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

The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel.

[Prince_Ali]

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

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.

Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel.

[One Louder]

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.

Re:The iPod tastes like fluffy caramel.

[dasmegabyte]

Well, not to let the insanity of some audiophiles off the hook completely (I once read about a guy who noticed his fridge was causing distortion in his system, so he bought a pair of $10,000 generators to isolate it from the rest of the house's power. that's insane), but the reason they don't back things up with numbers is that in audio, numbers lie. A lot. To the point that they have little meaning, except as a comparison to otherwise identical equipment.

A 5W tube system may be louder than a 50W transistor system. 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." Even a stat like "Frequency response: 20 Hz - 22 kHz" is useless if the amplification device is not perfectly linear, and no device is. Thus, the auditioning of gear on a "well trained ear" is essential to any audio review.

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.

'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.

Re:'audiophile' reviewers full of it

[Miriku chan]

actually, 'warmth' and 'presence' are actual terms, at least in guitar world

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 =)

Re:AIFF

[Waffle Iron]

Indeed, I don't see any oversized black anodized allen screws anywhere on these iPods. They're obviously not audiophile quality.

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:

In defense of the audiophile

[be-fan]

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.

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

No, no, no!

[ColaMan]

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!