Slashdot Mirror
Sound Quality of the Fifth Generation iPods?
ntropi asks: "As the drive on my old MP3 player (an iRiver H320) grinds toward its last days, I've found myself in search of a new one. Given the options the new iPod seems the best choice, but I'm hesitating somewhat over the murmurings as to the iPod's supposedly poor sound quality. However, while Marc Heijligers has provided a comprehensive breakdown of iPod performance for up to the fourth generation, I have been hard-pressed to find any information on the 5G's performance. With the exception of this CNET review, which reports that 'Audio quality is quite good and probably better than the previous iPod's, with reasonable bass, distinguishable mids, and shiny highs, plus the audio-output power is quite good.', there seems not to have been any detailed analysis of the iPod's output quality. Thus, it seemed a good idea to appeal to the Slashdot hive-mind for its personal experiences with the 5G's playback, or even analyses that people might have done which were simply never put online."
My new one sounds a teeny bit cleaner than my old 3G 40GB.
The issue with the bass rolloff with low impedence phones [IE in ear monitor style] is still there, but not as severe. all that requires is the use of the EQ + mp3/aac gain anyway.
overall i like the way it sounds. i know that probably doesn't help much.
i saw the baby, and the baby looked at me
Seriously, are you going to be attaching one to a $10,000 hifi system?
Okay, I know that's a bit much, but it's probably good enough for most people who have a portable player. I expect it beats out anything that you could buy in the 90s. Maybe with high-end headphones there'd be a quality difference, and even then it could be subjective.
Suggestion: Take your headphones down to the electronics store and ask to listen to a comparison. If it is an option, it'd beat out any amount of third party reviews, and comments here intended to misguide you deliberately!
Disclaimer: I own a nano, it's scratched a lot, but I think the sound quality is pretty decent, even when played through my (admittedly not $10,000) hifi separates system. I can't vouch for it comparitively though.
Not all of us live near an Apple store, or any store selling ipods. If I were to want a new ipod, I would have to mail order it, or drive several hundred miles, neither of which I'd want to do without knowing how the sound quality is.
In all likelihood, the quality coming out of the unit itself is not the weakest link. Poor headphones, poor encoding, bad ears, bad listening environment, etc. will all be a factor. Like someone above said, listen to it, if you like it who cares what reviewers say?
I like good speakers for my home theater. But a friend of mine likes his $250 all-in-one setup. It's not that either one of us is wrong, but he gets the quality he wants, and doesn't spend nearly as much as I do.
-dave
/., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
Only vinyl provides the warmth and depth that the artists really intended --- But Steve Jobs refuses to support vinyl because it won't accomodate DRM.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I'd first worry about how long the ipod will last. Everyone I know who has an ipod for any length of time (>6 months) has them start breaking down, either a battery issue, or a control wheel issue. One of them has a theory as to why the ipod is so popular: people get their first ipod, love it, while it works, and they then recommend them to all their friends. Their friends get them, and love them, etc. Then the original guy's ipod starts flaking out. By this time, Apple has come out with a new generation of ipods, so the guy decides to upgrade to the new generation, thus starting the cycle all over again.
Anecdotal, yes, but it seems to be pretty universal among the people I know with ipods. *shrug*
iPod's audio quality isn't the best. Its not overly powerful, its quiet on most good quality headphones. I here some faint digital "chatter" in the background, such as noise caused by the hard drive (or so I thought). I still hear this chatter on my Shuffle without any moving parts, so this leads me to believe that its a hardware issue. However, I don't here this chatter on a good quality pair of headphones like Sony DJ's or Sennheiser's, only on the really crappy Apple headphones which are way too tinny for my tastes. Not enough bass comes out of Apple's headphones. I generally have not heard any static or background noise as I have heard from cheaper digital music players.
When you hook the iPod to any good receiver or external speakers, the audio quailty is about as good as any digital media player. A system with good bass and good processing handles the relatively weak output of the iPod well for good overall sound.
The end result is, NO digital media player is for audiophiles, but the iPod is about as good as any. You will get lots of bias feedback saying Apple is the best, or the worst, but its about middle of the road, the digital chatter I hear is annoying only if you like your treble levels high, which most people don't.
In the end, compared to Creative or another comparible price/featured product, I doubt your going to find any of them setting themselves appart greatly in terms of audio quality. Only that the Creative actually uses a real equalizer feature to help fine tune things unlike the cheesy presets Apple uses. In my experience, using ANY iPod preset results in lousy audio quality as their digital audio processing isn't that great and make the music sound overly processed.
Would I not recommend the iPod based on audio quality alone, no. There are a lot more features and benefits using an iPod then a few audio quirks which are mostly overcome using better speakers/headphones. Just that I get sick and tired when people seem to feel that one digital audio player is better sounding the the next, except for really cheap ones, most in the $300 range are comparable, just depends how much bias is behind the person recommending them.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
For crying out loud. Ipods sound great, as good as any portible audio device I've owned. I listen with good headphones too. Much better the the "walkman" casette players I've owned.
If your an "audiofile" then listen to lossless or a cd or even better "VYNL RECORDS".
The whole point of portable MP3 is to carry as many songs in as small a space. If people wanted perfect CD quality in a portable package they'd buy mini-disc. But they didn't. However people want good->excellent quality and small files.
I just replaced the battery in my 1st generation iPod and it works better than ever (longer battery life than original). How hard was it to do? I bought a replacement battery for $20, which came with the necessary plastic tool to open the iPod. 10 minutes is all it took to replace the battery without marring the case in any way. It was about as hard as putting a SIM card into a cellphone. If I had to replace the $20 battery every three years I don't see a reason to complain. The battery in my cordless phone costs just as much and has to be replaced more often. iPods are very durable portable devices.
The people here will be able to help, its a great place to find out about portable audio/headphones: http://www5.head-fi.org/forums/
I was under the impression the H320 used a standard laptop HD. The latest models even sport 7200rpm and 16mb buffers that might breath some new life into it... unless you're looking for an excuse to get something different. I'm not judging, but I just dropped a Hitachi 100GB 7200rpm w/8mb into my old Archos JBR, and haven't looked back. Not as sleek or shiny as a new Ipod, but with the Rockbox firmware does everything I need.
or without a headphone amp, odds are you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an ipod mini (supposedly the worst sounding ipod) and any of the other offerings, or any iriver/archos alternatives.
h eadphones/sennheiser-hd-555.phph eadphones/sennheiser-hd-595.phpa r-monitor/etymotic-er-6i.phpa r-monitor/etymotic-er-4p.php
iPods are mainly for portable music, most of the time music on the move doesn't need audiophile reproduction, and even the cheapest MP3 players offer very decent music quality.
If you are mulling over splashing out so you can get GREAT sound quality from an iPod, just concentrate on the parts that count, the headphones. A pair of sennheiser or etymotics will set you back just half the price of an iPod and will make a stunning difference to sound quality.
http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/all-
http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/all-
http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/in-e
http://www.headphone.com/products/headphones/in-e
Being that it's all mp3 technology, the difference should be negligible. And trust me...if the sound was THAT much different from one generation to another, we'd definitely hear about it. Apple can't even fart now without it being all over the Internet. A screen on the iPod scratches easily? Class action suits abound! If the sound had deteriorated, there would be hell to pay. Thus...go buy it and enjoy your new iPod.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Proof? Hook up your iPod to a real sound system and blast it through a concert hall. YIKES!
You will truly not believe it. I cannot hear the difference between normal audio equipment but when it is amplified by the kind of equipment that can blow fuses you really do hear that is not a complete sound.
So what does it sound like really? Well it sounds exactly like those really really cheap radios you used to get free with things amplified in a drum.
So asking wether an iPod sounds good is a stupid question. All DAP players suck because the content they reproduce sucks. The hardware itself also doesn't have the quality needed either.
BUT DOES THIS MATTER. No.
It is not meant to be played to a thousand people, it is meant to power a couple of small earbud speakers and considering all the limitations involved both in the hardware and in you it is okay. Yeah sure some people will swear that they can hear the difference between Player X and Player Y well good luck to them. For the majority of people there is no difference and if you need to ask you are one of those people. Do not try to claim you are audiofreak by asking other people. Audiofreaks never listen to other people.
Note that the above is a bit extreme, you can do a successfull presentation from a laptop with powerpoint and mp3 audio but you are pushing it. Do not play music this way to an audio fanatics audience. Please note that their is also a hell of difference between the sound needed for a presentation and that for the party afterwards. If you think of holding one afterwards check with the sound engineer before and ask if the setup is small enough to be played from your sound source. They don't mind if you ask not simply tell them to do it and then complain it sounds bad. They are used to people thinking consumer hardware is good enough. Personally I had to explain more then once that a companies own top of the line projector was just not going to cut it for a conference hall. Their can be carried in a suitcase. Ours sits in a large trunk and can only be lifted with hydraulics.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Despite to the raves I read here on slashdot, the ipod was a HUGE disappointment for me - I guess I'm not the target audience. I'm more concerned about sound quality and features than the fancy click-wheel. Give me something that I can figure out easily (the W800 works while the phone is switched off, providing 30h long playback. The ipod mini's battery life sucked big time as well), is small, has at least 2Gb space, and doesn't need a separate program just to copy files to it. W800 provides me with that - and much much more (actually, the camera is pretty good as well). Yeah, I'm absolutely anti-ipod. So my advice is: don't buy an ipod. Buy something much much better for the same money. If you don't need a new phone, buy a player that supports ogg and flac (not just crappy mp3s - without gapless playback support! and AACs). The ipod is overrated.
I've found the fifth generation iPod to be a very solid product. Needing to use iTunes to add music is a weakness, but even on Windows it's a good program, so it's not a big weakness. Battery life could be better but I've never had it run out on me on the road; just be close to a charger if you're planning on watching more than a few hours of video. I used to take it to school and watch Doctor Who between classes, then charge it over USB during classes with computers handy. I could get through several episodes before it died. The meter runs down faster than the battery, but resets itself to accuracy when I power cycle or change through the menus.
As far as sound quality goes, I've got no complaints. It sounds great with my headphones (I like the Rio Carbon's, and TDK makes a great set with an in-line volume controller), great over an FM transmitter or through the tape adapter in my car, and great on my home system, even pumped up. I wouldn't DJ at a big club with it, but mostly because you can't scratch. If they let you scratch the audio with that nice wheel, I'd be in heaven.
Ah, you're an "audiophile". For the best sound-quality, I recommend that you get the new deoxidized monster ultraTHX speakerphone cable. It will really increase the "warmth" of the music. We also have in stock a specially shielded cable you can run between the battery and the unit, to remove interference from the battery. And we also have these practical spikes to mount your ipod on, that will reduce vibration from the ground... Moreover, if you open your ipod, and use a green felt pen around the case of the harddisk, it will improve the sound-quality a lot!
Personally, I think the sound quality of most portable audio players are more than adequate for a portable audio player. What I really want is a portable disk-based audio-player that has a completely normal USB harddisk interface to the computer, and that supports ogg vorbis, musepack, flac, and other common formats. But I guess there's no market for that, people really want to limit their choices to the iTunes I guess, and never have a need for portable harddisks in the same unit...
The review is at http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/93 4/index.html.
"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players--ironic, considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source.--John Atkinson"
You can claim what you want about the quality of ATRAC, but it is not lossless compression.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I guess I am a graybeard now, I remember recording an FM signal off the radio, onto a casette tape (magnetized particles, young'ins! and we liked it!)... trying to get a clean 'rip' without the DJ trampling the beginning or end (impossible)... futzing with levels to hit that magical peak 0dB (but not too much over!)... applying Dolby B 'noise reduction'.... all of this took, usually, an entire afternoon to assemble one good tape. Which your buddy's car deck would then eat the next day.
Not that I miss any of that really, but now its 'Transcode the file from AAC to MP3?!? My ears would BLEED, such a thing is beyond the pale! Were you raised in a cave?'
Of course, a lot of it is bullshit. There are true audiophiles and then there are those who just want to know that they have The Best. These are the people who have $10k stereos that don't notice when the entire left channel disappears at a club. I find its usually me and maybe one or two other people in the vicinity who looked shocked when that happens... the rest have no idea....
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Dont expect some $1000 Bose system in your ear and youll be just fine
I don't expect a $1000 Bose system, because I expect some semblance of quality.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
What's with everyone being so angry about this post? If you're not interested, then ignore it! Why the rage?
I found that my iPod would drive the 580s to reasonable listening levels without any real problem. If you NEEDED an amp, it's virtually certain that you're listening to the music too loud, and damaging your hearing.
That said, an amp is a very good idea on 580s. They're wonderful headphones, but they're high-impedance... 300 ohms. The iPod, like most devices, is designed to drive about 30. You can still get pretty good volume out of it, and it still sounds pretty good, but the clarity and bass will perk right up when you add an amp to that combo. (at least if you have good quality sources... 128k mp3 won't improve much.)
You'll get better sound, by the way, if you use the line out on the dock to drive your amp, rather than the headphone jack.
What provides a more accurate idea of the sound experience under normal use for most people? Is it:
A)a sound-isolated listening booth
or
B)a busy Apple store
How it sounds and how it sounds when I'm using it can be two different things, and personally I'd be more interested in the latter. Going and listening to it is better advice then taking some random slashdotters word for it.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
The people at Computer Shopper obviously know nothing about audio if you they are complaining about distortion after increasing the bass while listening to bass heavy music. Thats what is supposed to happen. If you get distortion when the EQ is turned off, chances are the source material is distorted.
I haven't compared the 5g ipod to any other portable devices except $70 a cd/mp3 player from Sony, and I'd say the audio quality is much greater than that device. The ipod sounds better than a lot of entry level component home audio equipment, though it's still not top of the line. The fact that the output comes from a headphone jack as opposed to 2 analog cables or 1/4" plugs means you will get line noise, and all the electronics that close together is begging for interference, though I haven't noticed anything in the two weeks i've owned it.
My higher bitrate (192+) mp3s sound just fine coming out of my home system which includes a sub woofer and 2 large bookshelf speakers (ie not some typical computer speaker setup).
I was even surprised with the the ear buds; everyone makes fun of them but they are definitely the highest quality ear buds i've ever owned. They don't match speakers that cover your ears but they are completely acceptable for everything I've played so far. My preferred genre is drum and bass and the bass is well reproduced on the little buds. I was expecting for the bass to roll off around 100Hz or higher but it kicks all the way down to the sub bass frequencies.
Bottom line is the audio is fine. It's certainly better than most portable music devices of the past, and unless you have a card better than a soundblaster it probably even sounds better than mp3s out of your computer.
"...TWO channels are encoded into ONE analog track."
... or you could just encode everything digitally at 24/96, and exceed both the resolution of the source material and of the human hearing system by so much that anyone who was still unsatisfied could be quite definitively considered to be a lunatic.
Well, that's an oversimplification. Two separate audio tracks are recorded, with their waveforms impressed into the walls of a two-sided groove - like a valley. If the walls of this groove are at 45 degrees from the vertical, then they are at 90 degrees from each other and thus are orthogonal. If the stylus which tracks in the groove has two axes of sensitivity, also at 90 degrees from each other, then in theory any variation normal to one wall of the groove will result in no perturbation of the sensor for the other wall. The reality is much more complicated, of course. Any error in orthogonality at any point will result in crosstalk, effectively a reduction of stereo separation. Crosstalk in the magnetics of the cartridge, resonances or unsufficient rigidity in the stylus, etc., etc. - you could think up error sources for days, and still not get all of them that vinyl engineers worry about. Here is a fairly informative link, for those interested.
Possibly interesting aside: the entire point of the RIAA filter (well, half of the point) was to reduce the possibility that heavy bass encoded (monaurally) into both walls would cause the needle to literally pop out of the groove, and so the signal going down to vinyl has reduced bass content which is then corrected post-cartridge. High frequencies are boosted on the vinyl in an effort to improve S/N, lifting the smaller variations up above the noise floor caused by dust, scratches, and the granularity of the vinyl itself.
However, there is no analog encoding of two signals into one, at least not electrically. Two physical channels are maintained throughout, albeit poorly separated. There's simply no effective way to maintain proper separation for physical reasons.
The net effect is that stereo separation and frequency response linearity of vinyl are known weaknesses in the medium. One possible improvement for the separation issue might be to use a square channel like 78's used. You'd recode the L, R signals into L+R and L-R just like FM radio, and then record the L+R (mono) part as lateral displacement of the groove. You'd then embed the L-R (stereo separation) part of the signal as the vertical displacement of the bottom of the groove. This has the advantage of putting the part of the signal with the least bass (bass is typically more monaural, especially in vinyl, and the L-R signal will cancel a great deal of that) in the part of the physical medium where it's less likely to result in mistracking, and leave the mono part (which typically has much more bass) in the part of the medium where it can't cause mistracking. You'd probably lose some track time, though, as you'd have to space the tracks further apart for bass-heavy material. When recovering, you then recombine the L+R and L-R signals to get L and R, with the bonus of dramatically improved stereo separation and possibly the elimination of the RIAA filter altogether...
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!