Slashdot Log In
iPods are for Audiophiles
Posted by
michael
on Tue Oct 14, 2003 03:51 PM
from the chock-full-of-goodness dept.
from the chock-full-of-goodness dept.
Mr iPod Luvver writes "Wes Phillips in this month's Stereophile magazine shows the iPod to be an audiophile-quality device. AIFF seems to be the high-resolution ripping option. Says Phillips, 'Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced and detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
even our music . . . (Score:3, Funny)
AIFF (Score:2, Informative)
Seems to be? Uhhh. Like WAV, AIFF is uncompressed, so the quality should be identical to the raw data from a CD. AIFF has always been Apple's preferred format, but both are supported. By the way, cdparanoia can rip to AIFF just fine (use the -f flag).
Re:AIFF (Score:2)
AIFF is preferred for Apple machines mainly because byte ordering suits the CPU.
Re:AIFF (Score:3, Funny)
Uh.. what? Oh... Never mind.
Re:AIFF (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because they're young, don't make much money, and can't afford to spend $2000 on speakers when their younger brother or drunk roommate might spill their snack foods all over it at any second.
If you're going to get all stuffy and pretentious, at least be stuffy and pretentious over what the youth of today listen to instead of what they listen on.
Parent
Re:AIFF (Score:3, Funny)
In my day we didn't listen to music....
We had to have it explained to us.... 15 miles up a snow covered mountain.
Re:AIFF (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:AIFF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AIFF (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Youth? (Score:2, Insightful)
You just got it WAY wrong. Stereophile exists to sell music systems. I'm sure JA would quibble with this but, at the end of the day, he'd have to admit this is the primary reason it exists. And many of the people who read that magazine are a persnickity bunch who wouldn't move beyond the 19th century
The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:5, Funny)
What typical audiophile fluff. Why don't audiophiles ever give any opinion that is actually backed up with data. Oh yes, because if they might find out the oxygen-free 00 gauge speaker wire that they paid $10,000 for doesn't make the music taste anymore like caramel than the normal stuff.
With a rich body and oak overtones (Score:2)
I care about the *drunk* not the flavor, which is why I try to buy at least 4-column filtration vodka and mix it with lime-aid. I find that less impurities mean less intense hangovers...
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:2)
Reminds me of a blind study done by the anti-audiophile crowd years ago. The arguement was over the quality of cables for a digital conection between a periferal and the amp. They reviewed a 100 dollar cable, a normal cable, and a coat hanger with the connecters attached to each end.
It was funny how the reviewers were spectacularly in favor of the 100 dollar cables, but couldn't distinguish the difference between the 100 cables and the coathanger (duh - it is a digital si
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:2)
Uhm...generally this stuff is backed by data. What you really meant was "...backed by data that comes from your instruments", with an implicit assumption that anything that you don't have instruments to measure cannot be valid.
Your assumption is bad science.
Sure, there is fluff in subjective audio, but there is also a lot of subjective stuff that is widely agreed on, which almost certainly m
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:5, Informative)
A 5W tube system may be louder than a 50W transistor system. A speaker with
And this quote is not even that strange; in fact it's just using different language to explain what we want to hear. Dynamics were impressive means that there was a big difference between loud and soft sounds, usually a sign that the device is delivering sound as accurately as possible. imaging was nuanced and detailed, "imaging" is the combination of stereo seperation combined with balanced delivery of all types of sound (eg, bass doesn't linger and treble doesn't disappear), and detailed imaging means you can hear sounds move from left to center to right accurately. Nuanced imaging means there isn't a sudden skip as a sound movees from left to right, or from one note to another. frequency extremes sounded extended and natural means that low bass and high treble signals are transmitted and not cut off because "you won't hear it any way," and that it also isn't needlessly boosted. In short, this unit is going to deliver a clean signal to your headphones or receiver, and that's exactly what you want from an audio device.
This guy, who if he's really an expert has no doubt heard a TON of equipment that cost more than you can BELIEVE, is saying the unit ACTUALLY HAS high frequency response, low harmonic distortion and high sensitivity for a unit of its size and cost. And that information is much more useful than just numbers.
Parent
Audiophile Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
but the reason they don't back things up with numbers is that in audio, numbers lie. A lot.
I trust cold, hard numbers - carefully applied - much less than subjective and unreliable human hearing.
A 5W tube system may be louder than a 50W transistor system.
Sure, if the 5W tube system is better impedance matched and into a more efficient corner-loaded infinite baffle speaker.
Consider also that perception of audio intensity is logarithmic. To double the volume requires 4x the power - and that's at the cones of the speakers! 50W will not actually sound that much louder than 5W, even with all other things being the same.
A speaker with .002% signal distortion might easily introduce its own distortion due to cheap magnets or poorly engineered cones and not include that, even though the stat says "Total Harmonic Distortion."
If the speaker's distortion figure doesn't include non-linearities caused by the magnets, cones, surrounds or other parts of the unit, I would suggest that this is something you should take up with the Federal Trade Commission.
Even a stat like "Frequency response: 20 Hz - 22 kHz" is useless if the amplification device is not perfectly linear, and no device is.
This is why reputable audio equipment will include a +/-xdB figure in the frequency response claim.
Likewise, most professional audio amplifiers (ie. Crown, QSC, EV, etc.) will cite THD ratings along with the wattage, as in "750W RMS into 8 ohms with 0.2% THD".
Thus, the auditioning of gear on a "well trained ear" is essential to any audio review.
The auditioning of gear is only to check for correct connection, elimination of factory duds, and sheer enjoyment of the music for which you purchased the system.
And this quote is not even that strange; in fact it's just using different language to explain what we want to hear. Dynamics were impressive means that there was a big difference between loud and soft sounds, usually a sign that the device is delivering sound as accurately as possible.
The technical term is called "dynamic range", and it's mathematically described as the difference between the amplifier's noise floor and maximum wattage rating.
imaging was nuanced and detailed, "imaging" is the combination of stereo seperation combined with balanced delivery of all types of sound (eg, bass doesn't linger and treble doesn't disappear),
Stereo separation is measured in dB attenuation, typically by driving one channel with a 1V p~p 1kHz sinewave and measuring the "leaked" signal from the other channel.
Bass doesn't linger if the amplifier has good frequency response, since bass is a low frequency component and requires much less amplifier bandwidth than the 20kHz ratings of most amplifiers.
Treble doesn't disappear if the amplifier is capable of performing +/- x dB from 20Hz to 20kHz, ie. x is some acceptable number (generally under 1dB). In other words, if the amplifier has sufficient frequency response.
and detailed imaging means you can hear sounds move from left to center to right accurately. Nuanced imaging means there isn't a sudden skip as a sound movees from left to right, or from one note to another.
Which means, in other words, that both amplifier channels are well separated and have the same performance characteristics (measurable by science, you know, science, that evil black mathy-type stuff that got man to the moon and gets people heart transplants).
frequency extremes sounded extended and natural means that low bass and high treble signals are transmitted and not cut off because "you won't hear it any way," and that it also isn't needlessly boosted.
Again, see the definition of the term "frequency response". I believe the *numbers* will allay all your fears.
In short, this unit is going to deliver a clean signal to your headphones or receiver, and that's exactly what you want from an audio device.
In other words, for playback to speakers (as oppos
Parent
Re:Audiophile Insanity (Score:3, Interesting)
take the power measurements. you know, the ones that go "100 watts rms +- 3 dB with no more than
Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel. (Score:3, Funny)
If you are getting ear fatigue, I suggest putting your amp on a table or shelf.
next month... (Score:4, Funny)
Our Computer Hardware: Not a Web-Server-Quality Device
Who deserves the credit? (Score:2)
Re:Who deserves the credit? (Score:2)
Re:Who deserves the credit? (Score:3, Informative)
The codec isn't the issue. AIFF is uncompressed data like that stored on a cd. The audiophiles are interested in how well this signal is converted to analog and amplified. They're concerned about stuff like distortion, S/N ratio, (which determines dynamic range), output power, etc.
Incredible sound indeed! (Score:2, Funny)
OOO, I agree! You can hear every hi-frequency overtone as the Emperor's clothes come ripping off!
Hey, this is pretty good.... (Score:2)
Well, I guess standards slip as time goes on, I know mine have - I'm HERE aren't I?
just kidding.
and (Score:3, Funny)
Not very descriptive... (Score:2)
AIFF (Score:2)
Yes, I have to agree with you Michael. AIFF is so much better than WAV. After all, it's less known, and is mentioned in stereophile, so it must be better, right? It's not just ripping, it's high-resolution ripping that counts. With AIFF each of those 16 bits will have so much more resolution that you have to be almost deaf to not be able to hear it...
I love audiophiles... (Score:3, Funny)
All iPods ship with a pair of earbud-type headphones with 18mm neodymium-powered drivers. These have surprisingly good sound--at least compared to the phones included with most portable players. A pair of low-impedance Etymotic ER-4Ps ($330) offered much better sound and isolation from environmental noise, but that's a subject for another review.
While reviewing the iPod, he just couldn't resist pointing out that another pair of headphones which costs as much as the iPod itself would be the perfect accessory to complete the gadget.
Money is no object. Then again, this adequately describes most of my fellow Mac afficianados as well....
Re:I love audiophiles... (Score:2)
'audiophile' reviewers full of it (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually heard in a high-end(really high end) audio store:
"Yeah, these cables do a great job of keep the high end in phase."
Another high-end store I saw selling markers to black out the edge of your CDs to prevent light loss. The same store had a CD player sitting on an isolation table(unless you've got elephants running through the neighborhood, completely unnecessary).
It is absolutely amazing to sit in one of these stores with any kind of electronics/physics background(father was an EE, it's rubbed off somewhat) and listen to all the bullshit spewing forth...watching the rich idiots sucking it all up...and trying desperately to keep from bursting out laughing.
"Warmth", "Depth", "Presence"...these guys have an adjective list a mile long- and not a single one actually has real-world meaning you can conclusively explain, measure, or demonstrate. They are essentially all snake oil salesmen.
Re:'audiophile' reviewers full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
a warm sound is one that is more bassy, and a bright (it's opposite) sound is one that is more trebly. not in the "subwoofer" sense, but in the range in which the guitar plays. a humbucking les paul would be a very warm guitar, a bridge pickup single coil fender would be a very warm guitar (and sound like an obnoxious 1950's surf solo... to boot)
presence is similar, tho thats usually found on amps instead of guitars. just lingo
tho i agree on the audiophile stuff =)
Parent
This can't be right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone tell him the AIFF is bit for bit identical with the CD, if he ripped it properly. But another reader needed to point out that iTunes has preferences to make it retrieve CDDB entries automatically. Oh well.
Not out of the box, they aren't (Score:2)
Headphone quality (Score:2)
This seemed to jibe with what I found at This Site [chello.nl] that compares the ipod's sound quality to other MP3 players. He said he found that the line
Good headphonesmake the difference. (Score:2)
The headphones that ship with the iPod are pretty good, but once you use a real pair, you'll never take out those earbuds again.
BUT... (Score:2)
Missing the obvious? (Score:2)
Maybe better sound, but it reduces the song capactiy of your iPod about 90%, eh?
Anyway, I can't trust someone who refers to themselves as "gimlet eyed" and agonizes over their identity as an audiophile. To me that situation is just crying out for an intervention. Or a deprogramming. Or a delousing. Or a kick in the butt. Or something.
iPoding: Sterophile iPod Review - Fabricated! (Score:5, Interesting)
In defense of the audiophile (Score:5, Insightful)
Audio quality is something he can't measure yet. The process of how the human ear interprets sound is not yet understood well enough for us to make quantitative measurements of audio quality. I remember reading an interview with an important technical guy at EMU. He said that when Creative bought them, he was shocked to see that Creative engineers were happily designing circuits that measured well, but sounded terrible.
In the abscence of quantitative measurements, audio people have built up a jargon to describe the subjective elements of audio. There are clearly some subjective elements. For example, I ripped some Sheryl Crow CDs to 128kbps MP3. When I played them over my speakers (Klipsch 4.1, nowhere near audiophile quality) they sounded flat, as if I was listening to them through some thick fabric. I don't know what else to call it, but its clearly there, and so using one random jargon term is as good as another.
People here are bringing up wine tasters, and I think that serves as a perfect example. The wine tasters have their own jargon, but all the terms have clearly defined meanings. Just because you don't know the meanings doesn't mean that the jargon is stupid. People complain that we nerds talk about CPUs and GPUs and FSBs instead of using "plain language." Now, would you rather call the thing a GPU or a "drawing thingie?" Would any other computer person have the foggiest idea what the hell you were talking about if you said that you were trying to find the API to send vertex-shaders (gotta come up with a plain-language term for those too!) to the "drawing thingie?" A standardized jargon is important to any field. It might sound stupid to people outside that field, but I think that computer people should know better than most that the jargon really is necessary.
The headline is misleading... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Things are somewhat better at 128kbps in both MP3 and AAC, but neither cuts the mustard for critical listening at home."
As to the comparison between AAC and MP3:
"MP3 robbed Steve Swallow's pulsing bass lines of dynamics and punch [...]. AAC fared slightly better, offering better bass response (although it was still pretty lightweight compared to the original CD) "
So now you understand why 128kb iTunes costs less than the CD. They don't sound as good as the CD. Case closed.
There you have it. So please, no more chirping on about how 128kb AAC's are indistinguishable from
Audiophiles... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, no! (Score:5, Funny)
iPods are not for "Audiophiles"
iPods are for Audio Files
Jeez, at least proofread your posts before submitting them!
Re:iPods are very nice, but my concern is... (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps it needs to be rewritten, tho:
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I have recently upgraded from a Mac 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM to a new G6 quad 4GHz with AGP 16X and PCI-X to help me at my freelance gig where I needed to copy a 17 Meg file from my home network to a desktop folder. On the G6 it took almost 14 days. At home, on my Ti99/4A, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 4 nanoseconds. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, my iPod will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Safari is straining to keep up as I type this. My cat has been run over, the dog is pregnant, my toilet is backed up and I am having shooting pains up and down my right arm. None of this happened before I got the G6!
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My Ti99/4a with 16k of ram running an OS I programmed myself from the back pages of old Byte magazines is faster than this G6 quad 4GHz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Parent
Re:AIFF==WAV==uncompressed (Score:2)
ANYWAY
AIFFs can be compressed with MACE (and maybe u-law etc.), but usually aren't, becaus MACE sounds like SHIT. Compressed AIFFs are usually called AIFCs anyway.
Re:snd? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:complete article (Score:2)
Ah, you see, it's the same colour as kitchen appliances.... <ducks and runs>
Re:"Audiophile" (Score:3, Funny)
Get them to start gushing about any recording with an electric guitar on it, and then turn the discussion towards how an electric guitar is actually recorded.
Linger on the usage of the distortion pedal and what it does to audio, and the effects of micing up a marshal amp (with accuracy specs if possible), and the use of equalisation in the studio, preferably getting them to repeat after you what a distortion pedal does, how much one c