I am impressed by the review and even more impressed that Prince has Explosions in the Sky on his iPod. They are a freaking great Austin instrumental band. I am done end rant
Excellent - you hit it right on the head. And it supposed to be all about the music- "Let's Rock"- remember?
It is about the music. It's about how easy it is to have your music (if not all your music)with you at all times. It's about how easy it is to access the music you want to hear. It's about how easy it is to put (and organize) only the music you want into your iPod. It's about how you can play your music while watching your photos in a slide show. It's about how easy it is to buy music to put in your iPod. It's about how easy it is to find the other music you may like and play or buy it.
Now if you want the music to sound good. then the best way is to start with music that is good to begin with. Good music will transcends the equipment it's played on. Good music will sound good no matter the quality of the equipment. Crappy music, on the otherhand, sounds like crap no matter how good the equipment is.
I can just be as happy listening to Norah Jones on 200g vinyl, in front of my home stereo, as I can while listening to her on an AAC lossy file on my iPod. It may not sound anywhere near what I hear at home. But the music still sounds good and I'm happy to be able to hear her while running (well actually jogging.\) around the lake (well maybe most of the time it's on a treadmill. \). On the otherhand, if my music from my home stereo sounds like what I hear on my iPod.....I'd be royally pissed.
If you want a great sound experience go shut yourself in a soundproof room and listen to vinyl on your tube amp. To me all digital players playing a lossy format thru earbuds sound the same: fairly meh. Not completely crappy but it for sure isn't the Metropolitan Opera.
vinyl sounds better regardless of the soundproof room and tube amps. I am always amazed when i hang out with a friend who has a huge vinyl collection. He has a decent amp and pretty crappy speakers, but i am constantly amazed as to how good the music sounds coming from vinyl. there is a lot that just doesnt come through on other media as it does on vinyl.
I'd like to see one for bikes as well. I hate running (too boring for me) and much prefer a good burn on the mountain bike. It would be nice to know how I'm doing with some stats from a Nike +. There is a huge potential market here for Nike to expand on but they seem to be cautious about expanding it. Even something that would replace those pedometer freebies you get in cereal packs would be good.
I just assumed that the sensor puck is not a clip-on device because Nike want you to buy their shoes.
My iPod touch Wi-Fi performs quite a bit faster than my Wife's iPhone when connected to the same wireless network. It's pretty snappy.
I'm going to beg Jobs to allow the keyboard to flip sideways when the touch is rotated. Those with small fingers can keep doing what they're doing. Anyone with larger fingers than a petite woman needs space.
That said, the correction feature saves my bacon 99% of the time.
Here's an odd thing I've noticed. The game Asphalt 4 has astounding volume. It actually startled me because I have to crank the volume all the way up for music and videos. Then when you punch up the racing game, it's like returning to your car and turning the key and nearly having a heart attack as the music blasts you out of the car.
How can one App have such loud volume while music (purchased from Apple) and videos can't reach anywhere near as loud?
It is about the music. It's about how easy it is to have your music (if not all your music)with you at all times. It's about how easy it is to access the music you want to hear. It's about how easy it is to put (and organize) only the music you want into your iPod. It's about how you can play your music while watching your photos in a slide show. It's about how easy it is to buy music to put in your iPod. It's about how easy it is to find the other music you may like and play or buy it.
Now if you want the music to sound good. then the best way is to start with music that is good to begin with. Good music will transcends the equipment it's played on. Good music will sound good no matter the quality of the equipment. Crappy music, on the otherhand, sounds like crap no matter how good the equipment is.
I can just be as happy listening to Norah Jones on 200g vinyl, in front of my home stereo, as I can while listening to her on an AAC lossy file on my iPod. It may not sound anywhere near what I hear at home. But the music still sounds good and I'm happy to be able to hear her while running (well actually jogging.\) around the lake (well maybe most of the time it's on a treadmill. \). On the otherhand, if my music from my home stereo sounds like what I hear on my iPod.....I'd be royally pissed.
Sounds like you'd be satisfied listening to 2 tin cans tied to a string then.
Given that the 2nd gen iPod touch has audio input/output capacity, do you suppose that there will be a Skype utility that will allow it to be used as a phone through a wifi connection?
It's actually thicker than the previous iPod touch.
Only at its thickest part, but with the tapering it feels smaller. I bet the overall volume is quite a bit less too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcinsobe
Given that the 2nd gen iPod touch has audio input/output capacity, do you suppose that there will be a Skype utility that will allow it to be used as a phone through a wifi connection?
There is no reason why Skype can't make a VoIP app for the iPhone/Touch, so long as it only works via WiFi on the iPhone.
Given that the 2nd gen iPod touch has audio input/output capacity, do you suppose that there will be a Skype utility that will allow it to be used as a phone through a wifi connection?
I got the impression from that special event keynote that is what is going to happen, as if it was a likely use for that mic input. VoIP is only banned from using cellular data.
Sounds like you'd be satisfied listening to 2 tin cans tied to a string then.
If that was the only thing available and Norah Jones was being played......Yes. IMO It would still better than listening to rap on an iPod.
It it disllusional to think that one name brand MP3 player is somehow vastly superior, sound wise, to another name brand player. MP3 players, now of days, are more than music players. Something has to give in order for you to get WiFi, bluetooth, touch screen, FM radio, longer battery life, more storage, smaller, thinner, video, ect. And it's usaully the sound chip. It's like comparing the sound quality of those less than $300, all in one, mini stereo systems made by Sony, Pioneer, JVC, Yamaha, ect. In the end it's a trade off. The one with the best speakers is the one with the crappy electronics. The best sounding one is most likely the one with the least features. And nearly all of them will sound better if you just buy better speakers.
And just what are you listening for when comparing MP3 players? All the sounds that you would listen for in a high end home stereo don't even exist in lossy MP3 files. And if they did, the earbuds you get with the player can't resolve it. Highs? Timber? Low bass? Bass detail? Detail in the midrange? Sound stage and imaging? All the stuff that was deemed non essential to the music and thrown out when the music got compressed to an MP3 file. There's a reason why most MP3 player don't advertise how much better their players sound over a competitors. And why they don't make "High End" MP3 players. It's because most MP3 players are used to listen to lossy MP3 music. And I doubt that the sound outputted is "flat". It's been equalized and being able to change the equalization levels the playing field for all MP3 players (sound wise). So long as they keep the distortion below a certain threshold, most players will sound (or can be made to sound) the same (with the same earbuds).
Reviewing the sound quality of MP3 players (name brand ones) would be like me comparing the sound quality of my 2 tabletop, crank up, Victor Talking Machine Victrolas and an Edison cylinder player. I prefer the sound of the Victrola with the internal cast iron horn over the Victrola with the external horn (like the one Nipper sits in front of) or the Edison. But does that really matter when I'm listening to sound created by what is essentially a nail running in a groove of a cirra 1905, 78RPM shellac record, recording of Caruso? (or in the case of the Edison, a Ruby needle in the groove of a cylinder made of wax.) And back in the 1900's this was like being there. It sounded as good as live. The sad truth is that there is more musical infomation in that record than there is in a lossy MP3 file. And I can only hope that my CDs' can retain it's musical information for at least 50 years. Let alone over a hundred years. ("His Master Voice" will most likely outlast "Perfect Sound Forever")
But still, I'm actually amazed that an MP3 player sounds as good as it does. (At least all of the name brand ones.) My iPod sound way better than my cassette Walkman (and Victrolas ). And nearly as good as my CD Walkman. But my iPod hold thousands of songs (plus videos and photos) and is less than half the size of just one CD case. It's still no way near my home stereo but I can't really complain. But better earbuds (headphones) improves the sound quality quite a bit.
...... But better earbuds (headphones) improves the sound quality quite a bit.
Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".
Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".
If a tree fall in the forest and there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound?
I didn't say or imply that earbuds (headphones) improved the sound quality being "emitted". Just the sound that you eventually hear. If the sound is "crappy" because it's lacking in bass or highs, better headphones can improve the sound (you hear).
Were not talking extreme cases here. Were talking about comparing any name brand MP3 players. Apple, Creative, SanDisk, Microsoft, Sony, ect. There isn't one of them that you can label as having "crappy sound". The only thing that will make any one of them sound "crappy" is unwanted audible distortion. Which most don't have at a reasonable listening level. Otherwise everything else is equalization and personal perference. And everyone one them can be made to sound alike (or nearly alike) with the included equalizer. Everyone of them will sound better with better earbuds or headphones. (If not. there's alot of people out there buying expensive headphones for nothing.) And I'm willing to bet that you can not tell one from the other in a blind test. (that's listening only, no touching.) While listening to lossy MP3 music. Most MP3 listeners aren't afraid to use the equalizer in an MP3 player. Even audiophiles won't insist on listening to their music "flat" when they're listening to a lossy MP3 file on an MP3 player with earbuds.
You got to remember that a "flat" MP3 music file sounds "crappy". Play it on any descent home stereo and listen to it without tone controls. Most MP3 players do not output a "flat" signal. They output an equalized signal, in an attempt to make up for what the lossy MP3 music (and sound chip hardware) is lacking. And this can be done in the firmware. Some players does this more than others. Therefore. there's a difference in sound from one MP3 player to another. But none would be classified as "crappy sounding". And all can be remedied with more or less equalization to suit your personal taste. It's not like designing "High End" amps. Where the goal is to output a high quality "flat" signal with as little added to the orignal audio signal as possible. Therefore, there's no consistant baseline to compare MP3 players with. Just personal perference.
Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".
You are way off. Anyone with ears will tell you that good earbuds - Shure E500, Etymotic ER4, UE 10, etc. - will dramatically improve the sound quality of a DECENT source. The iPod is a DECENT enough source that it will dramatically benefit from good cans (which does not include the stock earbuds of any MP3 player that I know of).
It's all about limits. The limits of the iPod earbuds are far below the capabilities of the iPod. However, if you hook up the iPod to a good, highly regarded pair of $3,000 speakers, the iPod will be more than maxed out and will not benefit from $100,000 speakers. Your DVD to HDTV comparison is flawed because the source (DVD) is below the capability of the HDTV.
,,,and Norah Jones is known for high quality recordings.
David, you're ignorant for proclaiming that people are "delusional" in believing that there are sound quality differences in MP3 players. While I agree that they are all fairly mediocre compared to high-end DACs and a good turn-table, anyone with decent cans and well recorded music will tell you that Sandisk players, for example, are CLEARLY superior to the iPod.
You don't believe subjective experiences? Well, then look at the technical data. The iPod and many other MP3 players have rolled off bass, while the Sandisk is virtually flat across the spectrum. These measurements are not delusional biases but factual data. Google is your friend.
...and if you are truly as satisfied with listening to your iPod as you are your home system, then you either have too much money and are wasting it on unnecessary equipment or are completely lying to yourself.
There was an outrageous article that I encountered awhile back, in which an audiophile spend an insane amount of money modifying his vinyl set-up. Instead of reading the entire 10,000 word write-up, I read one line that made me realize that the guy was a hypocrite and an idiot: he claimed that he was just as happy to listen to his favorite music from a transistor radio as he was on his $100,000 or whatever vinyl gear. If this is the case, then why would he spend that sort of money and time on building the uber expensive set-up? He needs a new hobby or a life, or to give some of that money to charity.
You are way off. Anyone with ears will tell you that good earbuds - Shure E500, Etymotic ER4, UE 10, etc. - will dramatically improve the sound quality of a DECENT source. The iPod is a DECENT enough source that it will dramatically benefit from good cans (which does not include the stock earbuds of any MP3 player that I know of).
It's all about limits. The limits of the iPod earbuds are far below the capabilities of the iPod. However, if you hook up the iPod to a good, highly regarded pair of $3,000 speakers, the iPod will be more than maxed out and will not benefit from $100,000 speakers. Your DVD to HDTV comparison is flawed because the source (DVD) is below the capability of the HDTV.
,,,and Norah Jones is known for high quality recordings.
That source you mention was never reviewed here and that is what we are talking about. Please do not comment unless you've read all the thread. There have been fluctuations in that source(chip) between the various iPods and that spec( the most important one in many opinions here for a music device) was never included in the review. Thank you.
David, you're ignorant for proclaiming that people are "delusional" in believing that there are sound quality differences in MP3 players. While I agree that they are all fairly mediocre compared to high-end DACs and a good turn-table, anyone with decent cans and well recorded music will tell you that Sandisk players, for example, are CLEARLY superior to the iPod.
I stated that people are delusional in believing that any difference in sound quality makes one MP3 player VASTLY superior to another. Not there there are no differences in sound.
Quote:
You don't believe subjective experiences? Well, then look at the technical data. The iPod and many other MP3 players have rolled off bass, while the Sandisk is virtually flat across the spectrum. These measurements are not delusional biases but factual data. Google is your friend.
But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.) In fact, an MP3 music file sounds better on my cheap stereo than my expensive setup (no where near $100,000 \), because the cheap one has an equalizer. Where as my expensive set up has no tone controls what so ever. And I rather listen to an MP3 music file on my iPod (or computer) than any of my home stereos.
Quote:
...and if you are truly as satisfied with listening to your iPod as you are your home system, then you either have too much money and are wasting it on unnecessary equipment or are completely lying to yourself.
I'm satisfy with how my iPod (most MP3 players actually) sounds. It's the music I enjoy listening to. Whether on an iPod or on my home stereo. And my iPod enables me to listen to my music where ever I'm at. But when I'm at home, I don't use my iPod as my source material for my home stereo. But I do listen to my iPod at home when I don't have the time to sit in front of my home stereo (and change records/CDs' every 20 minutes or so) or it's late at night. Before the iPod (MP3 players) it wasn't easy to listen to my music except at home. I would have to lug around a dozen CD's (or tapes) and the player itself was a hassle to carry around.
I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is. However, if an MP3 player is the best equipment you have for listening to your music. Or it's where you do most of your listening. By all means look for the best sounding MP3 player and buy the best sounding headphones you can afford. And use the highest bit rate your can with the space you got.
Quote:
There was an outrageous article that I encountered awhile back, in which an audiophile spend an insane amount of money modifying his vinyl set-up. Instead of reading the entire 10,000 word write-up, I read one line that made me realize that the guy was a hypocrite and an idiot: he claimed that he was just as happy to listen to his favorite music from a transistor radio as he was on his $100,000 or whatever vinyl gear. If this is the case, then why would he spend that sort of money and time on building the uber expensive set-up? He needs a new hobby or a life, or to give some of that money to charity.
The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.
If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.
But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.)
This is my point: the Sandisk players have less bass roll-off than an iPod. Since MP3s are already slightly rolled off (as you say), then the iPod will have even more noticeable roll-off. An equalizer would help but would also add more distortion to an already distorted source. The iPod does not have user tunable EQ to make up for the bass roll-off. The predefined settings create far too much distortion. The Zune is even worse because it also has slightly rolled off bass but doesn't have EQ at all.
Your tube analogy is flawed for the simple reason that tube lovers (myself included) can forgive minor bass roll-off when the mid-range is so sweet, and the highs are so smooth. Digital players don't compensate for rolled off bass by giving up any great tube qualities. I do agree that there are no "vast" differences in sound quality among the various popular players out there, but your definition of "vast" is not likely to be the exact same as another person's. Someone who thinks that there are "vast" differences is not "delusional," in my opinion, even though I disagree.
Ultimately, I still fail to see the value or the point of a "review" that is three pages long and fails to mention the player's sound quality even once --not even a single and meaningless line like, "It sounds good." Remember that there are references with which to compare the Nano. Just tell us if you think that it sounds exactly the same as the previous version or is slightly better/worse. Would you review a televsion and tell us everything about it except its image quality? After all, most television panels are produced by the three or four same manufacturers just like most DAC chips are made by Burr Brown or Analogue Devices.
I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is.
I agree that the iPod or any portable player will never approach the quality of a home system with dedicated power supplies and discrete circuitry/point to point wired amps and pre-amps, etc, but where I do not agree is that we have to settle for mediocrity. The Sandisk players, to my ears (and to many others) clearly sound a bit better than the iPod. Why can't I get Sandisk quality sound from an iPod? I don't think it's too much to ask since the iPod generally costs more.
The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.
If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.
Please post the article. I no longer have the link, but I highly doubt that we are referring to the same thing. "Crazy" audiophile articles are as plentiful as Shakespearean essays, so it is easy to confuse them. The article that I'm referring to is an independent write-up from the actual builder of the rig, not a critic.
Comments
Excellent - you hit it right on the head. And it supposed to be all about the music- "Let's Rock"- remember?
It is about the music. It's about how easy it is to have your music (if not all your music)with you at all times. It's about how easy it is to access the music you want to hear. It's about how easy it is to put (and organize) only the music you want into your iPod. It's about how you can play your music while watching your photos in a slide show. It's about how easy it is to buy music to put in your iPod. It's about how easy it is to find the other music you may like and play or buy it.
Now if you want the music to sound good. then the best way is to start with music that is good to begin with. Good music will transcends the equipment it's played on. Good music will sound good no matter the quality of the equipment. Crappy music, on the otherhand, sounds like crap no matter how good the equipment is.
I can just be as happy listening to Norah Jones on 200g vinyl, in front of my home stereo, as I can while listening to her on an AAC lossy file on my iPod. It may not sound anywhere near what I hear at home. But the music still sounds good and I'm happy to be able to hear her while running (well actually jogging.
If you want a great sound experience go shut yourself in a soundproof room and listen to vinyl on your tube amp. To me all digital players playing a lossy format thru earbuds sound the same: fairly meh. Not completely crappy but it for sure isn't the Metropolitan Opera.
vinyl sounds better regardless of the soundproof room and tube amps. I am always amazed when i hang out with a friend who has a huge vinyl collection. He has a decent amp and pretty crappy speakers, but i am constantly amazed as to how good the music sounds coming from vinyl. there is a lot that just doesnt come through on other media as it does on vinyl.
It makes the iPhone 3G look really fat
lol I want to find an excuse just to buy the new iPod touches :P
I'd like to see one for bikes as well. I hate running (too boring for me) and much prefer a good burn on the mountain bike. It would be nice to know how I'm doing with some stats from a Nike +. There is a huge potential market here for Nike to expand on but they seem to be cautious about expanding it. Even something that would replace those pedometer freebies you get in cereal packs would be good.
I just assumed that the sensor puck is not a clip-on device because Nike want you to buy their shoes.
I'm going to beg Jobs to allow the keyboard to flip sideways when the touch is rotated. Those with small fingers can keep doing what they're doing. Anyone with larger fingers than a petite woman needs space.
That said, the correction feature saves my bacon 99% of the time.
Here's an odd thing I've noticed. The game Asphalt 4 has astounding volume. It actually startled me because I have to crank the volume all the way up for music and videos. Then when you punch up the racing game, it's like returning to your car and turning the key and nearly having a heart attack as the music blasts you out of the car.
How can one App have such loud volume while music (purchased from Apple) and videos can't reach anywhere near as loud?
It is about the music. It's about how easy it is to have your music (if not all your music)with you at all times. It's about how easy it is to access the music you want to hear. It's about how easy it is to put (and organize) only the music you want into your iPod. It's about how you can play your music while watching your photos in a slide show. It's about how easy it is to buy music to put in your iPod. It's about how easy it is to find the other music you may like and play or buy it.
Now if you want the music to sound good. then the best way is to start with music that is good to begin with. Good music will transcends the equipment it's played on. Good music will sound good no matter the quality of the equipment. Crappy music, on the otherhand, sounds like crap no matter how good the equipment is.
I can just be as happy listening to Norah Jones on 200g vinyl, in front of my home stereo, as I can while listening to her on an AAC lossy file on my iPod. It may not sound anywhere near what I hear at home. But the music still sounds good and I'm happy to be able to hear her while running (well actually jogging.
Sounds like you'd be satisfied listening to 2 tin cans tied to a string then.
It's how thin the new iPod is!
It's actually thicker than the previous iPod touch.
It's actually thicker than the previous iPod touch.
Only at its thickest part, but with the tapering it feels smaller. I bet the overall volume is quite a bit less too.
Given that the 2nd gen iPod touch has audio input/output capacity, do you suppose that there will be a Skype utility that will allow it to be used as a phone through a wifi connection?
There is no reason why Skype can't make a VoIP app for the iPhone/Touch, so long as it only works via WiFi on the iPhone.
Given that the 2nd gen iPod touch has audio input/output capacity, do you suppose that there will be a Skype utility that will allow it to be used as a phone through a wifi connection?
I got the impression from that special event keynote that is what is going to happen, as if it was a likely use for that mic input. VoIP is only banned from using cellular data.
Any thoughts on why the camera continues to be absent?
http://www.vcsale.com
Sounds like you'd be satisfied listening to 2 tin cans tied to a string then.
If that was the only thing available and Norah Jones was being played......Yes.
It it disllusional to think that one name brand MP3 player is somehow vastly superior, sound wise, to another name brand player. MP3 players, now of days, are more than music players. Something has to give in order for you to get WiFi, bluetooth, touch screen, FM radio, longer battery life, more storage, smaller, thinner, video, ect. And it's usaully the sound chip. It's like comparing the sound quality of those less than $300, all in one, mini stereo systems made by Sony, Pioneer, JVC, Yamaha, ect. In the end it's a trade off. The one with the best speakers is the one with the crappy electronics. The best sounding one is most likely the one with the least features. And nearly all of them will sound better if you just buy better speakers.
And just what are you listening for when comparing MP3 players? All the sounds that you would listen for in a high end home stereo don't even exist in lossy MP3 files. And if they did, the earbuds you get with the player can't resolve it. Highs? Timber? Low bass? Bass detail? Detail in the midrange? Sound stage and imaging? All the stuff that was deemed non essential to the music and thrown out when the music got compressed to an MP3 file. There's a reason why most MP3 player don't advertise how much better their players sound over a competitors. And why they don't make "High End" MP3 players. It's because most MP3 players are used to listen to lossy MP3 music. And I doubt that the sound outputted is "flat". It's been equalized and being able to change the equalization levels the playing field for all MP3 players (sound wise). So long as they keep the distortion below a certain threshold, most players will sound (or can be made to sound) the same (with the same earbuds).
Reviewing the sound quality of MP3 players (name brand ones) would be like me comparing the sound quality of my 2 tabletop, crank up, Victor Talking Machine Victrolas and an Edison cylinder player. I prefer the sound of the Victrola with the internal cast iron horn over the Victrola with the external horn (like the one Nipper sits in front of) or the Edison. But does that really matter when I'm listening to sound created by what is essentially a nail running in a groove of a cirra 1905, 78RPM shellac record, recording of Caruso? (or in the case of the Edison, a Ruby needle in the groove of a cylinder made of wax.) And back in the 1900's this was like being there. It sounded as good as live. The sad truth is that there is more musical infomation in that record than there is in a lossy MP3 file. And I can only hope that my CDs' can retain it's musical information for at least 50 years. Let alone over a hundred years.
But still, I'm actually amazed that an MP3 player sounds as good as it does. (At least all of the name brand ones.) My iPod sound way better than my cassette Walkman (and Victrolas
...... But better earbuds (headphones) improves the sound quality quite a bit.
Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".
Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".
If a tree fall in the forest and there's no one around to hear it. Does it make a sound?
I didn't say or imply that earbuds (headphones) improved the sound quality being "emitted". Just the sound that you eventually hear. If the sound is "crappy" because it's lacking in bass or highs, better headphones can improve the sound (you hear).
Were not talking extreme cases here. Were talking about comparing any name brand MP3 players. Apple, Creative, SanDisk, Microsoft, Sony, ect. There isn't one of them that you can label as having "crappy sound". The only thing that will make any one of them sound "crappy" is unwanted audible distortion. Which most don't have at a reasonable listening level. Otherwise everything else is equalization and personal perference. And everyone one them can be made to sound alike (or nearly alike) with the included equalizer. Everyone of them will sound better with better earbuds or headphones. (If not. there's alot of people out there buying expensive headphones for nothing.) And I'm willing to bet that you can not tell one from the other in a blind test. (that's listening only, no touching.
You got to remember that a "flat" MP3 music file sounds "crappy". Play it on any descent home stereo and listen to it without tone controls. Most MP3 players do not output a "flat" signal. They output an equalized signal, in an attempt to make up for what the lossy MP3 music (and sound chip hardware) is lacking. And this can be done in the firmware. Some players does this more than others. Therefore. there's a difference in sound from one MP3 player to another. But none would be classified as "crappy sounding". And all can be remedied with more or less equalization to suit your personal taste. It's not like designing "High End" amps. Where the goal is to output a high quality "flat" signal with as little added to the orignal audio signal as possible. Therefore, there's no consistant baseline to compare MP3 players with. Just personal perference.
Dude-you really don't know what the f#$k your talking about- on and on about bullsh*t- etc, etc, etc. Earphones don't improve the sound emitting from a device any more than and HD TV improves the video quality of a DVD. If a music player emits crappy sound than you will just hear clearer crappy sound. It's a simple as that. So go listen to your Nora Jones on 2 tin cans and some string- and add some better headphones "to improve the sound".
You are way off. Anyone with ears will tell you that good earbuds - Shure E500, Etymotic ER4, UE 10, etc. - will dramatically improve the sound quality of a DECENT source. The iPod is a DECENT enough source that it will dramatically benefit from good cans (which does not include the stock earbuds of any MP3 player that I know of).
It's all about limits. The limits of the iPod earbuds are far below the capabilities of the iPod. However, if you hook up the iPod to a good, highly regarded pair of $3,000 speakers, the iPod will be more than maxed out and will not benefit from $100,000 speakers. Your DVD to HDTV comparison is flawed because the source (DVD) is below the capability of the HDTV.
,,,and Norah Jones is known for high quality recordings.
You don't believe subjective experiences? Well, then look at the technical data. The iPod and many other MP3 players have rolled off bass, while the Sandisk is virtually flat across the spectrum. These measurements are not delusional biases but factual data. Google is your friend.
...and if you are truly as satisfied with listening to your iPod as you are your home system, then you either have too much money and are wasting it on unnecessary equipment or are completely lying to yourself.
There was an outrageous article that I encountered awhile back, in which an audiophile spend an insane amount of money modifying his vinyl set-up. Instead of reading the entire 10,000 word write-up, I read one line that made me realize that the guy was a hypocrite and an idiot: he claimed that he was just as happy to listen to his favorite music from a transistor radio as he was on his $100,000 or whatever vinyl gear. If this is the case, then why would he spend that sort of money and time on building the uber expensive set-up? He needs a new hobby or a life, or to give some of that money to charity.
You are way off. Anyone with ears will tell you that good earbuds - Shure E500, Etymotic ER4, UE 10, etc. - will dramatically improve the sound quality of a DECENT source. The iPod is a DECENT enough source that it will dramatically benefit from good cans (which does not include the stock earbuds of any MP3 player that I know of).
It's all about limits. The limits of the iPod earbuds are far below the capabilities of the iPod. However, if you hook up the iPod to a good, highly regarded pair of $3,000 speakers, the iPod will be more than maxed out and will not benefit from $100,000 speakers. Your DVD to HDTV comparison is flawed because the source (DVD) is below the capability of the HDTV.
,,,and Norah Jones is known for high quality recordings.
That source you mention was never reviewed here and that is what we are talking about. Please do not comment unless you've read all the thread. There have been fluctuations in that source(chip) between the various iPods and that spec( the most important one in many opinions here for a music device) was never included in the review. Thank you.
David, you're ignorant for proclaiming that people are "delusional" in believing that there are sound quality differences in MP3 players. While I agree that they are all fairly mediocre compared to high-end DACs and a good turn-table, anyone with decent cans and well recorded music will tell you that Sandisk players, for example, are CLEARLY superior to the iPod.
I stated that people are delusional in believing that any difference in sound quality makes one MP3 player VASTLY superior to another. Not there there are no differences in sound.
You don't believe subjective experiences? Well, then look at the technical data. The iPod and many other MP3 players have rolled off bass, while the Sandisk is virtually flat across the spectrum. These measurements are not delusional biases but factual data. Google is your friend.
But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.
...and if you are truly as satisfied with listening to your iPod as you are your home system, then you either have too much money and are wasting it on unnecessary equipment or are completely lying to yourself.
I'm satisfy with how my iPod (most MP3 players actually) sounds. It's the music I enjoy listening to. Whether on an iPod or on my home stereo. And my iPod enables me to listen to my music where ever I'm at. But when I'm at home, I don't use my iPod as my source material for my home stereo. But I do listen to my iPod at home when I don't have the time to sit in front of my home stereo (and change records/CDs' every 20 minutes or so) or it's late at night. Before the iPod (MP3 players) it wasn't easy to listen to my music except at home. I would have to lug around a dozen CD's (or tapes) and the player itself was a hassle to carry around.
I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is. However, if an MP3 player is the best equipment you have for listening to your music. Or it's where you do most of your listening. By all means look for the best sounding MP3 player and buy the best sounding headphones you can afford. And use the highest bit rate your can with the space you got.
There was an outrageous article that I encountered awhile back, in which an audiophile spend an insane amount of money modifying his vinyl set-up. Instead of reading the entire 10,000 word write-up, I read one line that made me realize that the guy was a hypocrite and an idiot: he claimed that he was just as happy to listen to his favorite music from a transistor radio as he was on his $100,000 or whatever vinyl gear. If this is the case, then why would he spend that sort of money and time on building the uber expensive set-up? He needs a new hobby or a life, or to give some of that money to charity.
The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.
If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.
But here's the point. An MP3 music file already has rolled off bass and highs. If a player puts out a truly "flat" response across the spectrum, it would not sound as good as a player that equalizes it's output to add a little more bass and highs. If players were designed to play lossless CD quality digital files, then yes, a player with a "flat" response curve would be clearly superior. But that's not the case. Most people listen to MP3 music files on their players and thus most players are designed to play MP3 music files. It's not like a High End amp where we're inputting a high quality music source and thus a flat response curve is most desirable.(BTW- Tube amps tend to have rolled off bass and highs and yet many (including me) find them superior sounding.
This is my point: the Sandisk players have less bass roll-off than an iPod. Since MP3s are already slightly rolled off (as you say), then the iPod will have even more noticeable roll-off. An equalizer would help but would also add more distortion to an already distorted source. The iPod does not have user tunable EQ to make up for the bass roll-off. The predefined settings create far too much distortion. The Zune is even worse because it also has slightly rolled off bass but doesn't have EQ at all.
Your tube analogy is flawed for the simple reason that tube lovers (myself included) can forgive minor bass roll-off when the mid-range is so sweet, and the highs are so smooth. Digital players don't compensate for rolled off bass by giving up any great tube qualities. I do agree that there are no "vast" differences in sound quality among the various popular players out there, but your definition of "vast" is not likely to be the exact same as another person's. Someone who thinks that there are "vast" differences is not "delusional," in my opinion, even though I disagree.
Ultimately, I still fail to see the value or the point of a "review" that is three pages long and fails to mention the player's sound quality even once --not even a single and meaningless line like, "It sounds good." Remember that there are references with which to compare the Nano. Just tell us if you think that it sounds exactly the same as the previous version or is slightly better/worse. Would you review a televsion and tell us everything about it except its image quality? After all, most television panels are produced by the three or four same manufacturers just like most DAC chips are made by Burr Brown or Analogue Devices.
I look at it this way. The sound quality of any MP3 player will never, ever approach what I hear on my home stereo. So why spend the extra effort or money to improve the sound. I'm happy with my iPod as is.
I agree that the iPod or any portable player will never approach the quality of a home system with dedicated power supplies and discrete circuitry/point to point wired amps and pre-amps, etc, but where I do not agree is that we have to settle for mediocrity. The Sandisk players, to my ears (and to many others) clearly sound a bit better than the iPod. Why can't I get Sandisk quality sound from an iPod? I don't think it's too much to ask since the iPod generally costs more.
The article was from the a magazine called "The New Republic". Sometime in the mid 80's. If you didn't read the whole article, then you would be ignorant for judging the author based on one line that you took out of context. The author was basically questioning why anyone would spend $100,000 on a stereo system when he was perfectly happy listening to Mozart on his transistor radio. The author did not spend $100,000 for a stereo system but listened to one worth that much at a High End stereo store. He wanted to see (hear) what High End was all about. And at the end, he appreciated what audiophiles were after but that didn't stop him from enjoying Mozart, on his transistor radio.
If I find the article on the internet, I'll link it here.
Please post the article. I no longer have the link, but I highly doubt that we are referring to the same thing. "Crazy" audiophile articles are as plentiful as Shakespearean essays, so it is easy to confuse them. The article that I'm referring to is an independent write-up from the actual builder of the rig, not a critic.