Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: iPod an audiophile device! (Read 4880 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iPod an audiophile device!

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?934

It is interesting how they say the audio quality is better than most CD players. I just picked up a 40GB iPod and I have to say I am impressed overall EXCEPT the EQ in the iPod is completely unusable. I have been converting my music from monkey's audio to AAC via foobar2000 and Nero AAC dll and am passing the conversion through the foobar DSP just so I can bump up the bass a few notches.

The EQ on the iPod seems very hot. It is like the preamp is way too high and the eq just clips every piece of music I have. Of course, if music wasn't recorded so loud I suspect it wouldn't be an issue but then the ipod wouldn't have the power required to raise the volume enough after the EQ.

What do other people think of that article?

--Grant   

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #1 –
well it offers a top of the line format support (AAC) and typical high price (HDD portable players), seems a perfect candidate for audiophile equipment.

in my opinion it's not worth the cash (no mp3 etc. HDD player does), I guess that would be my opinion: "yes it qualifies in principle, no I don't think I consider it such"
The Plan Within Plans

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #2 –
It's a decent review, though the reviewer obviously doesn't understand AIFF's. Also I assume he's using the FhG encoder in iTunes to compare with the AAC's. A little surprised at some of his results there then.

I think the iPod is a tad bright, but otherwise a great sounding device. Been using it with a pair of new Ety 4P's for the last four days and the sound is great. Files were --apfs,--apfe, but mostly 224 AACs.

And unfortunately the iPods EQ has always been useless.

Remember Thursday looks like the PC iTunes launch.

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #3 –
As is typical of Stereophile, the reviewer does not appear to wish to indulge in blind testing of any sort, possibly because such testing might negate any judgements he made on the relative sound quality of the compressed formats.

  Shocking.

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #4 –
Yeah, I can't wait for the iTunes on Thursday. I am hoping it will ease transferring .m4a files to my iPod so the tagging works. I have been using vPod but that totally screws my DATE and GENRE tags for every file that I encode using foobar and nero AAC.

I really can't complain about audio quality after using fb2k to add a little EQ and lower the volume about 5db.

--Grant

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #5 –
I don't understand all the talk about missing bass in both the mp3 and aac -- missing highs, ok, but not missing bass.  Also, the comments about less dynamic variation at any bitrate, but especially at 320 kbit/s, don't make sense.

Of course he needn't have compared AIFF to the original.  Stereophile ought to stay away from lossy codec comparisons until they know how the hell to do it right.  They might take lessons from Sound & Vision.

ff123

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #6 –
Well, it seemed to be an interesting article until this paragraph, after which it went downhill...

>>>>>
The compressed formats began to show some real promise at 320kbps. Definition, detail, and soundstaging were all impressive, and high-frequency response was almost liquid in its lack of edge effects. At this rate, differences between the two formats jumped into sharper focus: MP3 made transients "splashy," while AAC just sounded anemic compared to the original. With both formats, dynamic variation was considerably reduced compared to the CD.
<<<<<

Hmmm...not many people who can ABX 320kbps with regular music.  Maybe someone should send him an e-mail inviting him here, where "golden ears" are always welcome?   

The guy spends so much time talking about the fashion value of the iPod and the "beautiful people" he sees carrying them to the point that I think maybe he'd be as happy with the sound quality of a nice gold bracelet instead.  This wasn't a review of a digital playback device, it was a review of a costume accessory.

He should therefore have avoided using the word audiophile at all.  Then again, this is just one of a thousand reasons why so many people cringe when that word is spoken anyway.  It's been killed by people like Wes Phillips.

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #7 –
This was also posted on Slashdot.

I especially like this comment:

Quote
I think the article is a little vague on the details.

What they *meant* to say was that the iPod flows with gusto and verve, with nuanced palpability that is suprisingly smooth and spacious, with harmonic undertones that languidly coil around your nerve endings and deliver liquid bliss combined with in-your-face bravado and euphonic outlines, providing a sonic womb with a sugar-sweet coating of midbass impedance resonance.


Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #8 –
The technical measurements are very good. Good results, and well carried out too.


one part which I hadn't thought about before:

"The iPod's frequency response was flat (fig.1), but I couldn't get it to correctly play back pre-emphasized files. More correctly, I couldn't get any of the CD-ripping programs I have, PC or Mac, to preserve the emphasis flag when I prepared either AIFF or WAV files."

That's obvious, because there is no space in the wav header to store the pre-emphasis information. Very few CDs use pre-emphasis (do any these days?) but it's interesting that MPEG formats have the meta data there to preserve this information (though it's always ignored) but WAV files don't. That's one very limited situation where, in a very narrow sense, the mp3 can be considered "closer" to the CD than the .wav!


It's strange that the main review notes how much better than mp3 AAC is, but then finds virtually no difference between the two up to 192kbps. As others have said, Stereophile (and other Hi-Fi magazines) have no idea how to test lossy audio formats.

Cheers,
David.

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #9 –
It's true, measurements are very well carried out. However, I don't much agree with his conclusions: "The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players—"

I think he should have said "measured behavior is better than some cheap cd players". According to these measurements, soundcards as cheap as the Revo easily outperform it. However, it's still pretty good quality.
 

iPod an audiophile device!

Reply #10 –
Quote
This was also posted on Slashdot.

I especially like this comment:

Quote
I think the article is a little vague on the details.

What they *meant* to say was that the iPod flows with gusto and verve, with nuanced palpability that is suprisingly smooth and spacious, with harmonic undertones that languidly coil around your nerve endings and deliver liquid bliss combined with in-your-face bravado and euphonic outlines, providing a sonic womb with a sugar-sweet coating of midbass impedance resonance.


 

Hahahahahahaha!!!

S***, I want to write like that for my Final-year critical writing examination!