it is close, say, to BOSE Dock,
than you'll meet me pretty sure in the apple store
Yes there is ($20,000 CD players and the like) - and they sound good, just not as good as vinyl.
I've never liked the sound of CDs. There is just too much information lost. They can do much better digitally but so far those formats have not done very well. Most people either just don't care about audio quality or they spend most of their time listening to music on the go where it doesn't make much difference. On the other hand they are interested in video quality. It's easier to see a difference than to hear one. Vinyl does sound a lot better though it depends on the source and mastering. I used to hear well beyond 20 -20,000 but it was a while since my last test.
In any event, I'm certain the iPod Hi-Fi sounds significantly better than the Bose SoundDock.
Tubes are interesting, since the reason why people like them is that they introduce a little bit of noise and "distortion" into the system in a way that's somewhat unique. So it's a preferential thing. My usual argument is that the fact that modern components can simulate tube effects digitally with excellent accuracy. Factor in the elimination of line noise (digital signals to the speakers), and it ends up giving the digital system the upper hand over any other sound system.
I've never been able to duplicate the effect through tone controls or digital processing. Distortion is pretty good at 0.5% vs 0.05%
If you believe this is true, you just don't understand signal theory. In terms of signal fidelity, CD is far superior to Vinyl. You may prefer how Vinyl sounds, that's fair enough, but it isn't because of signal fidelity.
Compared to Vinyl, CD has:
Higher resolution (Vinyl resolution limited by noise floor)
Same bandwidth (compared to the first play of a record. The bandwidth of a given vinyl record decreases with each play, as the stylus wears away the groove)
That's not what I am talking about. Everyone knows the benefits of CD over vinyl such as increased dynamic range and lower distortion. What you are forgetting is that as a source the CD does not contain as much information as vinyl. Those improved specs make the material recorded to a CD sound great but the quality of the material recorded itself is limited by the format. You can upsample or oversample to improve on this but it does not remove this limit. In an all digital process much information is thrown out from the orignal master recording in going from 24bit to 16bit to accomodate the CD format. There are digital sources out there that sound significantly better than CD. Why? Because they contain more information.
What you are forgetting is that as a source the CD does not contain as much information as vinyl.
This is exactly my point. You do not understand signal theory. CD contains more information than vinyl.
The biggest problem with CD is the need for anti-alias filtering, and the things that can do to phase response. I don't know the signal path in a professional recording studio, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was flawed when CD first came out, and indeed if it is still flawed today. In most CD players, the playback pathway is also flawed. The problems are very easy to overcome, and are therefore not a limitation of the CD format.
The standard, simplified, signal pathway in CD recording is something like this:
Mic ---> Mic amplifier ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter ---> sample and hold (44.1 kHz sample rate) ---> 16 bit quantiser.
The standard signal pathway when playing back a CD is something like this:
Digital data off CD ---> 44.1 kHz DAC (digital to analogue converter) ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter.
The problem here is that the low-pass filters need to pass everything below 20 kHz, but block everything above 22.05 kHz. This is impossible to do with analogue filters without having a nasty phase response in the treble.
To solve the problem, the pathways need to be this:
recording:
Mic ---> Mic amplifier ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter ---> sample and hold (176.4 kHz sample rate) ---> 16 bit quantiser ---> Digital FIR (finite impulse response) Low-pass filter ---> 176.4 to 44.1 kHz sample rate converter (just remove 3/4 of the samples).
Playback:
Digital data off CD ---> 44.1 kHz to 176.4 kHz up-sample ---> 176.4 kHz DAC (digital to analogue converter) ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter.
Now, in this case, the analogue filters have to pass everything below 20 kHz, and cut everything above 88.2 kHz. This can be done with bessel filters to give a linear phase response in the treble (no phase distortion, the signal is just delayed*). The digital filter in the recording pathway has to pass signals below 20 kHz, and cut those above 22.05, but this is possible to do without the nasty phase response, by using FIR type filters, which have both linear phase response and fast cut-off.
* as in, all frequencies from 0 Hz to 20 kHz are delayed by the same amount of time.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1984
There are digital sources out there that sound significantly better than CD. Why? Because they contain more information.
Actually, that isn't why. It's because they avoid the problems I've outlined above by default. DVD-Audio has nothing to gain, IMHO, over a CD recording and playback system as outlined above.
Mr. H: you have just explained everything I was afraid to. I didn't think it would be worth it, for some reason.
For the readers who haven't been through a course or two in signal processing, the idea here is that it's possible to convert a digital signal into a perfect analog signal. This is a fact. The hard part is getting the right filter to do it, but a modern FIR filter can do a pretty damn good job. By pretty damn good, I mean to say that a good FIR filter can approximate the "ideal" filter by better than 99%, which is, incidentally, a better match that you typically get in analog systems, given the manufacturing variance of passive electronic components.
Comments
Originally posted by iPoster
And here I sit honestly unable to tell the difference between any speakers of decent (>$100) quality.
Probably the same people who fell for those CD 'balancing' kits back in the 80's....
People who are audiophiles, I've noticed, are either people with really good hearing "resolution," or are just complete chumps (or, I suppose, both). There are computer programs you can use to generate pure tones at different frequencies, and you can test yourself to see how narrow your hearing resolution is. That is, you can find how much frequency difference your hearing can distinguish.
Mine is crap. Not "tone deaf" crap, but still pretty crap. So I'm with you that a set of reasonable speakers is just as good as a set of high-end components. Being easy to please has its advantages.
On another note, for the first time I'm going to AVOID going into the tubes vs. linear transistors vs. digital debate. Audiophiles are a tender bunch, which you'd expect them to be after dropping a stupifying amount of coin on a tube amp.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
People who are audiophiles, I've noticed, are either people with really good hearing "resolution," or are just complete chumps (or, I suppose, both). There are computer programs you can use to generate pure tones at different frequencies, and you can test yourself to see how narrow your hearing resolution is. That is, you can find how much frequency difference your hearing can distinguish.
Sounds fun. Just like calibrating my TV and monitors!
Granted, this type of fun is not for everyone.
Somewhat related, go buy HDMI cables for your TV or whatnot. It is worth it! Component output is so passé.
Originally posted by Xool
Somewhat related, go buy HDMI cables for your TV or whatnot. It is worth it! Component output is so passé.
From everything I've read, it's just as good as a digital signal without the potentially limiting DRM included.
Originally posted by Xool
Sounds fun. Just like calibrating my TV and monitors!
Granted, this type of fun is not for everyone.
Somewhat related, go buy HDMI cables for your TV or whatnot. It is worth it! Component output is so passé.
It's pretty easy to do in Matlab. I'm sure there are other tools that can do this, and some of them are probably free.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
From everything I've read, it's just as good as a digital signal without the potentially limiting DRM included.
From what I've seen with my eyes and my TV I was shocked at the improvement when switching away from Component Video to HDMI. While the picture was only slightly more vivid, the amount of compression and digital artifacts was greatly reduced.
I kid you not... Even my girlfriend noticed!
I would think the widescreen mode would be what you want to see, especially since you can see video on the iPod and hear sound from the HiFi. Standing it vertical like they do now just doesn't seem right.
Anyway, I am off to the Apple Store to check on this and the MacBook. Haven't been there in a while. Nice review.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
On another note, for the first time I'm going to AVOID going into the tubes vs. linear transistors vs. digital debate. Audiophiles are a tender bunch, which you'd expect them to be after dropping a stupifying amount of coin on a tube amp.
I have a McIntosh tube system that sounds very nice. That said, I've heard a lot of tube systems that sounded pretty bad including some that were several times more expensive. Used correctly they can produce very beautiful sounding music.
...
By the way, all highly compressed music sounds horrid on good audio equipment. I purposely buy mid to low-end speakers and headphones because all of my music is compressed. [/B]
Absolutely, this is exactly the reason why i ceased to buy classical
and other "accustical" pieces from the iTMS. The overall experience
is just too poor. Rock, Pop and the like sound pretty decent in
128kb/s AAC (well to some extent) but Music you really have
to listen to, no offend here -- i gonna rate a BIG NO.
Just for the record we are talking about an all-in-one
active soundsystem for less then $1.000, especially designed
for usage with an iPod, right? What do you expect so far?
The BOSE Dock sounds pretty decent for what it is build
for, the iPod (average 128kb/s streams). But even the
BOSE dock is by no means an "audiophile" audio system,
you know what i mean. The same goes for the iPod Hi-Fi,
probably. If you want a serious talk about "audiophile"
audiosystems you have to factor in certain other brands like
Harman Kardon, Yamaha, Linn, JBL, Genelec,
Tannoy (best price/performance ratio if you ask me), Kloss, Hummel,
H&H, and so on, well, just to name a few.
But than we're certainly talking about a whole
different price tag anyway, $300 and beyond for ONE Speaker.
Not to mention the appropriate amplifier you have to buy first.
The bottom line: i've got that hunch that the iPod Hi-Fi
is probably a pretty good purchase for everyone who cares about
sound, but doesn't want to spent too much money for
an uberclass audiosystem, which he isn't able to hear
the difference anyway.
my 2 cents
In the early days of iTMS it seems to me like Apple (or whoever encodes the music) took greater care in doing so. Lately most of what I've bought sounds terrible regardless even on the iPod with standard earbuds. Lots of shimmer in the high frequencies.
Originally posted by 1984
I have a McIntosh tube system that sounds very nice. That said, I've heard a lot of tube systems that sounded pretty bad including some that were several times more expensive. Used correctly they can produce very beautiful sounding music.
Tubes are interesting, since the reason why people like them is that they introduce a little bit of noise and "distortion" into the system in a way that's somewhat unique. So it's a preferential thing. My usual argument is that the fact that modern components can simulate tube effects digitally with excellent accuracy. Factor in the elimination of line noise (digital signals to the speakers), and it ends up giving the digital system the upper hand over any other sound system.
But the trouble is, the people in the market to buy such a system are very much glued to analog systems, be they tube or transistor based. They have their reasons, and I'm not saying they're wrong, but it does make it hard to compare high end analog equipment with high-end digital equipment, since there isn't a lot of really cutting-edge digital stuff out there at the moment.
Originally posted by iPoster
And here I sit honestly unable to tell the difference between any speakers of decent (>$100) quality.
Probably the same people who fell for those CD 'balancing' kits back in the 80's....
Speakers in the $100-$500 range are often hard to tell apart, but when you get past that into more expensive speakers is when the obvious differences start to show up.
Speakers can sound dramatically different from each other - I can somewhat agree when people balk at the differences in speaker cables, but everyone can hear the differences in speakers.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
there isn't a lot of really cutting-edge digital stuff out there at the moment.
Yes there is ($20,000 CD players and the like) - and they sound good, just not as good as vinyl.
Originally posted by e1618978
Speakers in the $100-$500 range are often hard to tell apart, but when you get past that into more expensive speakers is when the obvious differences start to show up.
Speakers can sound dramatically different from each other - I can somewhat agree when people balk at the differences in speaker cables, but everyone can hear the differences in speakers.
Very true indeed. And now back to topic, if the
iPod Hi Fi sounds at least as it is advertised (promised),
than this is a pretty good deal regarding the price tag.
It is an all in one (active) soundsystem for $350, that's
more than "just okay", it is quite a bargain, IMHO.
I am really excited about how the new iPod Hi Fi
really sounds. If it is close, say, to BOSE Dock,
than you'll meet me pretty sure in the apple store
next corner.
Originally posted by e1618978
Yes there is ($20,000 CD players and the like) - and they sound good, just not as good as vinyl.
I've never liked the sound of CDs. There is just too much information lost. They can do much better digitally but so far those formats have not done very well. Most people either just don't care about audio quality or they spend most of their time listening to music on the go where it doesn't make much difference. On the other hand they are interested in video quality. It's easier to see a difference than to hear one. Vinyl does sound a lot better though it depends on the source and mastering. I used to hear well beyond 20 -20,000 but it was a while since my last test.
In any event, I'm certain the iPod Hi-Fi sounds significantly better than the Bose SoundDock.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Tubes are interesting, since the reason why people like them is that they introduce a little bit of noise and "distortion" into the system in a way that's somewhat unique. So it's a preferential thing. My usual argument is that the fact that modern components can simulate tube effects digitally with excellent accuracy. Factor in the elimination of line noise (digital signals to the speakers), and it ends up giving the digital system the upper hand over any other sound system.
I've never been able to duplicate the effect through tone controls or digital processing. Distortion is pretty good at 0.5% vs 0.05%
Originally posted by 1984
There is just too much information lost.
If you believe this is true, you just don't understand signal theory. In terms of signal fidelity, CD is far superior to Vinyl. You may prefer how Vinyl sounds, that's fair enough, but it isn't because of signal fidelity.
Compared to Vinyl, CD has:
Higher resolution (Vinyl resolution limited by noise floor)
Same bandwidth (compared to the first play of a record. The bandwidth of a given vinyl record decreases with each play, as the stylus wears away the groove)
Lower Wow
Lower flutter
Lower harmonic distortion
Greater dynamic range.
Originally posted by 1984
What you are forgetting is that as a source the CD does not contain as much information as vinyl.
This is exactly my point. You do not understand signal theory. CD contains more information than vinyl.
The biggest problem with CD is the need for anti-alias filtering, and the things that can do to phase response. I don't know the signal path in a professional recording studio, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was flawed when CD first came out, and indeed if it is still flawed today. In most CD players, the playback pathway is also flawed. The problems are very easy to overcome, and are therefore not a limitation of the CD format.
The standard, simplified, signal pathway in CD recording is something like this:
Mic ---> Mic amplifier ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter ---> sample and hold (44.1 kHz sample rate) ---> 16 bit quantiser.
The standard signal pathway when playing back a CD is something like this:
Digital data off CD ---> 44.1 kHz DAC (digital to analogue converter) ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter.
The problem here is that the low-pass filters need to pass everything below 20 kHz, but block everything above 22.05 kHz. This is impossible to do with analogue filters without having a nasty phase response in the treble.
To solve the problem, the pathways need to be this:
recording:
Mic ---> Mic amplifier ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter ---> sample and hold (176.4 kHz sample rate) ---> 16 bit quantiser ---> Digital FIR (finite impulse response) Low-pass filter ---> 176.4 to 44.1 kHz sample rate converter (just remove 3/4 of the samples).
Playback:
Digital data off CD ---> 44.1 kHz to 176.4 kHz up-sample ---> 176.4 kHz DAC (digital to analogue converter) ---> analogue low-pass anti-alias filter.
Now, in this case, the analogue filters have to pass everything below 20 kHz, and cut everything above 88.2 kHz. This can be done with bessel filters to give a linear phase response in the treble (no phase distortion, the signal is just delayed*). The digital filter in the recording pathway has to pass signals below 20 kHz, and cut those above 22.05, but this is possible to do without the nasty phase response, by using FIR type filters, which have both linear phase response and fast cut-off.
* as in, all frequencies from 0 Hz to 20 kHz are delayed by the same amount of time.
Originally posted by 1984
There are digital sources out there that sound significantly better than CD. Why? Because they contain more information.
Actually, that isn't why. It's because they avoid the problems I've outlined above by default. DVD-Audio has nothing to gain, IMHO, over a CD recording and playback system as outlined above.
For the readers who haven't been through a course or two in signal processing, the idea here is that it's possible to convert a digital signal into a perfect analog signal. This is a fact. The hard part is getting the right filter to do it, but a modern FIR filter can do a pretty damn good job. By pretty damn good, I mean to say that a good FIR filter can approximate the "ideal" filter by better than 99%, which is, incidentally, a better match that you typically get in analog systems, given the manufacturing variance of passive electronic components.