Smug audiophile superiority and the iPod gen

[jaxwired]

I love the hifi hobby and I read lots of hifi mags, blogs, and message boards. I often see comments about how the iPod genearation is missing out and it's such a shame they don't know what they are missing, etc...

Well, I happen to own an iPod nano. I mostly use it to listen to books and podcasts, but occassionally I listen to music with it. I have replaced the stock headphones with light weight sennheiser px-100s. My iPod music is all in 256 kbps compressed format. And guess what, it sounds pretty fabulous. I don't think we need to feel too sorry for the iPod gen...

 

[Anonymous]

Digital consumer equipment is far better than former generations' analog consumer equipment, and compressed audio formats are better than the mass produced LP's of the 70's and 80's.

The ones we ought to feel sorry for, is the Audiophile Generation, who cash out fortunes on equipment that gives marginal sound improvement at the best, and massive harmonic distortion and odd frequency response at average...

 

[Clare Newsome]

Would you like a broom for those sweeping generalisations?

I owned an MP3 player (the very first Creative Jukebox) before Apple made iPods, and have had iPods since 1st Gen. I've also been streaming music since 2004. Doesn't stop me from absolutely loving my vinyl, CDs (even tapes!) through a storming hi-fi system...

It's the music - and what you're in the mood for - that matters.

 

[vinod_david]

Oh! well said Ms C.

 

[jaxwired]

Clare, I think you were responding to Fahnsen, but just to clarify my point, I'm a huge believer in quality hifi. I'm just commenting on whether compressed files on iPod is rubbish as so many people like to state. It's not rubbish. It can sound excellent with a decent set of cans (at least 256kbs does).

 

[Anonymous]

No doubt that on the move Ipod nano with 250k or 330AAC compression is quite impressive if partnered with decent earbuds,

personally I opted for AAC330 after spending a couple of hours listening to the same songs and comparing them to Apple lossless format, I couldn't tell the difference between the 2 resolution at least my Old Sure in ears and my B&O buds did not reveal the difference between 330 and Lossless format(or non compressed formats), however that wasn't the case for the 250K compression where it was easy for me to notice the mediocre sound quality.

All depends on what type of music you listen to , I believe JAZZ and Classical are the most demanding , however at home I avoid using compressed music because if you own a decent system you will be able to hear the difference, that's why I digitized my Library in WAVE format , not to mention that I am a big fan of SACD format,

 

[Anonymous]

Clare Newsome:Would you like a broom for those sweeping generalisations?

Generalisations, no doubt. But with a sound basis.

Just try to play a standard LP on the kind of equipment an average teenager used 25 years ago, and compare to an ACC file from an iPod -- and you will see what I mean.

Even on my Rega a 1980's LP sounds pretty bad, compared to the same recording as ACC. There will be pops and other disturbing noise, and the piano will always be slightly out of tune.

The digital equipment is not affected by speed variations due to an uneven record surface or inaccurate centering, or other kinds of distortion due to unavoidable mechanical inaccuracy, or dust between record surface and stylus.

I would say that the elimination of mechanics as a crucial factor in music reproduction has made the gap between low and high end equipment significantly smaller, and it's made distortion free playback available for everyone.

 

[plastic penguin]

Clare Newsome:

Would you like a broom for those sweeping generalisations?

I owned an MP3 player (the very first Creative Jukebox) before Apple made iPods, and have had iPods since 1st Gen. I've also been streaming music since 2004. Doesn't stop me from absolutely loving my vinyl, CDs (even tapes!) through a storming hi-fi system...

It's the music - and what you're in the mood for - that matters.

Too true, Clare. Sorry for clicheing the subject, but there's room for every format - they all have merits.......

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps you have a right to be smug when you spend large amounts of money on hifi equipment. And yes the hifi upgrade bug sometimes only gives marginal improvement in overall terms. But really you have to be severely aurally challenged to believe an ipod gives a better sound than even a budget based system.

I am currently adding an ipod and dock to my system BUT only because (like so many others find) it is convenient. The difference in quality is vast.

Do a blind listening to various pieces of familiar music in compressed and uncompressed forms. If you can't easily tell the difference then an ipod clearly fits your needs. Just don't tell me I am wasting my money. My wife doesnt need that sort of corroboration!

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Clare,

For the last 6 months I've been trying to find my way in the equipements jungle, alas till now I haven't been able to make up my mind,

I am looking for a stereo amplifier and a set of good speakers my max budget is 2500£, honestly the more I read the more I get lost, and quick listening sessions didn't help much,

I love JAZZ music and do listen to some classical as well , could you please tell me your personal opinion or what do you believe is the best setup within this budget. the only thing I would like to avoid is bright sound , at some point I was considering the Monitor audio RX6 then someone advised me to consider B&W CM7 , than another friend started recommending brands from the US....

last but not least the last thing I care about is high volume I live in London and the walls are really thin and flats are relatively small.

I look forward to hearing from you

Thanks in advance

 

[manicm]

Look, I'm gonna repeat myself here - as far as iPods go sound quality is at the bottom of Steve Job's list - 'today's not your day and tomorrow does not look good either'.

However their first models did the business - I think they had top level DACs, later models had mediocre ones.

Let me elaborate - I'll list the iPods I've owned in chronological order:

iPod Mini 4GB - by far the best sounding iPod I've had - The Who's Tommy sounded astonishing in 128k AAC!

iPod Nano 'fatty' 8GB - with 256k sounded great - I enjoyed it immensely.

iPod 'classic' 120Gb - I've said enough on this one (I loathed it).

My current one - Touch 64GB - clear, transparent but with one huge flaw - its bass has a fatal lack of punch - and do not go anywhere near its equaliser - no matter which setting you choose it's rubbish.

Which leads me to what many think - and WHF seem to agree - the best sounding iPod is the Nano.

 

[Anonymous]

I absolutely adore my hi-fi...wouldn't want an Ipod even if you gave me one for free!!!

And yes, I'm smug!!!

 

[Anonymous]

I've owned many mp3 players........sony, creative, ipods..........and have always found ipod sound quality to be pretty poor. In fact I really can't understand why WHF rate them so highly.

The problem with ipods and the ipod generation (which I supose I am one of) is that it has now got to the point where cds are mastered specifically for them. Ipods are responsible for the steady reduction in cd quality over the last 10 years.

Apple could make them sound better but they are not interested. Lock-in is all it is about. Most ipod users I know don't even know what drm is let alone compression, dynamic range........

 

[idc]

There are always going to be smug or is that arrogant people. The ipod/mp3 generation are getting better music than the boombox/cassette generation than the transistor radio MW/LW geberation. Vinyl (if parents let you any where near the record player) has been the consistent quality alternative.

But the ipod generation (because the PC goes hand in hand with an ipod) has the opportunity to develop their exisiting format to lossless and beyond music files on PCs, which was not open to other formats.

For those reasons the smug audiophile has little reason to feel superior.

 

[manicm]

idc:

There are always going to be smug or is that arrogant people. The ipod/mp3 generation are getting better music than the boombox/cassette generation than the transistor radio MW/LW geberation. Vinyl (if parents let you any where near the record player) has been the consistent quality alternative.

But the ipod generation (because the PC goes hand in hand with an ipod) has the opportunity to develop their exisiting format to lossless and beyond music files on PCs, which was not open to other formats.

For those reasons the smug audiophile has little reason to feel superior.

I agree with you 100% here, if I couldn't afford a hifi a good iPod/MP3 player would be all that I'd ever need. Hifi snobs wouldn't know how good these devices can sound.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:
There are always going to be smug or is that arrogant people. The ipod/mp3 generation are getting better music than the boombox/cassette generation than the transistor radio MW/LW geberation. Vinyl (if parents let you any where near the record player) has been the consistent quality alternative.

But the ipod generation (because the PC goes hand in hand with an ipod) has the opportunity to develop their exisiting format to lossless and beyond music files on PCs, which was not open to other formats.

For those reasons the smug audiophile has little reason to feel superior.

Your little headphone set-up is suppossed to sound better than Wolf's hi-fi?

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:idc:

There are always going to be smug or is that arrogant people. The ipod/mp3 generation are getting better music than the boombox/cassette generation than the transistor radio MW/LW geberation. Vinyl (if parents let you any where near the record player) has been the consistent quality alternative.

But the ipod generation (because the PC goes hand in hand with an ipod) has the opportunity to develop their exisiting format to lossless and beyond music files on PCs, which was not open to other formats.

For those reasons the smug audiophile has little reason to feel superior.

I agree with you 100% here, if I couldn't afford a hifi a good iPod/MP3 player would be all that I'd ever need. Hifi snobs wouldn't know how good these devices can sound.

They don't want to know! LOL

Oh yeah, I own an iPod and an upmarket MP3 player and they are both rubbish.....gathering dust on a shelf somewhere.

 

[matthewpiano]

I have a Sony NWZ-A818 8GB Walkman that I bought about 2 years ago. With 320k files, or even 256k, through the EX series ear buds that came with it, it is highly enjoyable to listen to. It doesn't leave me worrying about whether its as good as CD or not.

When I was at school all my friends had cheap ghetto blasters and personal tape players, most of which sounded ropey as anything. There was the odd top-of-the-range Panasonic or Sony walkman flying around, but apart from these most of my contemporaries suffered far worse sound quality than can be achieved with an iPod or other good quality MP3 player.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I have an iPod. I bought it for reviewing. At the moment it's being loaded up for a long trip by air in a week or two. Lots of episodes of The Goon Show, Beyond our Ken, etc. Last longhaul was Navy Lark episodes...

 

[the record spot]

The earlier post from Fahnsen re: how so much better the current digital iPod offerings are against analogue of yesteryear just shows how little good analogue sounds.

Sure, you can spend £100 on an iPod nano, mind you, you'll need to clap hands on a laptop or PC as well, else it's a useless expensive accoutrement. Some might say it already is, but that's another argument...

I've had the "fat" or square nano for a couple of years now; use it pretty much every day and rate the sound quality at 192kps as pretty decent, impressive even.

Where, however, is this notion that it leaves analogue standing...? Are we so off the pace with some older kit we think it just sucks so much compared to anything compressed and on an MP3 device? It seems like it is. Luckily, the loss ain't mine...

 

[jaxwired]

the record spot:I've had the "fat" or square nano for a couple of years now...

That's the one I have.

the record spot:...the sound quality at 192kps as pretty decent, impressive even...

That's all I'm saying. I'm not making a comparison to quality hifi, I'm just pointing out that this nano (at 256kbs in my case) with my px-100 phones sounds terrific.

 

[manicm]

the record spot:The earlier post from Fahnsen re: how so much better the current digital iPod offerings are against analogue of yesteryear just shows how little good analogue sounds. Sure, you can spend £100 on an iPod nano, mind you, you'll need to clap hands on a laptop or PC as well, else it's a useless expensive accoutrement. Some might say it already is, but that's another argument... I've had the "fat" or square nano for a couple of years now; use it pretty much every day and rate the sound quality at 192kps as pretty decent, impressive even. Where, however, is this notion that it leaves analogue standing...? Are we so off the pace with some older kit we think it just sucks so much compared to anything compressed and on an MP3 device? It seems like it is. Luckily, the loss ain't mine...

Mate, you will thank me for this, I had the exact same iPod nano 'fatty' as you - do yourself a favour - blow out all your music on it, re-rip at 256k AAC and prepare to be amazed - anything less than that and it frankly sounds rubbish. And make sure you have good buds too.

 

[audioaffair]

There are two different applications to consider here - home and portable use. As a portable music player, iPods and mp3 players can sound fantastic when music is stored at a good sample rate and you use a good pair of portable headphones - way beyond the sound of most bulky portable tape players of the 80s and 90s , minidisc and in many ways is more practical than a portable CD player if you're walking etc. I remember the effort required with portable tape players and a good mp3 player is a godsend in this respect.

Whilst vinyl is still a wonderful and viable format (if recent increases in retail figures of vinyl sales are anything to go by) that can sound stunning on a good set-up, you can't enjoy vinyl on the move unless you record it onto an mp3 player, which may contradict the hi-fi purist argument. On the move, iPods and mp3 players do stand up well.

On the home listening side, CD and vinyl are excellent choices and we've seen increasing sales of CD players and especially turntables to customers of all ages who want a solid, high end front end. Perhaps the biggest surprise here for some is that many younger music fans are now considering a high end CD or vinyl system. While the hi-fi purist might argue a good CD or vinyl set-up will always outperform a portable player at home, we've been stunned by the sound quality possible from an uncompressed file through a good dock such as Wadias 170i or Onkyos NDS1.

In some ways, the sound argument goes back to the actual mastering process. I've heard cheaply produced vinyl that can sound awful for example, but good mastered audiophile vinyl pressings or some first pressings can sound simply stunning. The same goes for CD and portable players where the mastering quality of the recording (and the sampling rate in the latter case) has a major effect on the sound quality. Some self confessed hi-fi purist customers have even "bridged the gap" by investing in a high end turntable and then keeping a hard drive back-up of their vinyl for listening to on the move.

At the end of the day though I agree with Clare - it's a personal preference and there isn't any reason why someone can't enjoy the best of more than one format if they love music

 

[Anonymous]

Well I have an ipod Classic along with Apple's ipod hi fi for the bedroom, Sennheiser CX-300 ear buds for on the move, and a docking station in the car.
Have an extensive collection downloaded at a high bit rate and must say the quality is spot on for its use.

Not as good as my AV / Hi Fi set up in the lounge, but if I played MP3 through it, it still sounds better than most systems.

As a music source for the money it's a winner.
Wouldn't be without my Classic

 

[idc]

ValianTX:........Your little headphone set-up is suppossed to sound better than Wolf's hi-fi?

I would happily put my main headfi rig up against all comers. The only problem is that some just do not like wearing headphones, so the SQ issue becomes a bit irrelevant. Then of course soundstaging is completely different. But, for the money I am sure I get music that otherwise would cost 1000s and not 100s of pounds.