Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
sounds great on an iPod!
AIFF seems to be the high-resolution ripping option.
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).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
and in next months stereophile magazine....
Our Computer Hardware: Not a Web-Server-Quality Device
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
OOO, I agree! You can hear every hi-frequency overtone as the Emperor's clothes come ripping off!
it comes with a neato car too.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
This is just classic, really:
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....
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.
Please help metamoderate.
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.
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.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
we are getting ready to release the next story entitled "Uncompressed sound sounds as good as the real thing!" but we think if we put "Uncompressed open source clustered sound sounds as good as evil WMAs" might get a better response.
Comparing an old version of Windows with any current OS doesn't help your argument. Windows for Workgroups is actually DOS with a Window manager. Any modern OS, whether it be Windows XP, OS X, or Linux, is run by a large kernel that supports a wide variety of hardware, and therefore uses a lot more memory. It also runs a number of services that might include a graphical session, networking and other fancy modern things.
I've used both the single-processor G5 and the dual. They're fast. I was actually surprised, since Mac speed hasn't impressed me in recent years and I'm not a 'Mac fanatic.' The G4 fell way behind Intel and AMD offerings, but the G5 is noticeably faster.
When you were copying that file, were you connecting to an SMB share, or using AppleTalk, or what? That 20-minute copy time is weird, and it sounds like a networking issue, not an OS problem. On a 10 megabit network a 17 MB file should copy in under 14 seconds. Even when you take the file protocol into account it shouldn't take over a minute.
While I agree that there are some fringe lunatics in the audiophile camp, I think the logical/mathematicals here on /. are being unfair.
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.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
" Apple have obviously selected a good codec, but who designed it? I can't imagine them designing their own codec unless they really needed to."
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.
Vote for Pedro
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.
"Audiophiles aren't into listening to music, playing it, dancing to it, or any of the things you are supposed to do with it - although oddly enough they also aren't into objective reality, hard facts, critical reasoning, or any of the left brained activities that one would suspect people who can't dance would be interested in." I don't know who wrote this and where it comes from, but to me it's the best quote I have ever read.
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.
/. say. A trumpet *will* go clear past 50 khz on the harmonics, a cymbal crash will clear 100k.
;o)
Audio is *NOT* limited to 22.5 khz like some wags right here on
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 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
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 (Funny!)
Why Hot Glass Rulez (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.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
This is what happens when you let automated spell checkers do all the work.
iPods are not for "Audiophiles"
iPods are for Audio Files
Jeez, at least proofread your posts before submitting them!
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
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
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
If you ever find an infestation of audiophiles, try this little trick...
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 costs, and then to confirm that the audio they are talking about was deliberatley put through one, by the artist, in order to distort the audio.
Sometimes their heads will actually explode.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a