Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
"Eek! How gross! I'm not disecting that iPod!"
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.
Troll? It's hilarious, it's a paraphrase of our illustrious Taco's first comment on the iPod...
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.
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.
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.
Please help metamoderate.
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?!
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.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
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.
"Loud enough to cause hearing damange" is a *feature*.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
"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)
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.
"Clean up the air and treat the animals fair" - Captain Beefheart
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.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
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.
From the review of the shuffle:
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.
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
...and that's all there is to it.
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.
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.
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.