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.'"

Comments

'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, Wes Phillips' article was partially fabricated. 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:

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