Slashdot Mirror
3 High-End iPod Speaker Systems Reviewed
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has put together a round up of three high-end iPod speaker systems, including the new Apple iPod Hi-Fi. From the article: 'With the seemingly unending success of the iPod, accessories for the popular digital music player have become a more and more popular option for companies looking to hop on the bandwagon and make a quick buck. Companies that once had no business selling product accessories for consumer electronics are now jumping into the game because of the success of the iPod. With the growing number of stores carrying the personal audio device and a growing crop of users desiring to hear their music in more places, speaker systems have become an increasingly popular accessory.'"
Personally I'm happy using a $4 mini jack to composite audio adapter to connect my iPod to my stereo. Sure I might not be able to control the iPod via a stereo remote, but it sure beats dropping $250 (the speaker system in the article).
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
You are just plain wrong. Frequency response, distortion, noise, all important factors in determining "better" or "worse" sound systems. When you say they preform just as well, you actually mean you dont care enough to want a better system... but plenty of people DO care and CAN tell the difference.
When I read this earlier, as soon as I saw that he strongly preferred the look of one of the speakers, I immediately predicted that he would like its sound the best. And, of course, he did.
It's important to do blind testing in audio. People just don't hear as well as they think they do.
Also note that everyone appears to hear differently. Vision is highly specialized, and differentiation between people is fairly low. That's why it's easy to pick out 'best' monitors, for instance. But audio isn't like that; each brain appears to figure out hearing a little differently. The brain uses, relatively speaking, very few neurons on auditory signals, which leads to (relatively) wide variations.
All sound reproduction is an illusion, and all speakers make tradeoffs, especially in the low end. It's important to listen to speakers for yourself, in blind testing, to find a set that fits your particular hearing strategy well.
Because of this, speaker reviews are much less useful than other kinds. Being geeks, we're used to being able to categorize and rank things by technical merit. Speakers just don't work like that.
Unfortunately, there's also a vast number of people in the audio business selling snake oil to take advantage of the poor hearing of most humans. So you DO have to listen for yourself.... but with BLIND testing. That's the only way to find out if a given effect is real, or just psychological.
I'm partial to logitech models, especially the Z-680, but I'm sure ars could have found something to give us a better indicator of sound quality. Having no baseline to compare your systems to is not a very good benchmarking schema.
It would have been nice if they had included the Bose Soundock in the lineup, and possibly other iPod speaker systems, like the Klipsch iGroove. Its much more interesting to see side-by-side comparisons than read seperate reviews performed by different people.
But...did they review the iZilla?
. . . my High-End iPod Speaker System is a 20 something year old Pioneer SX 1050 in my living room, and an equally 20 something year old Pioneer SX 5580 (the Black version of the SX 1050) in my bedroom. Makes the cat spin in circles and the dog howl . . . do that with one of THOSE three . . .
"I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance."
Don't have the balls to log in, eh? I guess it was likely that you'd use an OS supported by Eunuchs.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I am disappointed that a Bose Sounddock was not included as one of the speakers compared. While I despise Bose products, they are a very popular seller to a large part of the iPod buying population.
Between crappy sound, non-portability, and lack of an auxiliary in, it is a terrible product. I would like to have an article I point people to and say "See, it is a crappy product and if you are so hyped up about buying a speaker system specifically for your iPod, there are better ones out there."
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
None of those speakers look high end to me. The apple one is CLOSE, but having all 3 speakers in the same enclosure will have some issues with stereo seperation. And don't get me going on the klipsh POS... while two tiny satellites and a sub you can hide away is nicer LOOKING (and is exactly what I have in my family room), never kid yourself that they sound anything but tinny and boomy.
Where's the comparison to a $150 stereo amplifier and a $250 pair of bookshelf speakers to see how much you lose by going "IPod enabled" ?
There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of using an iPod for any kind of 'true' high-end audio application, and that flaw is the iPod's output.
The iPod has a small power amplifier at its output, which is how it drives the headphones - and this is not a good thing if you are planning on connecting it to another preamp and power amp, or to an integrated amp / receiver. The power amp section is a major source of sonic artifact, and no matter how wonderful the backend electronics and speakers are, you are still listening to that cheap & cheery IC power amp in the Pod.
Recently, a friend brought over her iPod and we spent some time playing it through my stereo.. the kindest adjective I can muster is "lame". All kinds of different files, many different bitrates / qualities, and none of it listenable. After about half an hour, the fatigue was getting so bad that we switched back to vinyl, and went with it.
Apparently, they sound a lot better through the headphones..
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Thank you for tidying up my uninformed original post, wherein I had made a dumbass of myself.
While I appreciate the information on the iPod's docking port, I will still stubbornly refuse to listen to it, for several reasons which I shall make-up as required.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Nothing sourced from an iPod, mp3, aac, or ogg, is ever going to sound Hi-Fi. We must remember that these audio formats are highly compressed. The frequency range just isn't there. If you plug an iPod into a $10,000 audio system, it's still going to sound like an iPod. Personal audio players are for convenience and portability. They are great at that. They are not reference systems. Want background music at a party? Sure, plug in your iPod, it will be great. Want a real listening experience? Pick up a SACD or DVD-A. It just really seems that we're missing the point here.
MacOS X is not "supported by eunuchs." MacOS X '''is''' eunuchs!
(n/t)
If you have an iPod connected to the dock connector port and a different audio device connected to the audio input port you can select between the playback of these two devices by press and holding the Menu button on the remote.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 333#faq11
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
You've got it wrong. You have to substitute in the editor who posted the story. So instead it would be
...such as AIFF and Apple Lossless.
Also, these systems don't use the headphone jack to get the music. They use the dock connector, which allows for much higher quality.
For your average audio system I would agree that you won't hear much difference between the $10 cable and the $50 one; but once you've upgraded your sources and speakers, eventually your cables to factor in. Also, most Monster cables are crap that your average audiophile would never touch. But the audiophile community is very divided on the issue of cables. Most will agree that there is some noticeable difference between cables. If you do your homework you'll find that there's a wide range of technologies being employed. For example: Silver, Copper, Palladium, Carbon. Thin wire, thick wire. Ceramic connectors, plastic connectors, plated connectors, solid connectors, gold connectors, silver connectors, copper connectors. Teflon, cotton, foam, or air insulation. Also, Magnets, no shielding, heavy shielding, even cryogenic treatments. Yes, there's a lot of snake oil out there but you need to research and listen before drawing conclusions.
any system that retails for under $400 is not highend
He provided the necessary audio tests. iPod Hi-Fi had the flattest frequency response. End of story.
http://www.i-deck.com/reviews.asp http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/hipod/hipod.htm l