Inside the iPod, Past and Present

We mentioned the iPod Shuffle dissection a couple of days ago. Reader UtahSaint writes "Electronic Design have got a neat little article giving non-Apple employees an insight into the makings of the original iPod and the revisions made (on a technical level) with the 2nd and 3rd generation iPods. The third-generation iPod contains two power-management chips from Royal Philips Electronics, a TEA1211 and a PCF50605. The TEA1211 is a dc-dc converter that can switch automatically between step-down and step-up operation in response to changing input voltage. The PCF50605, a single-chip power-management unit (PMU), can adjust power-supply voltages to the lowest thresholds needed for functions in a particular power domain." And finally, sammykrupa writes "PC Mag has a great review of Apple's iPod Shuffle. It covers the quality of the audio output saying that it is has dead-flat frequency response, less harmonic distortion, and most notably, better bass response than its bigger siblings. The older iPods, especially the Mini, have been rightfully criticized for being somewhat deficient in bass, and although the bigger players have flat frequency response, they have trouble sustaining big bass notes."

Comments

Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

iPod Shuffe, no wireless. Less space than a regular iPod. Lame.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? It's hilarious, it's a paraphrase of our illustrious Taco's first comment on the iPod...

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[spac3manspiff]

It is 200 dollars cheaper. Probably the cheapest, yet useful apple product.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[recharged95]

Agreed, Heck for $125 more, I can do better with my 45Mb sony phone thank you. And take pictures, call people, play videos, SMS, play java games and surf the web, etc... And it's (k700i) pretty much the same size!

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[Radius9]

By saying dead-flat frequency response, it means that the IPod is able to play all the audible frequencies at the same volume. Take for example, your typical after-market car stereo. It will tend to have way too much bass, which makes the music sound muddy. And that means it does not have a flat frequency response. With a flat frequency response, if you want it to sound bass heavy, you can adjust the EQ (i.e. turn up the bass), and make it sound that way. On something bass heavy, you have to turn it down just to make it sound normal. That's why it is desired, it means you can accurately play back the audio that was recorded.

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[rhennigan]

This product seems pretty useful to me right about now, and is far cheaper. =)

Re:Let me be the first to say...

[tgibbs]

what does the "dead-flat frequency response" entail? i.e. why are flat frequency responses desired?

It means that the relative loudness of the highs and lows is exactly the same as what was recorded.

Does it really matter?

[Simon (S2)]

The older iPods, especially the Mini, have been rightfully criticized for being somewhat deficient in bass, and although the bigger players have flat frequency response, they have trouble sustaining big bass notes.

The iPod is designed to take with you and hear music on the bus, or while jogging - with headphones. Does it really matter how good the bass is if you listen to it with headphones anyway? I think not.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it matters, I can just imagine some kid running past *BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM* Older jogger, "Damn kids!"

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get very good bass reproduction in high-end headphones for MUCH cheaper than you can in high-end stereos. Unless you're a rap fan, where it seems the point of bass is to vibrate your rib-cage, high-end headphones can reproduce a wide spectrum of frequencies very well.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Lisandro]

Actually, bass performance is one of the principal things i look for in portable devices when it comes to audio quality. In most music genres, if the bass "ooomph!" is lost the sound becomes lackluster, not to mention that good bass isolates you from outside sounds (for me, at least).

My Sony Minidisc does bass wonderfully, and even compensates a bit for it's limited maximum volume.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Threni]

> Does it really matter how good the bass is if you listen to it with headphones
> anyway?

I don't see how that makes a difference. Presumably if you like listening to bassplayers, bass heavy dance music or orchestral music you'd like to listen to as far down as the headphones can go.

It's one of the most important aspects for me - headphones seem to have been able to capture the higher frequencies pretty well for years and years.

Re:Does it really matter?

[radish]

Good head/ear phones can do bass very well. SO if the player can't, then yes, it's a problem.

Re:Does it really matter?

[commodoresloat]

I have no idea how many times I've had to return sets of speakers simply because the sub-woofer was about 100 times too large for the other speakers and the amp couldn't be turned low enough to get rid of the excessive bass.

Huh? Isn't that why most subwoofers have a separate volume control?

Re:Does it really matter?

[alienw]

Whatever. Good bass sounds good. Of course, if you are listening to classical music on a system that includes a subwoofer, you bought the wrong system. If the speaker has a flat response and lots of bass, it will sound good with any music. If it doesn't have bass, it will sound thin and puny. Of course, some types of music don't have much bass, but you still want it to be audible.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Lisandro]

Well, that's you. 99% of the i don't want EQ on my music, of any kind, not even a bass cut from a poor output DAC. Classical, metal, rock, and electronic music are all heavy on bass, and it's stuff i listen to most of the time. I don't want poor bass reproduction just like i don't want poor highs or mids.

By the way, if proper bass reproduction (not boombox-thumping bass like) makes you difficult to listen to the rest, your audio gear is poor. And not in the "it's not audiophile! get $1000 wires!" sense of poor.

Re:Does it really matter?

[wfberg]

Good head/ear phones can do bass very well. SO if the player can't, then yes, it's a problem.

Trouble is, the subway you're riding does an even better job at producing bass.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Some classical composers did experiment with infrasound, though the shear bulk of the instruments limited their usefulness. Pipe organs are also capable of deep bass.

My Headphones (Grado SR-80) have a pretty good bass response, but the treble and midrange can only described as "detailed." The Grado SR-60's are similarly high resolution, but they are somewhat weaker in the low end.

Re:Does it really matter?

[hhawk]

I give up, what is FLAT response? I'm guessing it's a good thing but it doesn't sound like it?

Re:Does it really matter?

[ivan256]

The problem is that the complaints of lack of bass response on the iPod mostly stem from users who are used to using "bass-boost" types of things on their crappy music. Since you can't bass-boost on the iPod (but almost certainly can on a sony mini-disc player), well...

The complaints are really about the puny headphone amp in the iPod anyway. Audiophiles are using a good headphone amp on the dock connector's line out... Right?

Re:Does it really matter?

[and by]

It's what you want if you're into accurate reproduction of sound. If the response (to input) curve is flat, it means that the output of the system is an accurate reproduction of the input. The curve is along a graph with decibels on the y-axis and frequency along the x-axis.

Re:Does it really matter?

[damiam]

Of course, if you are listening to classical music on a system that includes a subwoofer, you bought the wrong system.

There's a helluva lot more to classical music than Bach solo violin sonatas. If you're listening to Beethoven's fifth on a system without a subwoofer, you bought the wrong system.

Re:Does it really matter?

[damiam]

Since you can't bass-boost on the iPod

You most certainly can bass-boost on the iPod. There's an equalizer setting for it.

Re:Does it really matter?

[radish]

Which is why you use noise-isolating canal phones. I ride the NY subway every day with my Shure e3's and I can barely hear the train with the music turned off - when music is on I can't hear anything around me.

Re:Does it really matter?

[hethatishere]

I find your comment interesting especially since ATRAC is heavily criticized for being a mediocre compression scheme and is almost universally hated among audiophiles (especially the Bass-loving ones) for either making Bass into a deep clanging sound or making it feel like empty booms, either way robbing the Bass of richness.

Perhaps you are not as discerning as you'd like to feel?

Re:Does it really matter?

[Lisandro]

Personally ATRAC is just fine for me, even more when considering it's a portable gadget. I can hear compression artifacts on some very dynamic material (notably, classic music) but for the rest it sounds quite ok. I'd compare it to a 128kbps MP3 stream, quality wise. But it's all subjective.

PS: There're several ATRAC revisions. My minidisc walkman uses the original algorithm. The latest revision compresses much better but it's said to sound awful, which i can't comment on since i never tried a player using it. Still, the only lossy compression formats i'd use at home would be MP3 above 192kbps or OGG-Vorbis above 128kbps.

Re:Does it really matter?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I listen to a lot of classical at the moment. One annoyance I find is that some parts will either be very quiet or will be mainly bass. When I'm on the bus or train it just ends up as silence. Try listening to Beethoven's 7th with reduced base. You'll end up missing the begining of the 2nd movment.

Re:Does it really matter?

[John Harrison]

Not even the lady next to you getting mugged? I need some of those!

Re:Does it really matter?

[emilymildew]

Is your sig a joke?

Re:Does it really matter?

[bob beta]

Audiophiles aren't using an iPod. Most definitely not in settings where a 'dock' would be useful, anyway. Perhaps for extremely portable settings, but none will use compressed audio in a 'room-speaker' setting.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Ohreally_factor]

if you are listening to classical music on a system that includes a subwoofer, you bought the wrong system

Fuck you, you fucking tuba hater. I hope you get run over by someone carrying a Sousaphone.

=)

Re:Does it really matter?

[alienw]

I'm not saying classical music doesn't have bass, I'm saying that a high-end sound system will not have a subwoofer. Subwoofers are a low-cost compromise between having large speakers with good bass and having small speakers with no bass. The bass a subwoofer produces is almost always muddy, boomy, and mismatched. It's OK if you are listening to hip-hop or movie explosions, it's not OK if you are listening to anything else.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. See that biggest speaker at the base of your huge speaker tower? That's pretty much doing the job of a subwoofer.

Audio design is more of an art-form than an engineering craft. I've heard "bookshelf + subwoofer" systems that sound absolutely fantastic when reproducing classical music. I've also heard multi-thousand-dollar towers which sound like shit (I'm looking in your direction, Polk Audio...), so arguing about methods of sound reproduction (sub + satelites, towers, electrostatics, etc.) is even more silly than an Emacs vs. vi debate.

Are most of the best systems over $2000 a pair based on tower designs? Yes. Is that the only way to produce good sound? Hell no!

Re:Does it really matter?

[Golias]

You might have missed it, but the iPod can play uncompressed music, and the reviews from the audiophile press for the docked iPod playing AIFF files have been downright giddy.

Re:Does it really matter?

[BlitzPig_Sal]

Flat response is good as long as you have an EQ to adjust the sound to your taste. At least you don't have to fight a frequency response that's weighted in a range that doesn't appeal to you.

Re:Does it really matter?

[jacksonj04]

Ever heard of Beethoven's 1812 Overture? Try playing that without a decent subwoofer and response.

Re:Does it really matter?

[svirre]

Actually a real high-end sound system should have a subwoofer. It is much preferable to generate bass at a single source. Multiple bass sources tend to generate interference patterns, which leads to a very uneven bass response.

Also a good active sub can be had for much less than a high-end speaker capable of the same bass. With reduced requirements for bass in the main speakers they can become cheaper and easier to drive.

Re:Does it really matter?

[k_187]

Yes, it comes from South Park, where Mr. Garrison is refering to a woman's period. Note, that he is gay.

Re:Does it really matter?

[emilymildew]

God, that's hysterical! What a witty, funny joke.

Thank you for explaining it, otherwise I would have understood the humor.

Re:Does it really matter?

[I_M_Noman]

heard of Beethoven's 1812 Overture?

No, but I have heard of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.

Re:Does it really matter?

[ivan256]

The iPod can handle very high quality compressed files, and also lossless compressed files. I use mine at my desk all the time with the dock, a headphone amp, and my Sennheiser HD-495s. Beats anything you'll be playing out a sound card powered by your PC's power supply any day.

(BTW, the HD-497s that they replaced the 495s with are an excelent deal. My 495s sounded great when I bought them compared to the other headphones in the $150 range, and the new ones sound even better and are only $60. The only thing I don't like about the 497s is that they changed the single-wire construction. Just as a warning though, good headphones will make you hate your soundcard because you'll hear all the noise).

Re:Does it really matter?

[alienw]

Where are you getting this BS from? "Interference patterns" are good; they make the sound more natural. What do you think happens when sound waves bounce off of walls and stuff?

Subwoofers cause lots of problems. For one, you have to match crossover frequencies perfectly (and not have them set too high). For two, you have to match the speaker output so you get a flat response. Of course, if the crossover frequency is sufficiently low, you won't get any cost benefits from using a sub, because the other speakers will need to go fairly low (bass is directional down to about 70Hz).

Again, it's basically a cost compromise. If you can't afford to have two speakers with good bass response, you buy a subwoofer. In practice, this solution is notably inferior because the bass from the subwoofer is still somewhat directional and you ruin the imaging.

Re:Does it really matter?

[alienw]

See that biggest speaker at the base of your huge speaker tower? That's pretty much doing the job of a subwoofer.

Wrong. The subwoofer is doing the job of those two speakers. Which means that instead of stereo sound, you get mono sound, for one. I've yet to see a subwoofer system that has good bass imaging. It's got bass, but you can almost always tell that it's coming from the subwoofer and not the speakers. In my experience, the assumption that bass is non-directional does not hold at all for frequencies above about 50Hz. Basically, a subwoofer will ruin any stereo imaging your system had.

Audio design is more of an art-form than an engineering craft.

It's a combination of both. If you don't follow engineering practices, you will never end up with a good speaker. Of course, a properly engineered speaker is not guaranteed to sound good.

I've also heard multi-thousand-dollar towers which sound like shit

Price does not equal quality. In general, any speakers you can buy at Circuit City are not going to sound that great.

I've heard "bookshelf + subwoofer" systems that sound absolutely fantastic when reproducing classical music.

That would be because most classical music does not have a lot of bass. If you listen to music that does, you will probably find it rather muddy.

Re:Does it really matter?

[jacksonj04]

I can't believe I did that *beats head against the wall*

Blame one of the parents for blabbing on about Beethoven whilst I go beat my self against a solid surface again...

*walks off in shame*

Re:Does it really matter?

[hhawk]

SO I get it, the system isn't altering the sound from the ideal input; some color photocopy systems come out to "Red"; i'm guessing the audio version of that is too much bass or too little bass, but in some very specific freq.

Re:Does it really matter?

[bob beta]

I have USB speakers.

Kinda sorta an 'embedded iPod' in a way.

And years ahead of the iPod, I bought mine in 1997.

Re:Does it really matter?

[a8o]

Interesting. Mod up.

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Codger]

I listen to a lot of classical at the moment. One annoyance I find is that some parts will either be very quiet or will be mainly bass. When I'm on the bus or train it just ends up as silence. Try listening to Beethoven's 7th with reduced base. You'll end up missing the begining of the 2nd movment.

Try using a pair of active noise reduction headphones. I took a pair on my last long plane flight and used them to listen to the classical music channel on the plane's audio system. At one point I was listening to a string quartet, and I discovered that with the ANR turned off, I couldn't hear the cello at all. With ANR turned on, it was clear as a bell. The ANR works best at filtering out the low, steady frequencies that drown out your bass.

In classrooms of the future...

[OneOfAKind]

"Eek! How gross! I'm not disecting that iPod!"

Re:In classrooms of the future...

[paranoidgeek]

Or "EWWW ! Miss ! He threw a tantalum capacitor at me !"

Look ma, I'm a consultant!

[Anonymous Coward]

But part of Synaptics' contribution was to understand that less is more; that users want to get their music into the player quickly and easily, navigate smoothly from one song to another, and hear their music faithfully reproduced.

Really? Gee! You think they also want it to be less than $3,000,000? Or weigh less than, say, 2,000 pounds?

Re:Look ma, I'm a consultant!

[mveloso]

That's silly, really, since Apple's the one that designed the UI. Synaptics had nothing to do with it. I'm sure one major problem of Apple's was beating the "simplicity" concept into the Synaptics engineer's heads.

Related story

[Pan T. Hose]

See also: iPod Shuffle Deconstructed.

Re:Related story

[ackthpt]

See also: iPod Shuffle Deconstructed.

Obvious Logic: If they don't intend for you to pull it apart, then why do they have all that printing on the inside?

Re:Related story

[slAckEr Of dOOm]

They obviously expect you to do some pretty strange stuff with it:

In the small print at the bottom of Apple's iPod shuffle page:
#2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.

It's now off the site, but still exists in Google cache: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:z3uW4DuVNvoJ: www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/+ipod+shuffle&hl=en

Re:Related story

[eraserewind]

Saw it too. It was presumably because there is a side by side picture of the iPod shuffle with a stick of gum. Either lawyerspeak, or a parody of lawyerspeak.

Re:Related story

[lxs]

It's for the Apple certified engineer or for the QA tester at the assembly line. It's easier to check the voltage on TP1 or to insert a test signal at the terminal of C3 closest to the headphonejack than to have to refer to photographs with arrows like PS2 modders have to do. It saves time, money, and as silkscreen printing is a standard option in all commercial PCB manufacture, and PCB design software produces silkscreen templates at the click of a mouse, there is no point in leaving it out.

Makings of the original iPod?

[Gob Blesh It]

The linked article is interesting from a technical standpoint, but it's also pretty dry--after the lead paragraph, the author doesn't really talk about the sweat and tears behind the scenes. Fortunately, the Times Magazine ran a story (reg-free link) a couple years ago about the human side of iPod, from conception to birth. Turns out the iPod didn't spring whole from the tip of Steve Jobs' magical wang. The article's worth a read if you're into this kind of thing.

Re:Makings of the original iPod?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Apple apparently cornered the market for the Toshiba disks for a while. But now there is, inevitably, an alternative. Hitachi now makes a disk that size

Buried in the article, there was this key fact. Owning all the tiny hard drives on the market for more than a year translated into a long-term perception advantage for Apple -- that iPod == Smallest == Sexiest now and forever.

Had they not had the foresight to monopolize the formfactor, the iPod would have been one of a half-dozen similar models on the market just as it was picking up and it might have been lost in the pack (especially because the early models were firewire only).

Re:Makings of the original iPod?

[rhennigan]

spring whole from the tip of Steve Jobs' magical wang.

Ewww... Thanks alot. I just dropped my iPod on the floor when I read that.

Re:Makings of the original iPod?

[2nd Post!]

The sad thing is that they DIDN'T monopolize the microdrive form factor.

IBM had been making them for at least three years already and no one had yet figured out what to do with them.

Re:Makings of the original iPod?

[NutscrapeSucks]

IBM's were only 1GB right?

Well, somewhere around I have a PCMCIA 10MB Western Digital drive from circa 1992. So the formfactor was nothing new -- it was the percieved cost/size ratio that was atractive to Apple. I don't think it was any secret that Toshiba designed the disks for belt-sized devices.

Re:Makings of the original iPod?

[2nd Post!]

Yes, but the idea is that Creative totally passed on the form factor from 1999 until 2004. Talk about stupid. Even AFTER the iPod was released in 2001, they still didn't look at the 1" drive until 2004.

Re:Makings of the original iPod?

[andynz]

Turns out the iPod didn't spring whole from the tip of Steve Jobs' magical wang

Thank god, now I won't have to sterilize the next iPod I purchase.

quality of the audio output

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad they improved the audio quality - the iPod doesn't really fare very well compared to the so-called iPod killers (and that's something you can measure objectively, before you get too defensive of that expensive white box you so treasure).

Re:quality of the audio output

[FlipmodePlaya]

I've been listening to iPod fanboys rant about their players' 'superior sound quality' for years. I always replied that the player doesn't really affect the quality of the sound, it's all about the headphones/speakers and recording/compression. Was I wrong? If it's just playing a digital file (which will never wear like a record, and will always be read identically), could one player actually output noticeably different sound than another?

My guess is that even if it could, it wouldn't be by very much. Certainly not enough to influence your purchasing decision, eh?

Re:quality of the audio output

[wvitXpert]

I think my girlfriend's iPod mini sounds great, but then again I'm used to $20 headphones. If you are obsessed with hearing every little nuance in your music then maybe the iPod is lacking, but I wouldn't notice the difference.

Re:quality of the audio output

[Hank Reardon]

...it's all about the headphones/speakers and recording/compression...

You forgot one crucial piece in the first part of that: the amplifier stages.

The crappiest set of speakers and headphones will sound much better through a decent preamp and amplifier than the most expensive speakers and headphones will sound through a $19.99, underpowered clearance special.

If, in fact, all media players have identical, real-world response, then you'd be correct. This is seldom the case, though. A lot of manufacturers skimp on the preamp and amplifier stages in audio equipment to save a few bucks because, after all, digital is digital.

Re:quality of the audio output

[BlitzPig_Sal]

There can most certainly be sound quality differences amongst various players. The DAC (digital to analog converter) and the amplifier itself both contribute greatly to how well the output sounds.

Most every portable player anymore uses an integrated chip to perform the MP3 playback and amplification and many players from different brands will use the same chips. The implementation of the circuitry however can still make a significant difference.

But for the really discerning audiophiles, the only way to get decent sound from a portable player is to use an external headphone amp that utilises higher quality components and generally operates at higher supply voltages which helps provide more generous amplifier headroom. There really is a difference and you can hear it readily with better quality headphones.

Re:quality of the audio output

[Deadguy2322]

Good headphones or speakers will reprroduce whatever the source is accurately, so if you have a player that has poor frequency response, paired with good headphones, the sound will still suck. The same applies in reverse. Shitty headphones on a good player will also give a poor listening experience.

Re:quality of the audio output

[Lisandro]

Much agreed. Even more, most consumer grade DACs leave a lot to be desired when driving headphones by themselves, and even more when poorly (cheaply implemented) - low value coupling caps springs to mind.

Re:quality of the audio output

[fossa]

Other replies have covered the technical side. But it may be the case that because they have a positive emotional response from using the iPod, for whatever reason (iPod's looks, enhanced self image, etc.) it actually does sound better to them even though the sound waves are identical.

Re:quality of the audio output

[Ibanez]

Yes you are wrong. Its converting from a digital source to an analog source, which is NOT easy. Plus its amplifying it.

Blake

Re:quality of the audio output

[FlipmodePlaya]

Hmmm, so in a player like most iRivers, which have optical outputs, would the DAC not come into account and therefore uphold what I orignally thought? I assume it needn't use it to convert to analog, in that case.

Re:quality of the audio output

[BlitzPig_Sal]

Well, if you're using the digital out, then yes, the responsibility for the analog audio quality is shifted further down the signal chain. But the whole point of a portable player is that you can carry it around with you so what kind of external DAC and amp are you going to attach to the optical outs that will be practical to carry around?

I've built small headphone amps, but add a DAC to that and then you need to have a separate power supply for it too and pretty soon the whole package is starting to get a bit unwieldy.

So we really come back to the point of how good does the player sound on its own because it's a pain to carry around all this gear and batteries. It becomes a case of miniturization and trade-offs.

If all I care about is sound quality, I just play tracks off my computer as lossless files through a good amp into a pair of Grados. But I when want to listen on the go so I settle for an iPod into earbuds.

Sound Quality

[exquisito]

The point is that the old Ipod headphone preamps didnt't have enough juice to power most headphones properly. What is the hardest frequency to reproduce? The bass. So, even with headphones and the eq turned up, the bass didn't sound as full and punchy as it should have. This was probably the worst flaw sound quality wise. The AAC or MP3 encoding at 128K are virtually indistinguishable from CDs for most listeners, but most listeners can hear the lack of bass. Its like something is missing.

Re:Sound Quality

[cRueLio]

i find that at 128kbps mp3 i can hear artifacts, especially when using these babies

Re:Sound Quality

[Sebastian Jansson]

Now, I'm not any expert on audio compression, but shouldn't the bass be the easiest to store faithfully?

The bass conatains much less information per time than the higher frequencies. If you played with computer audio back at the time when you often used really low bitrates, like 11kHz and lower you probably have noticed that the sound lacks all higher frequencies.

The problem with 128kbit.mp3 audio is that the higher frequencies take damage, often distorting the cymbals in rock music.
The problem with reproducing bass is rather that we hear those frequencies less, that you need larger speakers to generate them loud enough to suvive some difference, you have probably noticed that ear plugs most often perform poor on the bass compared to ear phones.

Re:Sound Quality

[angle_slam]

Whether or not bass is the easiest to store isn't the question. It's the hardest to reproduce, with many headphone jacks just simply not able to do so.

Re:Sound Quality

[seanadams.com]

Now, I'm not any expert on audio compression, but shouldn't the bass be the easiest to store faithfully?

It's no different from the rest of spectrum; it's a matter of what people can hear.

Realize that everyone's hearing is different, and furthermore, everyone can easily fool themselves unless they're doing double-blind testing. One easy way to find out what you can/can't hear is to put an MP3 and an AIFF of the same song together in a playlist, and then just hit ffwd a few times (with your eyes closed, and without counting) until you have no idea which one you're listening to. Then try to figure out which one it is by listening carefully - try to identify what sounds different. Then look at the screen to see which one you're really listening to. The results will surprise you - you might find that mp3's bass precision is far better than you've been led to believe.

I can consistently hear distortion in 128kbps MP3 for noisy, transient sounds. The best example is an audience clapping in unison on a live recording. Everything else sounds pretty good to me, but then I probably blew my ears out listening to 15" subwoofers in my Honda when I was a youngun.

Anyway regarding bass: a few people can reliably detect differences of a fraction of a Hz in the low frequencies. For most it's just "boom boom boom," which is why ported/bandpass cheap-loud-efficient subwoofers sell so much better than the sealed not-as-loud-but-more-precise-and-way-less-efficien t designs.

Now the thing to understand about lossy compression is it's all based on psycho-acoustics, which basically translates to "what the mind hears".

The first thing you learn if you study signal processing is the time vs frequency domains, and that signals can be represented in either space. MP3 works in the frequency domain (i.e., what you see on a spectrum analyzer as opposed to an oscilloscope). Our ears also work in the frequency domain (little hairs tuned to differenct frequencies) unlike a microphone, which responds directly to sound pressure level.

The trick that makes mp3 work is to identify which components of the frequency spectrum our brain really cares about for a given signal. It turns out that only a small fraction of the information is perceptible to most people. Smaller freq componets right next to a big freq component are hard to perceive. These are thrown out by mp3. Also very small variations in pitch during a short period of time are not perceptible. And so you build a model of what we can/can't hear, and you use this mdoel to reduce the amount of data that you include from the original signal.

MP3 cuts the signal into 27ms frames. Each of these frames has 32 subbands - a set of frequency components that are used to reconstruct the original signal. Yes, you could spend more of this data describing lower frequencies more accurately, but most people would then notice a lot more distortion in the vocal range. There's nothing "easier" about encoding any particular frequency - the challenge, generally speaking, is to develop a good psychoacoustic model to decide which frequency components to include.

Re:Sound Quality

[stratjakt]

So now that they have a model that fixes it, it's finally acceptable for iPod fanboys to admit that THE IPOD SOUNDS LIKE SHIT!

Re:Sound Quality

[BlitzPig_Sal]

Whether or not bass is the easiest to store isn't the question. It's the hardest to reproduce, with many headphone jacks just simply not able to do so.

Very true. Low frequencies require more electrical current to reproduce than midrange and high frequencies. Small players that use one or two batteries just don't have adequate reserve power to produce really good bass, especially at higher volumes. And when they use a DC to DC converter to achieve enough voltage, they are even more starved for current. This is perceived as a lack of "punchy" bass.

Re:Sound Quality

[m50d]

Read what he's saying. The problem is not that the bass isn't being compressed well, it's that the ipod doesn't have enough power to make it sound ok.

Re:Sound Quality

[lowmagnet]

I get quiet comfort out of a pair of Etymotic ER-6i headphones, at twice the quality, at half the price. I have Bose speakers in my living room. I'm still kicking myself for buying them when I could have gotten... well, anything else, period.

Re:Sound Quality

[Sebastian Jansson]

Hmm, it seams like i interpreted "The AAC or MP3 encoding at 128K are virtually indistinguishable from CDs for most listeners, but most listeners can hear the lack of bass. Its like something is missing." I got it as that the encoding was cause of the lack of bass, when I read it now I see that was really not what he meant. But since the post generated an interesting reply I guess it wasn't all in wain. :)

Hard on the batteries

[eclectro]

is a dc-dc converter that can switch automatically between step-down and step-up operation in response to changing input voltage.

Without examining the circuit myself, I could imagine that when the batteries fall below Vcc that the converter switches from step down to step-up to provide additional play time, until the batteries are completely drained.

Maybe someone can confirm/deny this.

Re:Hard on the batteries

[Lisandro]

That's it. In this way you use every bit of charge there's avaiable on your batteries. Which once they fall below the minimum voltage threshold might not be much, but still, it all counts.

Re:Hard on the batteries

[my_breath_smells]

A competitive product is the Linear Technology LTC3441 which also dynamically moves from buck to boost to compensate for draining batteries. I used it to provide a stable output voltage regardless of whether my input was 2.7-3.3V or 4.7 to 5.0V

WRONG

[Oculus Habent]

The article says the first iPod had buttons directly below the screen. Apparently, they've never seen the original iPod, a picture of it, or the "Media (Apple)" logo on Slashdot. The buttons were around the wheel.

Re:WRONG

[TheKidWho]

Ummm... no, the first and second generation had buttons on the outside of the scroll wheel and the third gen had buttons below the screen but above the wheel. The fourth gen has buttons on the wheel.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/consumer_e le ctronics/stats/ipod.html

Re:WRONG

[nuggetman]

I thought it was:

1st gen: Buttons around wheel, mechanical wheel
2nd gen: Buttons around wheel, touch wheel
3rd gen: Separate touch buttons under screen, touch wheel
4th gen: Click wheel

Re:WRONG

[DarthWiggle]

Look again. The first gen had four buttons around a mechanical wheel. The second had four buttons around a touchpad. The third had four buttons above the touchpad wheel. The fourth has four buttons ON the wheel.

IMHO, the second and fourth gen are by far the best.

Re:WRONG

[waynelorentz]

Nope, look at the various images at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod 1st : 4 buttons under screen and wheel below that, 2nd : 4 curved buttons around the wheel, 3rd : 4 buttons under screen and wheel below that, 4th : 4 spots on wheel that act like buttons.

I know it's heresy to say it in Slashdot, but Wikipedia is wrong (again). The picture is mislabeled. However, the text is correct when it says, "The 1G iPod featured four buttons - Menu, Play/Pause, Back, and Forward - arranged around the circumference of the scroll wheel."

Re:WRONG

[mrchaotica]

I like the old mechanical wheel better, actually; when I've played around with the modern touchpad ones I've had trouble selecting things accurately. I tend to miss by one, and have to oscillate to get the right thing. The tactile feedback (the "clickyness") of the 1st-gen wheel was nice, as well as the fact that the indentation allowed you to do complete circles without worrying about your finger sliding off the wheel/pad.

It's just too bad that to get it you have to get the rest of the 1st-gen (firewire only, Mac OR PC instead of Mac AND PC, low capacity, probably-dead batteries) also; otherwise I'd probably buy one.

Of course, the mechanical wheel is also a trade-off since it means an extra part that could break, although if you're worried about that you probably shouldn't be looking at a hard-drive-based player anyway... which of course is why I don't have an iPod yet, and am planning to get a Shuffle instead of a full-size or mini. : )

Re:WRONG

[d1v1d3byz3r0]

So... fix it. It's wikipedia!

Re:WRONG

[DarthWiggle]

If I could make one change to the iPod OS, it would be to add an (optional) alphabetical layer to browsing. I know the scrolling accelerates, but, jesus, it's a crap shoot to hit a song in the middle of the alphabet... I'd get to the T's faster by scrolling to the letter T in an alpha-list and then find my song, artist, whatever. The scroll wheel is brilliant, but it's pushing its utility (finding items quickly) in my 17GB collection. I can't imagine what it'll be like when I finally get to 40, or upgrade to the inevitable 80GB iPod. The image of someone standing there scrolling down, down, down, up, up, down, up, up, down, up, zing! will (eventually) make the iPod a joke, without something to clean up the process. Just a bit. Nothing revolutionary...

Re:WRONG

[mrchaotica]

That does indeed sound like a good idea -- but thank goodness I don't have that problem, since I shuffle-play my relatively modest music collection...

huh?

[SuperBanana]

The older iPods, especially the Mini, have been rightfully criticized for being somewhat deficient in bass, and although the bigger players have flat frequency response, they have trouble sustaining big bass notes."

I had a 3rd gen, now I have a 4th gen. Both drove my Grado SR-60 headphones (think Radar from Mash) just fine. In fact- they do a noticeably better job driving them at low frequency than my Powerbook.

Any problems with low frequency response probably have something to do with the fact that, despite the Steve Reality Distortion Field, you cannot get good low-frequency response in a tiny little earplug. You can put marketspeak on your website till the cows come home about Neodymium magnets make 'em better- they're still just tiny earplug speakers.

Re:huh?

[Lisandro]

Actually, there's a lot of earplug headphones that do a very fine work of reproducing bass. Of course, nowhere near a proper headphone set, but you can get a good bass kick from relatively cheap earplugs. I own a pair of el-cheapo TDK earplug spearkes that play metal, electronic and classical music just fine - all heavy-on-bass genres. I can't recall the model right now.

For some reason, a lot of portable devices have poor low frequency response. Most of the time is to save a few bucks in parts - i've seen a lot of onboard sound devices that are capacitor coupled to the output (there's a capacitor between the output and the speaker, which by itself or a few other components determine how low can the output go) with caps that cut the bass way above of what's desirable.

Re:huh?

[rylin]

Which is why the bass-boost in my old NetMD gives me a much fuller sound than playing with the equalizer in the ipod?
Same headphones, same songs btw.

Re:huh?

[isecore]

My 4th gen iPod does an excellent job driving my Beyerdynamic DT880's. Hell, it even makes my head rumble from the bass, and the sound is completely acceptable. Not quite up to par with, say, a Linn LP-12 but none the less I feel that the iPod provides decent sound.

Although I wouldn't be caught wearing the DT880's in public since they make you look like a total dork.

Re:huh?

[voisine]

I too own a pair of SR-60s that I swear by (btw, get the sr-80 foam cups from headphone.com if you haven't already, $15 noticable sonic improvement), but how do you account for the etymotics in your in-ear = crappy bass theory. From what I understand the etymotics blow away the sr-60s. I think you'll find that bass is transmitted wonderfully though the walls of the ear canal even better than though air. In addition the etymotics provide 30+db of isolation.

Re:huh?

[commodoresloat]

If you read the article you'd notice that they tried different headphones when reviewing the iPod. The problem with the bass response has to do with the amplifier in the iPod.

Of course, you can always plug your iPod into a real amplifier and get all the bass you want through real speakers.

Re:huh?

[commodoresloat]

why would you compare a turntable to an amplifier in an mp3 player? Put that (beautiful, btw) Linn Sondek on a crappy amp and the sound will be as crappy as the amplifier.

Re:huh?

[Herr_Nightingale]

my brother's 4th gen doesn't put out good bass with my earbuds, but my iRiver iFP flash player sure does. I'd say that the iPod's bass sucks when compared with the competition, but I haven't compared HDD-based devices to it. My point is that you actually can get decent bass from earbuds but you need enough power to do so. The iPod only cranks out 5mW/channel (roughly) whereas my iFP does ~13mW/channel. The difference in overall sound quality as well as loudness is considerable.

Hopefully my new iShuffle will arrive soon so I can compare it with the iRiver.

Re:huh?

[radish]

Well Shure and Etymotic do some canal phones with pretty impressive bass, I like my e3's but I hear the e2's actually have louder bass.

Re:huh?

[EdipisReks]

i took delivery of my ER-4P's today, and they are amazing. i love the SR-60's, but there is no comparison. my initial review of the Ety ER-4P can be found here here.

Re:huh?

[isecore]

My bad, I was going for a sound-quality comparison. Not an amplifier-comparison.

A somewhat crunchy 128kbits MP3 playing through an iPod can't really compare with a Linn played through some weird and wonderful tube-based amplifier. But then again, an iPod with a decent set of headphones isn't quite as expensive as the above mentioned rig.

I should've been a little more clear about this. I'll blame it on sleep-deprevation. Apologies.

Re:huh?

[iamatlas]

you cannot get good low-frequency response in a tiny little earplug

Try Shure brand or Etymonic brand earphones. Very Pricey, with the low-end version at $100-$130, but they get the job done with room to spare.

It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuffle

[hattig]

I don't need a massive capacity player, I just want to get my top 100/200 songs ever and carry them with me for those times I'm out.

Not only is it diminuitive, great value (probably because of the lack of screen, but the 1GB Shuffle is £10 cheaper than a 512MB Sony, and £30 cheaper than a 1GB Creative in the UK). but it is actually pretty damn good.

Will this be the first Apple hardware I ever buy? Where will it end?!

Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[Embedded Geek]

Not directly involving the iPod, but this week's I Cringely has a discussion of how the new Mac Mini may be a move by Apple to get into the movie distribution business, trying to repeat with video the success they've had with the iPod for audio. He has some interesting speculation on synergy from Pixar (which Jobs also controls) and Sony ("...you don't get the head of Sony at your event just to sell camcorders"). Well worth a read.

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[rritterson]

It's a good article, but doesn't quite cover all of my concern, of which I have two:

First, how will HD video come down an internet pipe at a tolerable time. It would take an hour on my connection to download a full movie, and I live in a well-wired part of the country.

Second, the default mini has only a 40GB HDD. That's what, like 5 movies after you subtract space for OS X?

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[nutshell42]

Sounds interestings but a few things don't add up, more specifically if the Mini becomes Apple's media center the Minis you're purchasing today won't do:

1. I'm no expert on PowerPC performance so this is wild speculation based on GHz numbers but I would say the Mini is too close at the minimum necessary to play back HD AVC videos. I don't think it's powerful enough to guarantee uninterrupted playback
2. So you have a box without a HD burner (whether blu-ray or HD-DVD) and 40/80Gig disk space. Are you kidding? 700mb are not enough for a movie so we're talking about 2 CDs per movie, which won't be popular. Even if you cache on harddisk.
3. Now as a multimedia hub you'd have to calculate disk space for mp3s and basic home office (www, email etc) functionality. Say 10Gig audio files and 5Gig for OS, apps and related data. That leaves 25Gig on a 40Gig Mine, 60something on a 80Gig; space for less than 20 or 50 movies respectively and that at the minimum bitrate I'd call acceptable. Now the problem with that is that Apple would want to sell movies. There are more than enough reasons people are not going to buy at their store so they won't add to that by having their customers juggling with miniscule disk space
4. Now I think, actually I hope, that he has a point but if that's the case the Mini would be a test platform for the form factor more than for the actual media hub because we'd look at a drastically redesigned system (integrating dedicated en-/decoding chips and tv support is non-trivial and I don't even talk about the necessary software frontend) so Apple would dilute their product line if the design of the Mini was anything like the other system.

An additional problem would be that AFAIK the mini uses 2.5" disks; big 2.5" disks, the DVD burner and the necessary dedicated chips are going to make this one expensive toy at a time when Microsoft will roll out the XBox2 which is already hyped as an entertainment hub, is probably going to be similarily priced and can be used for playing games. All the while Sony will hype their Cell chip as the next big thing in digital entertainment talk about its super computer qualities and state that you can't export it to China because it would violate various restrictions for advanced weapons systems.

One of the big advantages of the iPod was that it entered the market when the major players didn't even know there was one and all competing products were by nobodies or lackluster.

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[codehead78]

One hour to download? That's still faster than getting movies from NetFlix, and you won't have to wait for popular movies.

I would pay for a download rental type service, maybe with an option to buy and burn it to DVD.
I'd pay a little more than netflix since I don't have to wait.

How big would HD movies be when compressed with H.264? Would it even fit on a 4.7GB DVD?

One thing he didn't touch on was the audio. I was looking at getting the $499 model with bluetooth and connecting it to my Airport Express for playing music, since it has an optical out, and the mini doesn't.

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[rnd()]

Interesting... maybe the mini or a successor will prove to be a formidable competitor for the next generation x-box, which is likely to include full PVR functionality and on-demand capability. Microsoft has been trying to get into the TV business for a long time, and I believe the X-Box II is going to be the first salvo that the marketplace sees.

Apple needs to create some apps that make people want to buy minis and hook them up to their TVs...

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[illumin8]

Not directly involving the iPod, but this week's I Cringely has a discussion of how the new Mac Mini may be a move by Apple to get into the movie distribution business, trying to repeat with video the success they've had with the iPod for audio. He has some interesting speculation on synergy from Pixar (which Jobs also controls) and Sony ("...you don't get the head of Sony at your event just to sell camcorders"). Well worth a read.

Definitely some interesting speculation by Cringely, but I don't think it will happen for one reason and one reason only: 5.1 Optical Output... The Mac mini has none. On the new iMac, they included an audio out that doubles as stereo analog or 5.1 Optical with the purchase of an adapter. They could have included this new type of output on the Mac mini, but obviously chose not to, probably for cost reasons. If the Mac mini was really intended to be a media box they would have included a digital surround sound output. Who wants to watch HiDef movies with crappy Dolby ProLogic surround?

Now, perhaps a rev. B of the Mac mini will be released when Tiger comes out that will have optical out, perhaps a component out dongle, Blu-Ray burner, and be called the Mac movie, but I wouldn't count on it.

That's one thing about Cringely. He makes some great predictions like "yeah, wouldn't that be cool if Apple released the Mac mini for $249..." Yeah, Robert, that would be really cool, but you know what? Apple is in business to make money, not to cater to all of the Mac fanboys out there.

Don't get me wrong, I love my G4 AlBook, but this prediction doesn't sound too realistic right now.

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[glennrrr]

It's possible Apple has the idea of using Airport Express to provide this kind of audio support. It's certainly capable of doing so, although Apple will have to expand which applications support AirTunes style streaming.

Buy a Mac Mini, then if you need WiFi and fancy audio support, Apple would be happy to take your $129. Again, allowing you to add features available in costlier Macs one part at a time, and ensuring that eventually it would be a better deal to buy an iMac.

Re:Cringely on Mac Mini, iPod, and Apple's plans

[illumin8]

It's possible Apple has the idea of using Airport Express to provide this kind of audio support. It's certainly capable of doing so, although Apple will have to expand which applications support AirTunes style streaming.

That could work, except for one problem: The Airport Express has about a 1 second delay on audio transmitted to it. I think it buffers it or something because I've tried to get music playing in two rooms at the same time and I could never get it synced up properly.

Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all of the iPod Shuffle discussion and disections, I am surprised to see that no one has commented on the extra lines in the USB connector.

If you look in the connector, there are five small lines between the main USB lines. (BTW, these are not included in the Shuffle's dock.) There is also NO USB logo's in any of the packaging or documentation.

It looks like Apple may have some secret features up their sleeves.

Re:Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[slackoff]

Perhaps it is planning to interface with the AirPort Express, plug the shuffle in to it to control songs... Interesting. Surprised no one else has mentioned this.

Re:Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[lachlan76]

Probably test points for burning/debugging the firmware.

Re:Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[jschrier]

Probably no secret features.

Standard USB specifies the existence of hosts (with Type-A connectors) (such as desktop computers) and peripherals (with Type-B connectors) (such as hard drives, cell phones, digital cameras, etc.) Hosts are not supposed to connect to each other, and neither are peripherals.

The USB-To-Go specification was created in order to allow pseudo-peripheral devices to connect to each other (e.g., you might connect your cell phone to camera so that the phone can send the data, even though both of these are peripherals to your Mac). By connecting the fifth pin of the type-B connector to ground, Vcc, or letting it float, you indicate to the other (type-B) device whether you want to act as the host, act as the peripheral, or whether you just behave like a standard USB device.

Coincidentally, most of the mini-B connectors sold these days are 5-pin, because legacy devices can just leave the fifth pin floating. From the manufacturer's point of view, there is no reason to have two types of interchangable items in stock. So my guess is that AAPL bought what was for sale on the market.

--js

Re:Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[drayzel]

Perhaps that is for the extended battery pack?
I can't find too many details about it but it
looks like the shuffle connects to it via the USB
port.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore?productLearnMore=M9759G/A

"Get up to 20 hours of battery life (varies by
use) with this External Battery Pack. Designed to
complement the iPod shuffle, this is perfect
for travel or anytime you need extended power.
Ships with two AAA batteries. Supports
iPod shuffle."


~Z

Re:Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[ozbird]

Earth connections to catch any electrostatic discharge before it reaches the signal pins?

Re:Hidden iPod Shuffle features?

[greed]

All you need to do to provide power on USB is put +5V across the right two pins (GND and +5V, not +DATA and -DATA...). That is, if you're not going to bother with the data connection at all, and you're just using the USB power for power. (Some host implementations, in particular some Apples, won't give you the full amp of current unless you do the full USB connection and register your device for high current. I've heard.)

So all the external battery pack needs to do is connect the batteries to the power lines, probably via a voltage regulator.

This does suggest that one could use a USB A-A extension cable and the Belkin auto adapter that comes with their USB "Sync/Charge" cables for palmtop devices to charge the Shuffle from a car.

Re:i need something like the ipod

[Anonymous Coward]

are there any alternatives which hold a couple gigabytes+ for under $100usd/50gbp roughly?

No.

I don't care what anyone says

[banky]

"Loud enough to cause hearing damange" is a *feature*.

Re:I don't care what anyone says

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yeah, you get used to it anyway.

It's called deafness; often with a side order of tinnitus. :-(

Re:I don't care what anyone says

[fm6]

Excuse me, could you repeat that?

on simplicity

[weiyuent]

"La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien à ajouter, mais quand il ne reste rien à enlever." (Perfection is achieved, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away).

-- Antoine St. Exupery (1900-1994)

Re:on simplicity

[Anonymous Coward]

As simple as possible, but no simpler

- George W. Bush

;)

Re:on simplicity

[holden caufield]

"less is more"

Re:on simplicity

[Lisandro]

Great quote!

Re:on simplicity

[Fancia]

That's a great quote, but you've misstated Saint-Exupery's lifespan. ;3 He died in 1944, not 1994.

Re:on simplicity

[LakeSolon]

What the hell... Did you just attribute to GWB a quote by Albert Einstein?

~Lake

Re:Overrated

[beelsebob]

Perhaps because the iPod has all the features I want... If I have a choice between two equally priced players, both of which have all the features I want, and one of which is cluttered with features I have no use for, then aesthetics is what it's going to come down to... I'm gonna buy the iPod.

On Bass

[cyberfunk2]

You know, you think it'd be pretty easy to put good Bass electronics in the larger iPods... can any electrical engineer provide a rationalization for it being able to be included in the shuffle but not the mainstream ones ?

Personally, i've had no problems w/ bass on my iPod (4G white), but i've heard people bitching about it.

Re:On Bass

[Moofie]

I got the Apple In-Ear headphones (because they fit me better than the Sonys) and they sound as good as I could ever want them to.

I don't want earth-shaking bass. If I want my music to sound better than it does on my iPod, I'll sing it myself.

Re:On Bass

[mako1138]

I don't think the electronics are at fault. You just can't expect good bass from earphones.

Re:On Bass

[Tony Hoyle]

It's nothing to do with the earphones - good earphones can have *excellent* bass.

Compare the output from a decent set of earphones (I use EX71s but I know people that even go as far as Shure S5s... which is *way* overkill IMO) between a decent amp and an iPod.

The iPod is very weak on the lower frequencies.. this can kill some kinds of music. Even an MD player (much cheaper so should be a worse amp in theory) does this better.

I refuse to use EQ or 'bass boost' as mostly these things just destroy the clarity of the music.

The iPod is *just about* acceptable as higher volumes, but is nowhere near as good as it could be.

Re:On Bass

[mako1138]

Perhaps I should have said "the earphones the iPod comes with." Some of my friends do have nice earphones, and tell me how good the bass is. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, as I don't have an iPod, and most of my listening is done through my Envy24-based soundcard. I just find it hard to believe that this weak bass condition exists.

Re:Overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

No, form factor is incredibly important. Or do you lug around a PC with Augidy 2 audio inside, and a large UPS, just to get more functionality?

Oddly enough, the iPod Shuffle is cheaper by a mile in the UK. The competitors have done simple $=£ translations, and Apple haven't. Unless you want to listen to idiotic radio shows on radio on your MP3 Player, or record yourself having a fap, the iPod Shuffle is the best value on the market. In the UK at least.

You hear what you want to hear

[youbiquitous]

I mostly use my 4G iPod connected to a Soundcraft mixing desk, which is connected to a set of Tannoy midfield studio monitors, each of which is powered by a separate beefy power amplifier running in bridged mono mode.

I've compared an .aiff file played back through my computer's rackmounted audio interface (made by MOTU, for those who care, and also connected to the Soundcraft desk) and the same track played back from the iPod. I don't hear a significant difference in bass response. The people who complain about bass must be using 'phones with impedance that doesn't agree with the iPod's headphone jack.

Re:You hear what you want to hear

[pslam]

The people who complain about bass must be using 'phones with impedance that doesn't agree with the iPod's headphone jack.

What they're complaining about is they used too small capacitors on the headphone outputs, which means if you have a real load (i.e headphones and not a line-in socket that people are mistakenly measuring responses with), you get a rather early roll-off in bass, at around 100Hz instead of 20Hz. It's more severe with lower impendance headphones.

Take your pick as to whether it's to save a few cents, or just a design error.

Re:You hear what you want to hear

[youbiquitous]

What does any of that have to do with the sound quality of iPods? If you know so much about audio, why not respond to my speculation that the problem may be caused by an impedance mismatch?

All you've proven so far is that you know how to drop names. Do you own a Neve, SSL or API desk? The gear I use is installed in my house. I don't work at a recording studio that's funded by someone else,

Soundcraft isn't 6 figures, but it is by no means crap. They have made some very nice-sounding studio desks, and the Series 5 live desk (not owned by me) that I've used to mix some local festivals is superb.

I buy the best I can afford and, for recording, supplement the desk with outboard microphone preamps. You're an expensive gear name-dropper, so you've probably heard of Millennia Media, Demeter, Focusrite... Not having the budget for a 6-figure mixing desk hasn't prevented me from doing good work. If you were in Canada you might have even heard some of the music I've worked on.

As for Genelec and KRK, I find them to be fatiguing.

I was a bit hasty in my initial post on this thread. The subject should have said "Headphones impedance mismatch?"

It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not...

[NeedleSurfer]

Dead flat!? I dont believe it, the Telefunken at SNB (a mastering studio in montreal) is the flatest piece of equipment you might come accross and this baby isn't perfect flat, it cost 85000$ originally and required over 50000$ modification to achieve such audio performance.

Dead-flat? I really doubt it, then again PC mag made the call, not Audio-Media, Post or Mix...

Computer mags and websites should sincerly refrain from judging audio... because when they do, a million techno morons go down the street speading bullshit like they know what they talk about, they just repeat lies and since no one even them knows what they are talking about and those geeks have techno credits in other peoples mind, other people start spreading the same bullshit but with the telephone game kicking in (story gets modified each time it is told...), sentences changed to "my friend who studied programming told me that the audio performance of...".

What does this mean?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

although the bigger players have flat frequency response, they have trouble sustaining big bass notes

If the response is flat then by definition it can play back bass notes. This reads more like audiophile verbal diarrhea than something with semantic value.

Re:What does this mean?

[Lucidus]

Actually, the parent is rather carefully worded. Frequency response is most often measured into a device with a fairly high and well-controlled input impedance. The load is easy to drive, and doesn't require much juice.

Headphones will typically have a lower and much more complex (and reactive) impedance. They are harder to drive, and draw a lot more current. The quality of the power supply becomes important here - while it may in fact be able to produce bass transients at correct levels, the output my sag during sustained bass notes. This is unfortunately very common.

Re:What does this mean?

[mako1138]

I laughed at that sentence. I was reading audioXpress this morning too, so I've had enough audiophile crap for one day. "The smaller size and lack of screen of the iPod Shuffle dampen vibrations from local electrical fields, enabling full, rich bass. The soundstage was elevated and the individual instruments were amazingly crisp."

Re:What does this mean?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I might actually just about believe you. At least I might consider not rejecting your response out of hand. It seems to make some kind of sense even if I don't know if it's true.

Re:What does this mean?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Who said I'm wholly ignorant of this stuff? Not me. And my original criticism is entirely valid. People who talk about a flat response from their audio hardware when that response is only for hardware that you wouldn't actually use in reality (ie. a high impedance measurement device rather than real headphones) are the people working without a brain. It's typical audiophile BS. Publish information about some non-existent ideal system as if that adds anything useful to just listening to the damn thing.

You, on the other hand, clearly don't understand this. Maybe you should keep out of discussions you don't understand, you'll just embarass yourself.

Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[Bulln-Bulln]

Quote:
"Supported File Types: Audible, MP3, WAV, WMA"

Hehe. ;)

OK, I stop this lame joke.
Seriously: What is "Audible"? Never heard of that file format.

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[mblase]

Seriously: What is "Audible"? Never heard of that file format.

Audible.com is the #1 online source for downloadable audiobooks. As far as I know, it doesn't use its own format; that's just a journalistic gaffe.

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[foo12]

Audio books from Audible.com

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[Cyn]

audible.com - audiobooks.

used to have a "$100 off mp3 player" signup deal - which was pretty slick (signup was for a year at 15 or 20/month). Now looks like it's just a free trial - sucky.

The cool thing is you can always come back and re-download the files - unlike certain unnamed music services - even if you no longer have an active paid membership.

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[pchan-]

As far as I know, it doesn't use its own format; that's just a journalistic gaffe.

Audible files come in either ".aa" files (Audible's homegrown DRM system) or iTunes DRM. The aa files are wrappers around low bitrate voice codecs (from voiceage, i believe) for formats 1-3, and format 4 is mp3 (32kbps, 22khz).

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[kf6auf]

Outpost.com claims that too:
40 GB
20 GB

I've sent them 3 e-mails since Thanksgiving. I eventually gave up.

Scott

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[the_2nd_coming]

ah yes.... another whiner who does not back up his data and then complains because Apple doe snot track his purchases and allow for automatic backup downloads.

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[68kmac]

"Supported File Types: Audible, MP3, WAV, WMA"

It's not as wrong as you may think. The Windows version of iTunes can convert DRM-free WMA files to MP3 (or whatever you prefer), so it's sort-of "supported".

Also, the chip in the iPod could play WMA files natively (don't know if it would support DRM, though). But Apple would have to pay license fees to Microsoft, so ...

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[EddWo]

But Apple does track all your purchases, you can bring up your entire purchasing history in iTunes, what would it cost Apple to allow you to redownload tracks? They are still restricted so they would be of no use to anyone other than the owner of the iTunes account. Surely they must have the bandwidth for it.

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[the_2nd_coming]

dude... be responsible with your purchases... end of story.

Re:Great iPod Shuffle Review...

[Cyn]

I do backup my data - and I do use iTunes.

That said - I still think audible should be congratulated for continuing to allow you to re-download anything you've purchased, even after you've cancelled your contract.

And, as child posters have said - apple absolutely does track your purchases. In fact, they even warn you about re-purchasing a song you've already purchased.

two questions

[commodoresloat]

1. Where do you work that you need to use an iPod at work?
2. Are they hiring?

Re:two questions

[FortranDragon]

1. Where do you work that you need to use an iPod at work?

The IRS ;-)


2. Are they hiring?

Yes.

Re:two questions

[xa0s]

dude its all about hacking on code all day with pounding techno from your ipod.. zen-like state of oneness with the code

Re:Overrated

[Moofie]

Just because there are more features, doesn't mean they're well implemented.

It's not hard to imagine operating the shuffle while it's in my pocket. (huh huh) I do that now with my clickwheel iPod.

I'll leave the masturbation jokes as an exercise for the class.

Hack the Ipod?

[joebetoblame]

Whats really cool about the Ipod is you can change graphics and rename it. http://www.i-hacked.com/Consumer-Electronics/Porta ble-MP3-Players/Changing-the-graphics.html http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000610023097/

get software here http://www.will-burn.net/

That's a strange question, you now ...

[porky_pig_jr]

the low frequencies in high quality headphones are much better defined than the same low frequencies in high quality speakers.

Of course, when you on the bus or jog, you wear less than high quality headphones, but even then, those cans often have fairly decent bass.

From my experience: my speakers are KEF 104.2, good cans I use for listening at home are AKG 240DF, their lower frequencies are much better than KEF. But even my portable cans, Koss Porta Pro (and Sporta Pro), provides some really decent low frequencies.

So the bottom line: it matters.

Re:iVent

[horigath]

Perhaps occasional issues similar to this is why electronics (ipods included) come with limited warranties. Just maybe.

The real huh!

[Humorously_Inept]

The terminology surrounding the sound quality is quite confusing. Namely, suggesting that it is flat but has better bass response or that it is flat but has trouble "sustaining" big bass notes hardly makes sense.

Flat is flat. Either the old players are not flat and deficient in the low frequency spectrum, or the new player is not flat and has some kind of boost. The fact is that when most people hear flat they think, "Where's the bass?"

The article says nothing of the test data, equipment or methodology used to determine just how flat the frequency response is and "critical listening" on some mystery monitors hardly counts as valid.

I suspect that your headphone assertion is correct.

Re:The real huh!

[Woody77]

Yes, and no.

Because frequency response is measured with a purely resistive dummy load. Speakers tend to have wildly varying impedances depending on the frequency, and if the impedance goes low enough, then the driver which has a flat frequency response at high impedances now can no longer push enough current to keep the frequency response flat.

Numerous high-end headphones will try to pull more current than a lot of consumer equipment can push, which is why there are headphone amps (well, that and to add some cross-mixing to help the ears out a bit).

Re:The real huh!

[Exp315]

Exactly. The PC Mag article was pretty deficient as a review. But why would you read a computer mag for an audio review anyway? You might as well read Consumer Reports. I'm the first to admit that the iPod is not the most bang for your buck, but I have no complaints about its sound quality when used with the right headphones - and I'm pretty picky about sound quality (my home system has full-range electrostatic speaker towers and 1000w of all Class-A amps in a carefully-tuned listening room, so I have some standard for comparison). By contrast I find most other MP3 players noticeably inferior, including my own Creative and Samsung flash players.

Re:The real huh!

[afidel]

You are correct, the origional iPod was flat or neutral in its frequency response. In fact it got rave reviews from audiophiles for exactly this feature. Unfortunatly most people are used to compressed, bass pumped, overproduced pop and new rock which is made to sound "good" on car stereo's and other cheap systems. If you have good cans and appreciate good music you should love the origional iPod. Of course if you have high resistence headphones the iPod might not be the best pick since it's not terribly high powered.

Re:The real huh!

[Gorbag]

Of course if you have high resistence headphones the iPod might not be the best pick since it's not terribly high powered.

The problem would be having too low an impedance - the lower the impedance the higher the current needed. So high impedance cans would in fact be best. I beleive Senheiser makes some decent 2K cans (vs the usual 4-8 ohm).

Good point

[Pan T. Hose]

Obvious Logic: If they don't intend for you to pull it apart, then why do they have all that printing on the inside?

You mean the printed circuit boards? Good point.

Does anyone really care what "we prefer"?

[LoadStar]

From the review of the shuffle:

Still, overall we prefer a player with a navigation window. When we use random play on our personal digital audio player, we often find that it stimulates a musical mood; we'll then switch to a specific playlist or group of albums.

Are we supposed to CARE how you use random play? How you use random play is a personal decision, and should NOT factor into the review or the score you give the product. You might play it that way - others might not.

The review should have been, not on the way they would prefer to use the device, but how well the device works within the parameters it was designed for. That is, it was designed as a small-form random-play digital music player, and it does very well within those parameters.

This would be like reviewing a Kia and mentioning "We tend to drive luxury vehicles like a BMW, and wished that this car was a luxury car instead of an econobox," and scoring it down simply because it wasn't a BMW.

Re:Does anyone really care what "we prefer"?

[i41Overlord]

I think the problem is that other small, low cost players from other manufacturers do include a small screen.

So it woul dbe like comparing the Kia to another econobox that does have features that the Kia is missing.

Re:Does anyone really care what "we prefer"?

[the_2nd_coming]

a small screen that you cannot read, half the RAM.. and FM radio that has shitty reception and a build quality that will cause the product to fall apart in 1 year (oh and not to mention, ships with features that do not work yet)

all for the low price of 99 dollars... yeah.. the iPod sucks next to those players.

Re:Does anyone really care what "we prefer"?

[i41Overlord]

small screen that you cannot read, half the RAM.. and FM radio that has shitty reception and a build quality that will cause the product to fall apart in 1 year (oh and not to mention, ships with features that do not work yet)

all for the low price of 99 dollars... yeah.. the iPod sucks next to those players.

I never said the Ipod sucks next to those players. On the contrary, it sounds like you're the one who is blindly putting down all other players and only accepting Ipod as a good Mp3 player.

I've noticed this about Slashdot- it seems to attract a crowd of VERY VOCAL Apple zealots. I'd never get so worked up about my computer system or Mp3 player of choice. But the Mac people are fanatical about it, they won't accept any other choice and they'll even attack competing brands.

It's funny- for a group of people who likes to portray themselves as "open minded", they're the most closed minded group of fanboys.

I might get one of these Ipods. Or I might get something else. My mind is open.

Re:Does anyone really care what "we prefer"?

[Gorbag]

The review should have been, not on the way they would prefer to use the device, but how well the device works within the parameters it was designed for.

I disagree. A reviewer always brings their expectations into any rendering of an opinion; a good reviewer makes those expectations plain so a reader can appropriately filter them.

To take your advice literally would be to give every product from M$ or Real rave reviews, because they were designed to be unmitigated steaming piles of crap.

Re:Does anyone really care what "we prefer"?

[tgibbs]

Are we supposed to CARE how you use random play? How you use random play is a personal decision, and should NOT factor into the review or the score you give the product. You might play it that way - others might not

A reviewer can reasonably state a personal preference. Readers can weight it appropriately. I keep my iPod on shuffle play and pretty much never look at the screen. I don't need the reviewer to tell me that that makes the iPod shuffle perfect for me (or would if I didn't already have an iPod).

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[Reverberant]

Dead-flat? I really doubt it, then again PC mag made the call, not Audio-Media, Post or Mix...

I agree that a lot of computer magazines don't know audio, but getting ruler-flat frequency response (when driving low-voltage loads) has been pretty easy for a long time - this isn't 1975.

Of course flat response isn't the whole story - linearity, distortion, jitter (or WOW/Flutter for analog people), cause lots of problems, and this is where some of the sonic differences arise. There may also be problems in driving low-impedance loads.

As an example, the on-board audio for my 5-year old Powerbook G3/Pismo is ruler flat down to 10 Hz or so, as measured by professional sound measurement equipment (which in turn has been calibrated by a NIST-traceable cal lab). This ain't rocket science

Re:PC Competition for the Mac mini?

[puetzk]

You can probably come close, but beating it is going to be pretty hard. To match the size is going to take a mini-itx motherboard ($175 or so for an M10000), a 2.5" harddrive ($75 or so for 40G), optical drive ($100 or so for a dvd/cdrw), ram ($40 for 256M). I've now spent $390, still needing a case/PSU (and still larger, albiet only slightly). This is going to be *well* short of the Mac mini in performance, (especially at graphics - unichrome is nowhere near a radeon 9200 mobility), and you still don't get OSX.

If your wife wants a cute little Mac, let her have it :-)

Hacking the iPod Shuffle.

[PopeAlien]

Possible secret features:

solder resistor between lines 2 & 3 - Shuffle grows full color OLED touch-screen!

open Shuffle and cover circuit board with cream cheese, insert in USB slot - $500 USD springs from CD drive!

stick bent paperclip in headphone jack - Steve Jobs comes to your home and cleans your car!

..now thats insanely great!

Re:iVent

[CastrTroy]

Which is why I don't like the fancy players that tell me when they don't have enough power. I like my Sony MD for this reason, it turns off when the battery is actually dead (52 hrs on a single AA) Like the old cassette players that used to play forever, and go in slow motion when the battery got low enough. I'll decide when the battery is too low. It's like those printers that refuse to print when they think the ink is low. I'll decide that thank you very much.

Re:mount as usb

[Anonymous Coward]

Try a crescent wrench.

Re:iVent

[commodoresloat]

Nah, don't return it. Instead, bitch about it on slashdot. I'm sure that will fix the problem.

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[commodoresloat]

It just shows you what a good deal Apple products are. The iPod shuffle is an example of being able to buy $85,000 worth of audio equipment for $100. Make that $135,000 when you include the mods! Now, who says macs are more expensive?

Apple has done it...

[Moustache N Tits]

I really have got to say, I love my iPod Shuffle. Although I played with the idea of selling it on eBay for a quick buck, the $10 was worth it to me to have something this chic. I never expected it that small or light, and it's so simple. I never looked at the screen of my iTunes, and in my car I put it on shuffle and never manually change the song. It works well for me but what's amazing is how popular the thing has been. Just like their big brothers they are getting scooped up left and right. You have to admire a company that can take a 4 year old player, put it in a nice case and have it back ordered for 4 weeks. Now if they would just release a product to compete with Microsoft's Media Center.

Re:Apple has done it...

[the_2nd_coming]

that should be easy to do since they can just take a G5 and wrap it in a modified powermac tower, then slap on some nice GUI tools... and they cold charge an iMac''s price and beat the crap out of Dell!!!!

Linux incompatible ... so far.

[munner]

Apparently the Shuffle may not be immediately compatible with linux tools already available. Gnupod apparently has trouble copying music to the shuffle.

According to the author of foo_pod for FooBar2000, there's the usual iTunesDB database, but also a new one, called iTunesSD. They haven't been able to completely reverse-engineer this one yet. It turns out it isn't sufficient to simply write to the iTunesDB database -- songs won't play.

Searches on Google show nothing about the iTunesSD database.

Re:Overrated

[Herr_Nightingale]

The Sandisk has problems like a nasty clicking noise with every cycle of the song title across the display. It's not really a bargain despite the price. It's also oddly shaped, with the battery bulging out one side of the back (you don't see that in any publicity photos plastered around the 'net).

Functionality matters more than aesthetics, but each has a weighted value to a purchaser; to most people, AAC support/tiny size/lithium battery/USB2/simplicity outweigh the screen/crappy radio/voice recorder/large size of other comparable devices.

Re:Overrated

[AltaMannen]

I think the form factor is the best feature in the shuffle, and also having a built in battery and not wasting space with an extra battery compartment. I declined a different flash player given as a gift because the form factor was crap and there was no internal battery (and the information displayed on the screen was so useless I'd rather have skipped the screen).

Re:iVent

[MoronGames]

That is what warranty is for.

Re:Overrated

[Brian Brian]

Two things: First - show me your car and then try to hold up your functionaliy arguement :-) Second - if we all wanted the same thing we would have married your grandma.

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[Chris Johnson]

I'm a mastering engineer and hang out on mastering web boards, and the iPod came up in conversation.
FWIW, a tech heavyweight (trying to remember if it was Bruno Putzeys?) said they'd measured the iPod and got a perfect 10K tone out of the bugger with virtually unmeasurable sidebands.
NOT easy. That outperforms a heck of a lot of high-quality CD players, never mind mp3 portables. iPods apparently have very good tech if you know how to measure them. Jitter is what that 10K tone test measures, and it performed very, very well, I'm told.

Re:iVent

[nic barajas]

Maybe you need to recalibrate the battery? Sounds like that might be a fix to your problem.

Re:It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuff

[CMRichar]

don't do it, it's like a drug addiction...you start with the ipod, and it's great...you get a great buzz, and dont feel any harm...next you decide to see what the OSX experience is all about, so you grab a Mac Mini (with additional RAM, of course)... next thing you know, you're living in a shabby flat in the cheapest part of town with no utilities (save electricity and internet) to help pay for your dual g5 tower of doom. it's a slippery slope.

I care.

[Ian Action]

"How well the device works within the parameters it was designed for."

So if Windows was designed to crash all the time, it would be a 5-Star operating system.

Flat frequency response in consumer audio

[ukleafer]

A flat response curve is highly desirable for a production or recording studio, because it lets you hear all the problems in the levels of various frequency ranges of the program material, and being in the studio, it's your job to fix those.

In a consumer portable MP3 player, and for most consumer grade audio playback, a flat frequency response is not such a good thing. Music will sound "flat" and dull, which is why pretty much all hi-fi systems have a built in EQ curve to add some depth to the mix, in addition to whatever other EQ options are provided.

Furthermore, the human ear doesn't perceive all frequencies equally loudly, as illustrated by the lines on an Equal Loudness Contour chart. If that ipod really does produce a near-flat response, users will be missing out on lo and hi frequency ranges, as we are much better at hearing frequencies in the 1kHz-4kHz range.

I know we're referring to the shuttle here, which is a budget player, but most current gen mp3 players provide user adjustable graphic EQ (not sure if big ipods do or not), enabling you to get around this whole issue in the first place.

Re:Flat frequency response in consumer audio

[the_2nd_coming]

yes.. the mini's and the regulars do have EQ settings, even presets.... I have a shuffle and I must say that tool sounds just as good on the shuffle as on my PC with nice speakers and EQ.

and as to the bass in the larger iPods... it is all in the headphones... the shuffle ships with (from what I have heard) better ear buds than any other iPod as well as any other MP3 player.

Re:Flat frequency response in consumer audio

[Freultwah]

Well, hi-fi usually means you do not tinker with the EQ if it exists at all (and the hi-er the fi, the less chance there is that there are EQ knobs on your system at all), since what came from the studio must be how the massa wanted it. I do not buy that missing out on low and high end thing either, because then we should be going to live performances with EQ-adjustable ears, which we don't. Besides, most music does happen within that 1kHz-4kHz range, why ruin it by overemphasising the accompaniment?

Music does sounds livelier and closer to the source without EQ. To me, messing with EQ equals going to a top notch restaurant, ordering à la carte and then covering everything with ketchup.

Re:Flat frequency response in consumer audio

[ukleafer]

I do not buy that missing out on low and high end thing either

Look at the chart, it's all there - that's how our ears work. We aren't good at hearing lo and hi frequencies, so if we listen to material with a flat response, we perceive the 1kHz-4kHz range as being "louder".

because then we should be going to live performances with EQ-adjustable ears, which we don't.

At live performances, we have engineers whose job it is to equalise the performance material both according to the properties of the venue, and the frequency range of the music itself. Live sound is a very different case to portable audio and the two aren't really comparable.

Besides, most music does happen within that 1kHz-4kHz range

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. Vocals fall into that range, as do the fundamentals and initial harmonics of a few instruments, but since that range is relatively small (the best of us can hear everything between 20Hz and 22kHz, as well as the fact that frequencies outside our audible range can combine with those that are within range and have a very audible effect), there is more than enough material falling outside that range for us to palm it off as "accompaniment". Think about your average band setup - vocals, guitar, bass guitar, drums. The guitar will spend some time in the lo freq ranges, the bass will be there 100% of the time, and the kick drum likewise. Above 4kHz we've got the rest of the guitar work, and most of the drum kit. Try setting up a graphic EQ in the music player of your choice, attenuate everything outside 1k-4k and see how it sounds. Now come back and tell me that most music "happens within that range" it's simply not true.

Music does sounds livelier and closer to the source without EQ

A very broad and naiive statement, and again one that is completely untrue. Do you think when you listen to your favourite album that no EQ has gone into the production of it all? By the time sounds hit the recording medium, they'll have gone through at least two EQ processors, and that's before mastering. At the user end, true, most people see a GEQ and twiggle around with the sliders and then realise "Hey, I've cocked it all up", but if you use it properly and actively pick out frequency ranges in the material you're listening to and adjust accordingly (minor adjustments, nothing ridiculous), you can very effectively tune your setup to your own personal tastes, making tracks sound a lot livelier.

Re:Flat frequency response in consumer audio

[tgibbs]

Furthermore, the human ear doesn't perceive all frequencies equally loudly, as illustrated by the lines on an Equal Loudness Contour chart [gsu.edu]. If that ipod really does produce a near-flat response, users will be missing out on lo and hi frequency ranges, as we are much better at hearing frequencies in the 1kHz-4kHz range.

However, recording artists make the music sound good to their ears, so the sound as recorded is already appropriately balanced for the response of the human ear. To preserve that correct balance, all of the playback devices need flat frequency response. The only need for equalization is to correct problems with a room (irrelevant if you are using headphones) or deficiencies in the headphones.

Re:Flat frequency response in consumer audio

[dmdimon]

>>Music does sounds livelier and closer to the source without EQ

>A very broad and naiive statement, and again one that is completely untrue. Do you think when you listen to your favourite album that no EQ has gone into the production of it all?

It doesn't matter. When you get music, it's already equalised to level, approved by sound specialists and musician itself at studio.
Do you really think that sound engeneer thinks like "hey, I'll lover bass here cos they anyway pimp it up" ?

The best audiophile BS

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Go to this link and read the stuff about the golden ratio. Hilarious!

Re:Overrated

[Wetware]

No, just plug it into a powered USB hub, or get Apple's dock.

Re:iVent

[Elfboy20]

Had a similar problem with my 4g. It would die about halfway into the first song played after a full charge. It happened twice right after I got it, but hasn't happened since. Could it be a problem that was fixed in the last software update?

Bingo...

[jht]

That's the definition that pretty much everyone uses. Within iPod generations, there have been multiple models and versions, but the case/control design has been the way the generations have been explained throughout.

The only things that don't fit neatly into those groupings are the Mini and (arguably) the iPod Photo - but the Photo is really just a 4G iPod beefed up for a color screen, and the Mini is kind of a "3.5G" iPod - it has the click wheel that wound up in the 4G.

Re:Bingo...

[nuggetman]

The only things that don't fit neatly into those groupings are the Mini and (arguably) the iPod Photo - but the Photo is really just a 4G iPod beefed up for a color screen, and the Mini is kind of a "3.5G" iPod - it has the click wheel that wound up in the 4G.


The iPod mini and iPod photo are considered separate product lines. It's the first generation iPod photo and first generation iPod mini right now

A Suggestion

[TefuleHundenDoc]

Grado Labs SR60 and SR80. Both modles can be foundd sub 100 dollars and are some of the finest listening on the planet IMHO.

Re:A Suggestion

[angle_slam]

But they are not very comfortable, which is why I got rid of mine. I'd say it was because I'm a glasses wearer, but my wife hated them also.

Re:A Suggestion

[TefuleHundenDoc]

Maybe omeone who is more concerned with the aural pleasure rather than the visual presentation.

Re:Overrated

[mapmaker]

Wow, that's so much simpler than just including an ordinary wall plug like every other rechargable device in the world does.

Re:Overrated

[waynelorentz]

The Sandisk is more expensive than the iPod.
From the Sandisk website -- 512MB: $149 1GB: $199.

More important for me, though, is the fact that with the iPod Shuffle I don't have to carry around yet another cable to sync the songs. I can plug the Shuffle directly into a USB port.

Low bass on purpose

[digitalgimpus]

Could it be it was done because Apple engineers are sick of hearing someone with rediculus bass driving down the road when they are trying to sleep?

Maybe they did it so they don't have to hear:

thud, thud thud..

every time someone with an iPod comes walking.

If I were a car manufacturer... that would be my motivation for better soundproofing. To stop people from being so annoying.

(it's always sounds like the same damn song too doesn't it?)

Re:Low bass on purpose

[Niles_Stonne]

Then they should have made the iDiet.

Re:mount as usb

[hunterx11]

Yes, it's called iTunes. Click the "Enable Disk Use" checkbox in the iPod preferences window.

iTunes Music Store and video

[hotspotbloc]

From Apple's "iTunes" trademark filing:

Telecommunication services, namely, electronic transmission of streamed and downloadable audio and video files via computer and other communications networks;

It's seems video has been part of the plan for awhile. I suspect the iPod photo, with a firmware change, could play videos. Maybe a composite/s-video connecter could be added to the data port [on the bottom]. Apple many times has had some cool stuff in their labs for years before being released. Is any really surprised at the idea of an iPod playing videos? I just hope they make current tv programs available. Imagine renting an episode of "South Park" for 30 days at a cost of $.99USD. Of course the issue of size is still a problem. ~150M for a 22 tv show and ~900M for a full movie?

Personally I stick to buying dvds and DivXing them but it's not the first choice for most people.

FYI, the trademark serial number is 78314810.

Re:iTunes Music Store and video

[adpowers]

Well, it has had music videos for quite a while.

Also, H.264 should be able to give us much reduced file sizes... or much increased quality.

Andrew

Re:iTunes Music Store and video

[Ohreally_factor]

They put streams of music videos on iTMS to promote various bands. There's probably a way of capturing the stream, but I haven't bothered. It could be they're referring to THAT video.

"Sync with iTunes" is all the functionality I need

[mrchaotica]

See, that's the thing -- I want a Shuffle because for me, it actually has more useful functionality than any other player. Here are my priorities in choosing a music player, in order of importance:

1. Syncs with iTunes
2. Cost
3. Battery life
4. Ogg (Vorbis and FLAC) support)
5. Usability (easy access to "shuffle play" function)
6. Expandable storage (SD or CF)
7. Does NOT support Windows Media
8. Extra features like voice recording, radio, etc.
9. Low size/weight

As you can see, only iPods satisfy priority 1, and the Shuffle satisfies priorities 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 better than just about anything else as well. The only other player that comes close to competing, for me, is the Frontier Labs NexIA -- it uses CF cards and has zero internal storage, so it satisfies priorities ~2, 3, ~5, 6, 7(?), 8, and ~9 (the ~ means that it's okay, but not as good as the Shuffle). It's not quite good enough, though, since it doesn't sync with iTunes.

Now, if the NexIA supported Ogg that would be enough to beat the Shuffle, but I've emailed the company about it and the strongest answer I've managed to get is "maybe eventually." Contrast this with the strong possibility that Tiger's iTunes will support it (which means the iPod should as well), and there's no longer any doubt -- the Shuffle is the clear winner.

It's kind of sad, really, because I'd like to have removable storage, but being able to use the thing is more important.

You've got to be kidding

[dswensen]

The review should have been, not on the way they would prefer to use the device, but how well the device works within the parameters it was designed for.

Then assume the criticism is that of the marketability of said feature or lack of feature. If a consumer finds they really want a feature that isn't there, it doesn't matter how well a device does everything else -- the consumer is going to go to another product.

I took one look at the iPod Shuffle and decided it was not for me based on this criteria alone. But it doesn't mean that I wouldn't like a low-end, affordable iPod that has more features than the Shuffle at a better price point.

Because a device is marketed a particular way doesn't suddenly render it devoid of shortcomings.

My mini sounds pretty great

[sjonke]

Since when is PCMag an audiophile magazine? I'm no audiophile either, but the last thing I would have thought about my mini is that it had poor bass response. If anything, when listening with my headphones (admittedly inexpensive, but well rated Koss phones) there might be a bit too much bass, but I blame that on the headphones, not the mini.

In any case, mostly I listen, not via headphones, but via line-out hooked up to the car stereo. My car stereo isn't great and the car listening environment is inherently sucky, but it doesn't suck with the iPod any more than with CD. And that's my glowing review of the iPod mini.

Base fade = low capacitance

[DigiShaman]

Try turning up the volume on the iPod and adjust your amp accordingly. Now you should be getting "base fade". It sounds like the iPod just doesn't have enough capacitor to sustain continous base. But, if the volume on the ipod is set to it's minimum (low enough not to drop out of it's rated SNR) then "base fade" should not be an issue.

DAC me

[Doc Ruby]

How about just a USB or FireWire DAC that I can hook up from my Linux box to my stereo pre/amp? I don't want the AC/power noise from a PCI card, and I don't want recording. I just want to play my tunes to my stereo, with the best HiFi sound. For under $200. Well?

Re:DAC me

[zalas]

I believe that's called an external sound card, like one of these: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/SonicaTheate r-main-1.html

Re:DAC me

[Doc Ruby]

That's exciting, because, as "part of Avid", their devices are probably quite HiFi. But only the "OmniStudio USB" even responds in a Linux driver search, with "not supported on that OS". Same with the "FireWire 410". None of the rest even suggest a Linux version applies, even in Beta.

Re:DAC me

[greed]

You might be surprised at how many USB Audio devices work with Linux. Most of them don't require special drivers, they just register as USB Audio class devices, and then you're ready to go.

Look for something that works with Mac OS X. Very few vendors provide drivers for Mac OS X, they rely on the operating system's generic class drivers. I'd suggest that for people using Windows too; if it only works on Windows, you're likely to be at the mercy of a firm that cannot make decent drivers. If it uses the generic class driver from Windows (or Linux or BSD or Mac or PS2 or ...), then there's much less worry about the device failing after your next service pack. And you don't have to worry about Microtech (not the scanner company) making drivers that only work with a particular patch of a particular system revision.

I've used the Griffin iMic quite a lot with Linux. I think I've also hooked up my Edirol UA-3, but it spends most of its time as the patch between the iBook and the hifi.

Re:DAC me

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks - good advice. How do you like the quality of the Griffin gear? It looks pretty nice, and cheap.

It does that by default, dipshit

[Anonymous Coward]

TSIA

Re:It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuff

[John Harrison]

You can save some bucks and get the same sort of thing for cheaper elsewhere. I've had one of these for over a year and it works well. It doesn't play the AAC files though.

Re:your iPod is screwed

[l4mbch0ps]

You're assuming he's used the ipod firmware update, of course! :P

Re:It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuff

[bob beta]

Yep. Problem is, that's where you now work...

Too much storage

[dantheman82]

I'm not sure what you think, but having an iPod that holds 10,000 songs to get you from Tokyo to San Francisco 6 times without repeating (or something like that) is way too many. Either you own 666 CDs (at 15 songs/CD) or you paid $10,000 at iTunes. Seriously, if you have that much music, paying $1000 for something more hi-quality than the 40 GB iPod would be totally appropriate I would think.

The only iPod that has really caught my interest has been the cheapest iShuffle, because I often end up simply using the shuffle feature of my MP3 player, and I don't often have over 20 songs necessary in the queue at a time.

Re:Too much storage

[servoled]

My CD collection clocks in at about 300 discs which translates into about 20.5GB (encoded with Lame -aps) not including another 50 or so classical discs and another 20 discs which are beyond repair.

As it is now, I have to play around with a few smart playlists to sync to an ipod. I would absolutely love to have a good deal more storage (and flac support) to be able to use my lossless versions instead of lossy mp3s.

That said, the shuffle is somewhat intriguing, but I think it would drive me crazy trying to figure out what song is playing. As far as a hi-quality ~$1k option, I honestly don't know of one, but if one did exist it might be worth looking into. Although, it would probably be easier to buy a portable headphone amp and some decent cans.

Re:Too much storage

[nblender]

Maybe I like to store other data on there when I travel. Like encrypted backups of the personal data on my laptop... Travelling puts my laptop "in harms way". I don't want it to be stolen, but if it does, at least my data will come with me. Between trips, my iPod lives in my vehicle for months at a time and I never get repeat music. In fact, "shuffle" is a good way to re-discover some of the music I forgot I liked.

Everyone has different priorities and usage patterns. I bought what I think is right for me. If I were more active, by walking or riding to work, I'd probably own a Shuffle or an iPod Mini.

Mini + iTunes = Apple's HD TiVo

[mveloso]

One thing Cringely forgot is that people love to download past episodes of TV shows and watch them again. I do that all the time with BitTorrent.

I'm sure there'd be a subset of people willing to buy the current season of 24, Lost, Housewives, or American Idol and play it on their TV anytime - and burn it to disc.

HD Movies? Who cares. Today's TV shows? Sure! At a dollar an episode, why the heck not? It comes out to be cheaper than the DVD. Fans'll buy the DVD anyway, because of the extras.

Who knows whether this'll happen or not. But the box is just sitting there, waiting to be plugged into your TV.

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Disagreement:

• Lithium batteries aren't the only way to go. They have better capacity per mass, but NiMH batteries have better capacity per volume (also better than alkaline per mass and volume, also have lower internal resistance which is good for high drain devices). IMO, anyone who uses disposables in music players is insane. NiMH batteries in my MP3 CD player get about 150 hours (I listen to it a lot, so self-discharge isn't that big of a problem). Lithium batteries don't exclusively own the high-capacity space.
• AAC is almost completely irrelevant except in relation to the iTMS and Apple users. Thus, someone who uses Windows and does not use iTMS does not care about AAC.

Agreement:

• Simplicity. In a player that small, features used once in a blue moon do nothing but add cost and complexity. I'd rather have a flash player with worthwhile capacity.
• The SanDisk player doesn't have USB2? I'm surprised.
• People listen to MP3s because they don't like radio. Thanks ClearChannel!

Note that I did order a mini because my MP3 CD player is dying, and it has the addon for AAA batteries. They say 20 hours with that thing, but with NiMH batteries it'll probably be closer to 40-50. That'll be particularly good when the internal battery starts to go.

I also like the simplicity. I don't care about AAC support and won't until iTMS Canada gets things like multiple-platinum albums from 2004, but the MP3 support is just fine so it doesn't matter.

Re:meh

[Herr_Nightingale]

Battery:
I mainly like the convenience of never taking the batt. out of an iShuffle, plus using any computer to recharge it. That's sweet any way u look @ it, even if the batt. life is only enough for one 8-hour shift + the commute back and forth. Plenty. I've swapped NiMH back + forth to the charger , now I'm ready for lithium.

AAC:
After blind tests on the current crop o' codecs I've concluded that WMA is shite while AAC is decent enough that I'll transcode my lossless files with iTunes (hey, it's free too) for portable listening. With WMA that option was never available because of the tinny distortion artifacts; MP3 is adequate for audiobooks and some music at high bitrates but I can save space with AAC while keeping the sound quality.
For you, AAC might not be the saving grace that it is for me. Whatever floats your boat.

iTMS Canada:
iTMS Canada can go suck eggs, I'll never pay for lossy crap when I can have the real deal for less.

FYI it's legal to download in Canada, and you've already paid CRIAA fees via the CPCC levy if you bought an iPod. Go crank up that newsreader and head over to alt.binaries.sounds.lossless to get your money's worth.

Re:It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuff

[CoolMoDee]

Do it. I got my 512 meg iPod Shuffle in the mail last tuesday...I don't know how I lived without one before hand. It is just so small and so light..they rule..and for the "where will it end?"..it won't. Once you have a taste of good hardware/software intigration..you can't go back.

Re:It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuff

[rnd()]

It was the first that I bought since my TERRIBLE experience with a Powerbook 5300 back in college. I vowed I'd never buy another piece of Apple hardware, but I couldn't resist. It's fantastic.

Non-flat flat freq response?

[skoda]

and although the bigger players have flat frequency response, they have trouble sustaining big bass notes.

How can you have flat frequency response and also have bass roll-off? That would be non-flat response in the lower frequencies. What am I missing?

Re:Non-flat flat freq response?

[lxs]

It's not a bass rolloff in the classical sense, it's a powersupply issue. At low volume, or when connected to a high impedance input, like the line-in of a soundcard or amplifier, there probably is a flat response, but at higher volumes when powering the earphones, the bass notes (which tend to have the highest amplitude) make the amp that drives the earphones pull too much current from the puny battery, which leads to distortion.

This is an important technical difference, which in practice means that you don't have a tinny sound (which poor bass rolloff would produce) but it's more that your bass sounds like shit. (it's a kind of buzzing sound accompanying every heavy bassnote)

Re:being synchronous...

[my_breath_smells]

I was using it in a 130 mA to 1 A situation, but for low current situations (100 uA to ~30 mA) the burst mode operation can still provide 70 to 80% efficiency.

I'll have to look closer at the TEA1211 in the future. I wasn't overly concerned with the LTC3441's low current performance, mostly I had to try and work around its high current limitations.

Re:Overrated

[rjung2k]

When he's sitting at the computer, I imagine the USB port is easier to reach than the wall plug is.

5th gen: ???

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

5th gen: No screen, no buttons, no USB. Just one pre-loaded song, that same Black Eyed Peas shit from the commercials, playing over and over again. $19.95

Brilliant!

[SuperKendall]

I shall dub it the "peaPod".

Re:Brilliant!

[torpor]

no, its 'iBlackPeas', obviousl ...

Re:"Sync with iTunes" is all the functionality I n

[mrchaotica]

Alas, I'd rather have one reader and CF cards, but apparently I'm weird...

Actually, I think I'd put everything on the Shuffle -- 1gig should be plenty for my music and what little data I might want to carry.

Could be not as many CD's but lossless.

[SuperKendall]

I just have an old 5GB iPod at the moment (1st gen).

But if it ever broke, I would get a 60-80GB unit and re-code all my CD's as AAC lossless. So, there could be a good reason to have all that space, so you can have better quality audio...

Power management

[line.at.infinity]

One thing I liked about the iPod mini over my Rio Volt MP3 CD player is - besides the fact that it fits in a pocket - power management. Amazingly, the Volt would crash if you plugged in the DC power cord, so you'd have to restart the player. When I plug in the DC power cord into my iPod, on the other hand, the power indicator icon changes, and that's all -- the audio still plays smoothly, no crashing involved. The iPod just works.

Inner-ear headphones are the way to go...

[TheLittleJetson]

A friend of mine had a pair of these and I tried them out... They're a little awkward at first cuz they go pretty deep in your ear, however its like having a "line-in" jack on the back of your head. The frequency response is amazing and they block out most of the sound around you (anything that you can't hear with your ears plugged).

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[DaveCBio]

Do you have a URL or some other proof of this? Jitter is important, but it doesn't speak to overall frequency response.

Re:Wrong, sparky

[Kiryat Malachi]

Easy in the circuits, hard in the transducers.

HF is vice versa.

Re:Overrated

[DiscoOnTheSide]

it DOES have a wall plug. A small (by my estimate: 1.5 inch x 1.5 inch) square that plugs into the wall (and resembles their laptop power bricks, even has the removable wall plug for extension/international plugs) and has a USB port on the other side (just like the one I got with my 15GB iPod, just that one has a firewire port.).

It's there, open a box and look at it before you bitch.

hm

[EMH_Mark3]

What I want to know is if the iPod shuffle works as a USB mass storage device *without installing drivers*. It kind of annoys me that I can't use my iPod as a portable USB HD unless I also carry around a driver CD...

Re:hm

[sxtxixtxcxh]

just copy the drivers to your ipod. :P

Re:hm

[EMH_Mark3]

I do hope you were joking...

In-edible

[james_bray]

A footnote from the Apple shuffle page:

2. Do not chew iPod shuffle. :-)

So you might say the Shuffle is...

[Arru]

Not only is it diminuitive, great value (probably because of the lack of screen, but the 1GB Shuffle is £10 cheaper than a 512MB Sony, and £30 cheaper than a 1GB Creative in the UK). but it is actually pretty damn good

...an iPod killer killer. The iPod bodyguard!

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[NeedleSurfer]

You don't test frequency response by simply generating a 10K tone, you need a full spectrum analisys, stop posting as something you arent to give you credit.

In what world would a single frequency judge the entire frequency range response! Common, at least try to steal decent info from google before comming to say crap.

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[moonbender]

Huh? He said: "Jitter is what that 10K tone test measures." Seems pretty clear he wasn't referring to the frequency response.

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[NeedleSurfer]

I was talking about frequency response not jitter, hence I havent noticed the reference, whats the point in bringing jitter in a conversation about frequency response? Anyways, my bad...

Re:It kinda cements my desire to get an iPod Shuff

[lsmeg]

Once you have a taste of good hardware/software intigration..you can't go back.

Didn't you read Apple's site on the iPod? It said specifically, "Do not eat iPod Shuffle."

How about using your 'digital' ports?

[MarcQuadra]

Er, every reasonable motherboard and sound card sold in the last three years has 'digital' and/or 'optical' output ports, these ports spit binary to amps or speakers with corresponding inputs. There's no interference.

I've got an old Soundblaster Live 5.1 card (about $10 on eBay) and a Cambridge Soundworks sub and speakers ($80) and I get ZERO interference.

Your wish was granted a long time ago.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[Doc Ruby]

Except my current equipment takes only RCA jack line level stereo inputs, or 5.1 surround on miniplugs - all electric. I'd love to know about a $10 SB5.1 PCI card in a $20 USB package. Or better, a $80 card that sounds amazing, packaged as a $90 USB part. Just so long as it's got Linux drivers.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[MarcQuadra]

The problem you'll get there is that the power from your USB port might be polluted by the internals of your machine as well, making the output 'buzzy'. No doubt that a breakout box would HELP, but if you want professional sound, replace your amp with one that accepts digital inputs, isolate and clean all your power, or get a digital-to-analog converter and put it on the same circuit as your audio equipment.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[Doc Ruby]

I think so, too - though some USB hubs have optoelectronic isolation, and are still really cheap. Which is the key: that's why I asked for a $100-200 box for this. Because I want to put one in every room/hallway in my house, on a $100 old (fanless) notebook, and a $75 old amp - which can still add up, but which can otherwise sound really good, except for the buzzing.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[MarcQuadra]

Interesting, though I diodn't think there were many USB-equipped fanless notebooks, I thought USB got first use at about the time the PII mobile came about, and they mostly needed fans, IIRC.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[Doc Ruby]

You're right - this is harder than it looks. Those $400 PocketPCs with stereo out are looking better all the time. Maybe someday those Transmeta notebooks will sell used for $300.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[MarcQuadra]

Yeah, I think I'll just wire the house and do this 'old school', but with a modern flare. remote-control switchbox switching the digital signal on and off to multiple speaker sets throughout the apartment.

Re:How about using your 'digital' ports?

[Doc Ruby]

The argument for wiring the house with FireWire cables looks stronger. FireWire powered speakers are getting cheap and good enough, and multiFW port cards cheap enough, that putting a Linux PC, with its fan, in a closet, then sending audio that way, might be the most economical and HiFi. And ethernet over FW is wicked fast, when it works. Apple, as usual, is right on the money, when you want the best buy for a relatively high quality level and relative simplicity.

Connector?

[meehawl]

I mostly use my 4G iPod connected to a Soundcraft mixing desk

And what's your connector between the iPod and the deck?

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[Hal-9001]

I think the point is that frequency response is not the only metric for audio fidelity. Someone mentioned linearity, distortion, and jitter as being other important metrics, which then makes jitter measurements relevant.

shuffle better bass explained?

[Anonymous Coward]

iPod 3G has a 220uF capacitor at the headphone output stage

The later Wolfson WM8750 (PortalPlayer iPods use WM8731 and WM8721) offers "No DC blocking capacitors required (capless mode)"

SigmaTel's D-Majors have a <0.05% THD headphone driver, including anti-pop and short-circuit protection

Why would it need short-circuit protection? Hmmm....

Re:PC Competition for the Mac mini?

[LookSharp]

Nice disection; I just wanted to point out that the Mac mini has a full Radeon 9200, not a mobility. And I agree, UniChrome is horrifyingly bad for anything except a very basic 2D display.

Re:Overrated

[mapmaker]

it DOES have a wall plug.

If by "does have" you mean, "is availabale as an accessory for an additional charge", you are correct. But that's not what most people mean by "does have".

Re:It's not true, u dont need a test, its just not

[tgibbs]

You don't test frequency response by simply generating a 10K tone, you need a full spectrum analisys, stop posting as something you arent to give you credit. In what world would a single frequency judge the entire frequency range response! Common, at least try to steal decent info from google before comming to say crap.

He didn't say that it was frequency response. There is more to audio quality than frequency response. The test he described is measure of distortion, which is arguably more important than flat frequency response. Uneven frequency response can be corrected (within limits) by equalization, but that doesn't help distortion.

Re:You are a marketer's dream

[Scudsucker]

1) The new Ipod's aren't all the tiny. A lot of USB players are a lot smaller

Okay, which ones are smaller, cheaper, have screens, and are cheaper? Not to mention having the same capacity? In the post-expo story, some dude posted a link to a player that he said was smaller, cheaper etc...except it was actually about twice as big and more expensive.

Re:PC Competition for the Mac mini?

[puetzk]

Horrifyingly bad is a bit of an overstatement. I built more or less the machine I described (in a scythe e-Otonashi case) for my mother. I left the case off the breakdown, since the case I used for hers wouldn't qualify for the mac mini's size - it's 280x190x90mm.

It can run neverball fine, and even quake3 if I want to really badly (in linux even). But it's not up to radeon 9200 specs by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:PC Competition for the Mac mini?

[LookSharp]

It can run neverball fine, and even quake3

When you are evaluating PC gaming performance, it's not customary to gauge new chipsets (within last 18 months) by games that are 6 years old (Quake 3). That is why I said horrifyingly bad.

I spend 90% of my gaming time playing Quake 3 (3wave Capturestrike), but I also like to pop in some Doom 3 and UT2004. Unichrome ain't going there! :)

Re:Fashion victims

[michaelyery]

it is sort of like an anal bum cover, only more obscene.