iPods are for Audiophiles

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.'"

'audiophile' reviewers full of it

[SuperBanana]

"Dynamics were impressive, imaging was nuanced and detailed, and the frequency extremes sounded extended and natural."

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.

iPoding: Sterophile iPod Review - Fabricated!

[no_such_user]

According to iPoding.com [ipoding.com], Wes Phillips' article was partially fabricated [ipoding.com]. An exerpt from the iPoding.com article:

But, what is stunning is the obvious fabrication. The twelfth paragraph reads:
"The person who said 'Beauty is only skin deep' certainly never popped the cover off an iPod. The design is just as jewel-like inside as out--packed, but definitely a gem of space conservation."
It's just that anyone who has actually popped the cover off would know that Wes did no such thing. He goes on to describe the innards of the pre-Dock iPod:

Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel.

[xalres]

Seriously, if you can't appreciate music through a set of regular 50-watt speakers or a pair of headphones there's something wrong with you. It shouldn't only be about fidelity and depth and range or whatever other audiophile fluff, it should be about the quality of the music. Shit heard through optimized Dolby 6.1 is still shit!

Re:AIFF

[cayenne8]

Well, I'm not being stuff or pretentious. I was broke and poor for a long time. I started building my stereo since I was 12. What I have today is part of a linear progression to gain good sound. I started with a little Xmas gift..el-cheapo stereo (turntable with changer) and 2 small speakers. Through the years...I worked and saved...bought a Marantz receiver to add in there...had to rig it to play throught he speakers...then few years later..found some old Fischer's on sale...bought with saved money...later added in a decent cassette deck (old Sharp dec with all the song skip and counter settings)...later..my first CD player...then, found a deal with a dude that had a new wife and made him get rid of his big Klipsch Cornwall speakers...they were like 15 years old, but, I used my tax refund to buy the pair for $500...later, saved and added laserdisc...upgrades to CD and later DVD players with SACD capability. Had a robbery, since they didn't make Cornwalls anymore...put a little money with the Insurance and got Klipschorns...along the way, replace the Marantz with Carver pre-amp...multi-channel amps...now, replacing that with tube amps I'm experimenting with and building my own tube pre-amps...soon, to get a really good digital processor for when I want multi-channel sound (movies..etc). I'm now starting to run most all of my sound through my media computer I'm putting together on my stereo...all CD's ripped to FLAC. Sound wonderful...great for parties...

So...if one is exposed to good sound like I was as a kid...I knew since then that I wanted to attain that level..but, couldn't do it all at once...

My comment was more along the lines that many of youth today don't seem to know WHAT good sound really can sound like. What a good system can do that isn't overmodulated and at the verge of blowing the speakers out. If the know what good realistic sound reproduction can sound like...maybe they would aspire to work and save for it like I did along the way....hell, I'm not rich now, but, do make a decent living...and my music is very important to me.

The headline is misleading...

[tkrotchko]

The headline seems to imply that AAC is inherently better for sound reproduction; however, the article specifically says 128kb AAC's are not meant for critical listening. Here's the relevant quote:

"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

The search for the perfect sound

[Tacoguy]

Attending many live concerts from artists such as AC/DC, the Boston Pops, Lilith Fair and many others ... it becomes immediately clear that there are acoustic differences between music types and the venue. Our desire to recreate "the experience." simply can not happen. We can however "do the best we can" by using low distortion electronics, powerful (zero crossing) amplifiers and speakers that deliver sufficient sound pressure levels and good source material. All of these elements are getting better (the CD is better than Vinyl using a Shure V15 type 3 cart) but the fact remains that it is a panacea and a curse to be an audiophile ... it can never be achieved.

Numbers vs. Perception

[TigerPlish]

The numbers vs. perception issue has been driving the 'audiophile' press and engineers batty since the first triode was born. It has always been recognized that differences in how something sounds can't always be reconciled on the bench with numbers and test gear. Slew (intermod) distortion wasn't recognized till the 50's. I wonder how many more items we haven't discovered yet.

Audio is *NOT* limited to 22.5 khz like some wags right here on /. say. A trumpet *will* go clear past 50 khz on the harmonics, a cymbal crash will clear 100k.

Our measly, pathetic hearing organs cannot 'hear' this, but your body acts as a huge sound collector -- you *feel* it. If it isn't there, or worse, if it is there but distorted, funny things happen.

A well setup system will drop you in the recording room, or whatever the recording engineer created as one. Live recordings, when well done, can suck you right into a smoky bar.

A great stereo goes beyond 'clear', etc. It will give the illusion of not only soundstage width, but depth as well. With two speakers it does what it takes the muggles 5.1 surround to accomplish.

Those that pooh-pooh the audio geeks don't realize numbers don't tell the whole story. They don't even tell part of the story.

Go hear a pipe organ in a top-drawer, 100,000 dollar system. Pretty nice, I bet..

Now go hear the same organ in its natural environ. The bass will grab your chestbone and shake vigorously. Your head will tingle from all the energy past 20khz. Quite wonderful, sound is. Too bad our ears are so crappy. Moral of this one? Even the 100,000 dollar stereo falls way short of the Real Thing.

If you're happy with the Sornys, Magnetboxes and Farnasonics, fine. If not, may I suggest a trip down the AudioAsylum [audioasylum.com] and get educamated. Those with basic soldering skilz and a healthy respect for triple-digit DC voltages will find that with a grand or three you can cobble together a system which will put a dent on a 10,000 audiophool-approved store-bought solution ;o)

And yes, 44 khz PCM *is* the devil incarnate. DSD and good ole analog tape are better. Really.

Some other fun thermionic links:

Ominous Valve [ominous-valve.com] (Funny!)

Why Hot Glass Rulez [decware.com] (Geeky!)

I've been down the road before. I did the hi-power solid-state (Squalid-state) with cone n' domes, I've done mass-market (Technics), I've done hot glass with horns. Hot glass (tubes, silly) and horn speakers is where its at for me. Makes brass, voices and cymbals just yummy. You can *hear* the rosin on a cello's bow. You can hear Tony Iommi's fingers scrape the strings. You can *hear* that little "click" some singers make when they part their lips.

There *is* a difference.. and as pointed out here, there's also a lot of snake oil.

Experiment. Learn. Build some shit. That way the snake-oil salesmen won't snag you.

It's fun.

Re:Audiophile Insanity

[The_Rook]

the main criticism audiophiles have for technical measurements is not over their accuracy or reproducability. rather its because they are generally insufficient for describing how an audio component will perform.

take the power measurements. you know, the ones that go "100 watts rms +- 3 dB with no more than .02% THD". this specification was created by the Federal Trade Commission to prevent dishonest amplifier manufacturers from quoting higher power output than their amplifiers were capable of generating. harmonic distortion is inaccuracies in the amplitude of the peaks and troughs of sound waves. it needs to be quoted in a power rating because when an amplifier is driven into clipping, the peaks of the sound waves are clipped (hence the term "clipping").

however, harmonic distortion is not the most important form of distortion. it is relatively inaudible even at levels as high as 1%. but because it must be quoted with every power output rating, it receives much more attention than it deserves even to the point of prompting electronics manufacturers to employ circuit designs that minimize THD at the expense of sound quality.

audio equipment testors like to test for THD because it's a popular measurement with readers and manufacturers and because it's easy to measure. but as a measure of audio quality it's rather unimportant. more important is intermodulation distortion, but it's hard to test.

not that high end audio doesn't have it's own problems. there are way to many anal retentive audiophiles who have to have multiple speaker cables and the latest electronic snake oil device. but its also true that while technical tests are necessary for properly evaluating a component, they're also insufficient. there are just too many variables for a finite set of technical tests to fully define how well an audio component will sound. there's even a legitimate scientific theory about this. it's called chaos theory.