Smug audiophile superiority and the iPod gen

[jaxwired]

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.

It's an apples / oranges comparison, but in general I completely agree. 1000 pounds spent on head fi will blow away 1000 pounds spent on traditionaly hifi. No doubt. Of course, I still prefer speakers to head phones...

 

[Anonymous]

Well, Wolf's hi-fi costs considerably more than the cost of your £1k 'head-fi', so this thread is actually irrelevant.

 

[jetjohnson]

...You sound like a man after my own heart Andrew ...I like to go to bed with a cup of cocoa and the omnibus edition of the Archers podcast loaded up on my mp3 player to listen to!

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but you can't p*ss off the neighbours with an iPod. If you wanna do that you need a cracking good stereo and some of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTVraVgzC9U

 

[matthewpiano]

ValianTX:Well, Wolf's hi-fi costs considerably more than the cost of your £1k 'head-fi', so this thread is actually irrelevant.

...but more expenditure doesn't NECESSARILY = better sound!

 

[Anonymous]

matthewpiano:ValianTX:Well, Wolf's hi-fi costs considerably more than the cost of your £1k 'head-fi', so this thread is actually irrelevant.
...but more expenditure doesn't NECESSARILY = better sound!it usually does though matthewthe idea that a £300 component is the equal of a £1000 one is a myth im afraid

 

[Anonymous]

matthewpiano:ValianTX:Well, Wolf's hi-fi costs considerably more than the cost of your £1k 'head-fi', so this thread is actually irrelevant.

...but more expenditure doesn't NECESSARILY = better sound!

Yes it does. There is a perfectly good reason for the term 'budget', 'mid-range', 'high-end' - don't you think?

Let me kindly refer your attention to page 15 of to the WHF's Ultimate Guide to High-End Entertainment on the article ''Why high-end kit is worth every penny''.

 

[cse]

I don't rate the ipod nano at all. Doesn't go loud enough for a start and bloody fiddly. Useless, for classical as completely unable to deal with the dynamic range necessary. Practical for pop music on the move, yes. But who cares.

 

[idc]

one off:matthewpiano:ValianTX:Well, Wolf's hi-fi costs considerably more than the cost of your £1k 'head-fi', so this thread is actually irrelevant.
...but more expenditure doesn't NECESSARILY = better sound!it usually does though matthewthe idea that a £300 component is the equal of a £1000 one is a myth im afraid

Well, I think that your myth is a myth. A £300 pair of headphones is perfectly capable of embarrassing £1000 speakers and a DAC at less than £300 can embarrass a £1000 CDP. Then there is the whole Bose range of products, which is regularly criticised for being over priced for its SQ. Indeed its latest dock does not fair well against much cheaper docks in What Hifi.

 

[chebby]

cse:I don't rate the ipod nano at all. Doesn't go loud enough for a start and bloody fiddly. Useless, for classical as completely unable to deal with the dynamic range necessary. Practical for pop music on the move, yes. But who cares.

Who cares? Well, lots of those people who like 'pop' music on the move maybe? (Although in your case avoid 'Wet Wet Wet'

)

My iPhone is full of rips from my BBC drama/history/documentary/comedy CDs (like 'Eye Witness' and John Le Carre' for instance) which is brilliant.

What would you suggest? A Revox B77 on a rucksack frame with a pair of £300 Sennheisers and a generator on two skateboards being pulled behind?

As for a Nano being fiddly.. have you got Yeti hands? I had a Nano before the iPhone and it was instinctive to use.

 

[the record spot]

I use the nano for a mix of stuff too, though all music of late. Sound quality is consistent, and the earlier poster who suggested I dump everything and go down the AAC lossless route, well, been there and done that. There's no great difference to my ears, but I gain more space on the nano by keeping it at 192kbs, which is absolutely fine for listening on the train and in work at times.

Incidentally, I have a few albums on there where I've mixed up a lossless recording with lower bitrate for the next track (the Stones "Exile On Main Street" being one) and you can't tell them apart. Maybe I need better headphones, but I'm not going to lash out a big sum on those. Those newly reduced Sennheiser buds mentioned in this month's issue will do the job fine for me.

 

[manicm]

the record spot:I use the nano for a mix of stuff too, though all music of late. Sound quality is consistent, and the earlier poster who suggested I dump everything and go down the AAC lossless route, well, been there and done that. There's no great difference to my ears, but I gain more space on the nano by keeping it at 192kbs, which is absolutely fine for listening on the train and in work at times. Incidentally, I have a few albums on there where I've mixed up a lossless recording with lower bitrate for the next track (the Stones "Exile On Main Street" being one) and you can't tell them apart. Maybe I need better headphones, but I'm not going to lash out a big sum on those. Those newly reduced Sennheiser buds mentioned in this month's issue will do the job fine for me.

I did not suggest Lossless, but 256k AAC, and I still suggest you try it - it might not sound different at first but trust me after a few listens of your favourite songs in a hotel room you will notice.

I have a pair of Senns CX300s as well which I used with the Nano.

 

[the record spot]

Used AAC as well, in fact, it was the standard I kept to for a while, till I realise my 8 Gig player got crammed pretty quickly. I use it on the bus, the train and for walking round town. All noisy environments. I now no longer work for a consultancy but for myself and for now in my hometown, so I don't need the hotel room. Like I said, I have had some albums where there's an AAC track followed by one at 256kbps, it is extremely hard for me to notice a difference. I want a range of music that I can pick from that's of a good enough quality for me to enjoy at decent bitrates. 192/256 does that very well enough indeed.

 

[matthewpiano]

ValianTX:
matthewpiano:ValianTX:Well, Wolf's hi-fi costs considerably more than the cost of your £1k 'head-fi', so this thread is actually irrelevant.

...but more expenditure doesn't NECESSARILY = better sound!

Yes it does. There is a perfectly good reason for the term 'budget', 'mid-range', 'high-end' - don't you think?

Let me kindly refer your attention to page 15 of to the WHF's Ultimate Guide to High-End Entertainment on the article ''Why high-end kit is worth every penny''.

No, it doesn't and furthermore, as you move up the ladder the law of diminishing returns becomes a major issue. Labels such as 'budget', 'mid-range' and 'high end' are purely constructs that make the discussion of different price levels easier. They actually mean nothing and I think some blind testing of some of the better affordable kit (Cambridge Audio 840A for example) against more high end products could yield very interesting results.

Of course, spending more can achieve higher levels of performance but it is so dependent on synergy, and this is where my original emphasis of the word 'NECESSARILY' is important. The truth is that spending more does not guarantee better performance and that the price/performance correlation isn't always as straight forward as people would like to believe. The technical benchmarks involving aspects such as distortion levels, frequency response etc. are all achieved at comparatively low price levels these days and I would argue that the further up you go into high end, components tend to impose more of their own personality. Consequently individual components at the higher price points will divide opinion far more. Also bear in mind that, as higher end components sell in far smaller numbers, each purchaser pays a much larger percentage of the original development costs.