MP3 players: Who HATES iPod's sound quality?
xtra
by HotAgent - 6/2/05 6:09 PM In reply to: Creative Nomad Zen Xtra 30GB by kgbeezr1yep thats my player too. $220 for 30GB is a crazy good value.
who Mee?
by IshmanBracey - 1/5/09 8:00 AM In reply to: Creative Nomad Zen Xtra 30GB by kgbeezr1as most of you I have had my fair share of trial and error searches for The mp3 for me. My Son has an Ipod, its a pretty cool piece of mp3 player, must be my ears or maybe the years i wasted money as an over the top audiophile, but I was neither impressed or disappointed in the sound of his Ipod, after a few different makes of ear plugs. The long and the short of it is that I ended up with a Sony Walkman. With the stock earplugs it actually had life like imaging and soundstage with a non-fatiquiging fine sound.. but my Son, forever the cheap-scape(:>) purchased a MEElectronics player. After a very successful download using Windows Media 11 I was really shocked at the sound of this clunky user unfriendly player irregardless of the earplugs/buds. Sounding so clean but not sterile, I thought I had made a new friend, but slowly, then not so slowly, glitches developed which was not what I wanted on a long bike trek. Then on top of that, the media player started acting up.... Maybe low battery caused a deamon of some sort in the player, but ever since my pc's media started getting quirky I have not plugged in to the usb and have just written it off as a great sounding player with a not so great set up and, well maybe it was just the one I received, but the sound of it, I never thought I would hear from an mp3 player using any of the higher priced ear pieces I have tried.. Wish it had worked out, the first week it sounded as if there were live musicians in my head and the miles flew by while I was biking.
Glad someone already brought up the Neuros...
by DarkHawke - 5/21/05 7:40 AM In reply to: Neuros by equazcion...otherwise I would have! In fact, the first place I ever heard that the iPod didn't sound that good was in the user forums on the Neuros website. Can't say I can compare the two for you, but as a Neuros owner, I can tell you what I think about the concerns you've put forth.
Re: your battery life concerns. Using my Neuros I (the currently available model is the improved Neuros II) with the 20 GB HD backpack, I could ''NeuroCast'' (i.e. use the FM transmitter) for about eight hours on a fully charged battery, as well as playing it for around an hour and a half through the headphones. So one charge could cover my morning commute, my lunch break and playing it through my radio at work for the whole day. Not shabby at all, considering the NeuroCast is the hardest on the battery.
Re: the size issue. I read all the reviews grousing about the size of the Neuros that you probably have before I bought mine. The advice I got on the Neuros forums is exactly my experience: in reality, it's about the size of the original Walkman tape player. Perhaps even a little smaller, but definitely lighter. Those who complain about its size and weight do so in direct comparison to the iPod, so in a way they're right, but their perspective is a little skewed.
It is large, but not egregiously so, and having moved from a fairly large portable CD player, I found it nicely more compact and MUCH lighter. I got the belt clip-equipped Case Logic case for the Neuros available from the company site, and it works gangbusters for it. I always know when I'm wearing it, but it will not drag your pants down by any stretch.
I've found Neuros to be a VERY friendly and customer-oriented company. Even the company president reads and posts to the forums, and there are tons of knowledgeable and friendly folks willing to help new and prospective Neuros owners. Ultimately, I found the plusses of the Neurocasting, the swappable HD and flash drives and even the FM receiver far outweigh the minuses of being comparitively large and heavy. And feature for feature, it's the best value in MP3 players I've found.
Neuros
by Sottilde - 5/31/05 4:03 PM In reply to: Neuros by equazcionI have one myself, and the sound quality is great. Certainly far, far better than my computer sound. I always find something missing when I listen to the integrated sound on my MSI K8N Neo2.
I would highly recommend the Neuros, but only if you have the time to fool around with it. Once you learn how to use it, it's simple - but there are a few issues. First of all, the included software is terrible. It is just plain unusable. There are open source sync managers, such as Sorune and NDBM, which do the job much better (my favorite is Sorune). The Neuros with Sorune or NDBM allows you to organize your music in any way you want, so I simply do E:\music\artist\album\#-trkname.xxx . Sorune/NDBM can simply do a "rebuild" after you manually copy the music files, which will remake the database the Neuros reads when you use it.
There is also beta file browser support, which would negate the need for a sync manager. It's in beta, though, and uses a lot of battery because the HD is constantly running. I keep suggesting that they have the Neuros create a small folder-tree database after syncing on its own, but my suggestions seem to have fallen on deaf ears 
All in all a great player, though. I love the integrated mic (wonderful quality, although it sometimes picks up HD noise) and line-in. It even has an antenna jack to make up for it's poor fm reception. It can be modded to transmit through that antenna jack as well, but that's against FCC rules (and kills your warranty).
The size won't bother you. It certainly doesn't bother me. I almost find the ipod/ipod mini to be too small. The Neuros III will be smaller, however... and I do welcome that change. It could bring more customers around 
.
My son grudgingly reckoned Archos is better . . . . . .
by AussieCol - 5/21/05 5:51 AM In reply to: Sound Quality by rcgcfnI recently purchsed the Archos Gmini 400 because I wanted something more than just a 20 GB MP3 player. I was very happy with the all-round performance of the Archos - video, photos, music and card reader. But what really put the icing on the cake for me was when my son had to admit it sounded better than his sexy new iPod. He almost choked on the words because he hated to think that his Old Man owned a better MP3 gizmo than he did!! As with the iPod, the earphones Archos supply are not bad, but not the greatest either, so the addition of some Sony earbuds brought the Gmini really to life without breaking the bank. I'd be interested to hear what others think about my classy iPod killer.
Archos
by equazcion - 5/21/05 11:19 AM In reply to: My son grudgingly reckoned Archos is better . . . . . . by AussieColI've been corresponding with Bill Machrone of PC Magazine (see my post further down) and he mentioned the Archos at one point. Not the exact model you have, but I thought you might like to hear what he had to say. When I purchase a quality product that I end up being very satisfied with, I always like to read as much praise for it as I can find. It makes me feel satisfied and validated so I thought I would do the same for you:
"All of the players have a bit of "droop" in bass response. There is one exception, though: The Archos Personal Media Assistant, PMA-430. It's not just digital audio player--it does video too, and it's larger and heavier than an audio player. But it blows all the others away in terms of sound quality."
Rio Karma
by fondy - 5/21/05 5:18 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionI couldn't agree more about the iPod's lackluster sound quality. I wouldn't say that it's awful, but it most definitely needs a user-customizable EQ.
My current MP3 players include an iPod, a Rio Karma and Chiba and a Creative Zen Micro. Each player is loaded with some of the same MP3s.
The best sounding to me is the Karma, even without tweaking the EQ (BTW, the Karma's EQ is Parametric, as in, you can set the frequency bands that each slider adjusts). For noisy environments it has an Auto Gain Control feature that allows you to boost the quiet passages in your music.
The Zen Micro also sounds pretty good, though I had to adjust the EQ to get it the way I liked it.
I don't really think the iPod's sound quality is "bad", for me it's just a matter of the EQ presets not getting the job done. All of those factory presets amount to two options: either not enough frequency response or too much (i.e. distortion). It's hard to believe that Apple would go to lengths they did to make iTunes so powerful (as in being able to assign presets to individual songs, Sound Check, etc) and not bother to put a normal equalizer in the iPod.
Update
by equazcion - 5/21/05 10:28 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionFirst of all, I'd like to thank everyone who's posted so far. This entire dicussion has made for some very interesting and informative reading.
Since one of the things everyone says even when they agree with me is, "The iPod's sound isn't really so bad," let me try to explain exactly what I mean.
I am a huge fan of music in general. When I listen at home to music from my computer, from the radio, or even from a car radio with average stock speakers, the music seeps into me and moves my soul. Sorry to get flowery, but that's the best description I can give you about what music does to me.
I invested in an iPod thinking that no matter where I was I could get that feeling, and be able to choose among my entire MP3 collection to boot.
What I found instead was not only that I didn't feel the emotion I normally do from my music. I also had to take breaks from listening to the iPod. There was something about the sound, some harshness I can't quite articulate (harmonic distortion? noise level?) that caused me to actually get irritated if I listened for more than a half hour to an hour at once.
There's a total lack of warmth, spaciousness, separation of sounds and fequencies. The sound is overall simply low-quality and not subtle. It's the same type of difference that exists between cassette player sound and CD sound, albeit not nearly to that degree, or even the difference between a 96Kbbs MP3 and a 128Kbps MP3. That's the kind of difference I'm hearing.
I compared my home setup to the iPod's sound using the same files and headphones, the same headphones I can normally listen to for hours upon hours without needing any kind of "break". Granted, at home I'm listening to a PC sound card, line-out to a Sony reciever component, then to the headphones. So I might be a little spoiled by the amazing quality I have at home. But I still shouldn't need a break from the iPod during just an hour of listening.
I suspect the problem with the iPod is simply power output. Either the iPod's circuitry is not able to handle enough power, or it simpley does not output enough power. The iPod is the smallest and lightest hard drive MP3 player on the market, yet it still has competitive battery life. Something had to be sacrificed, and I believe it was sound quality for battery life.
After Yuriv provided me with a link to Bill Machrone's (of PC Magazine) personal site (http://home.comcast.net/~machrone/playertest), I emailed Bill to thank him for finally stepping up and addressing these issues. In the email I addresses my own concerns about the iPod.
We are now in an email discussion, in which he has told me that his tests on my white (non-mini) iPod, 20GB 4th gen, is actually one of the least of the offenders among hard-drive MP3 players. Here is a portion of Bill's words:
"Your white iPod really isn't all that bad in sound quality. There are some distortion errors in the sound processing when you use the EQ settings, but a little bass boost is OK.
We have a major comparison of large and small hard disk players coming up in issue 12 (2nd June issue), and I didn't find any large-disk players that I liked better than the iPod."
Needless to say, this is not only disappointing to hear, but disheartening and depressing. If the iPod's sound is considered among the best available among the large hard-drive players, there's pretty much no hope that I will find something I like.
I have not given up though. I tried very hard to articulate to Bill the exact flaws I was hearing from the iPod, and I await his response.
I will keep you all updated on this. In the meantime, keep on posting.
One more thing:
by equazcion - 5/21/05 10:34 AM In reply to: Update by equazcionSomething I forgot to add:
I know some of you will tell me that, yes, I'm right about being spoiled by my home setup, and of course no portable device will be comparable to a PC sound card going through a Sony receiver component.
However, even when listening to FM from that reciever to the same headphones, I still get the that enjoyment I mentioned, and I have no need for "breaks".
Should FM ever sound better than 128Kbps MP3s, despite the hardware differences?
I don't think so.
MP3 format also lacking
by bfranco - 5/21/05 1:20 PM In reply to: One more thing: by equazcionEveryone here has given you a lot to consider, and having a 4G iPod myself, it's been a great discussion and learning experience (I'm certainly getting new headphones). I don't know about anyone else, but at least for me, simply throwing out MP3s and using other compression and compression-less formats yielded much better sound quality. In the case of the iPod, I use either dolby's AAC (playing with the bit rate until satisfied) or Apple Lossless depending on the type of music. AAC is by far superior to MP3, MP3 sounding metallic in general. I say depending on the type of music since classical and jazz lose a lot with compression. You might have an instrument in the far range and not be able to hear it properly, losing the fullness of it.
Like I said, maybe it's just me, but that helped a lot. It's still not perfect, by far, but it's a huge improvement. I chose the iPod because it was the better sounding player, even if that's not saying a lot, and not because it just looks cool. The integration with iTunes and it's many features has really gone a long way to making me love it. Sure, better sound would be great, but overall, it's brilliant, and using other compression formats, I have been able to experience that soulful feeling you describe which I could never get with MP3.
In the end, music and the experience of listening to it is a very personal thing, so each person will draw different conclusions and preferences in regards to exactly the same thing. I hope my opinions helped, even if they are only in relation to my own experience.
An excellent point.
by DarkHawke - 5/23/05 4:34 PM In reply to: MP3 format also lacking by bfrancoI've recently had to re-encode my music from 96k MP3PRO to 160k (variable) Ogg Vorbis. In the process, I compared various encoding rates among the three lossy codecs the Neuros will play, MP3, Ogg and WMA (BTW, the Neuros doesn't play protected WMAs, so if you have any of those you don't want to transcode, look elsewhere for a player). In my humble, 128k MP3 isn't that much better than what I had before. 192k is pretty much the gold standard with that codec. WMA sounds great at 128k, but 128k Oggs sound just as good and are 20% smaller. Just to be sure of excellent sound quality, I upped to 160k Oggs for encoding (the next level up on CDex, my ripper of choice) and I am WELL pleased at the result.
Since you do have an iPod, you should look at re-encoding to AAC. And I say re-encode, as in getting your source CDs and re-ripping them to AAC. Trans-coding, converting your existing MP3s to AAC, will result in slightly worse sound quality, since you're already starting with no-so-hot files, and the process will necessarily lose even some of that data. Apple Lossless is also a good way to go, but if the compression's anything like FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec), you'll only get half the size of the original CD cut. Which might be okay if you have a 60 GB iPod, but if you don't and you have a big ol' music collection that you want to keep with you at all times, look to AAC.
Re: MP3
by - 5/23/05 10:09 PM In reply to: MP3 format also lacking by bfrancoI-Tunes is not the only tool for MP3 creation out there.
There are other "MP3 encoders" out there, and LAME is one which is considered as better than that built into I-Tunes. I suggest you give it a try sometime and you'll be pleased.
By the way, I'd like to correct you: AAC is an open format, not developped only by AAC. The version of AAC used by the I-Pod is Apple's version as far as I know.
Another thing: Apple Lossless doesn't perform as well as FLAC does. It's a shame that The I-Pod doesn't support FLAC. 
What equipment do you have?
by yuriv - 5/26/05 9:17 AM In reply to: One more thing: by equazcionFor most folks the iPod doesn’t sound worse than FM radio. It really shouldn’t sound worse than the way you describe it. If you let us know about your setup, we might be able to hear the same sorts of problems with our iPods. Here’s what I want to know:
1. The make and model of everything in the signal path (the sound card, the receiver, and the headphones). Is there anything else in the signal chain?
2. The song(s) that you compared.
3. The ripper, encoder, and encoder settings that you used to prepare the MP3 or AAC files. EAC? CDEX? LAME?
4. The player software that you use on your computer. iTunes? WMP10? Winamp? Foobar2000?
Perhaps there’s something wrong with the setup that you’re using when you’re comparing the computer/receiver rig to the iPod? Here are my guesses:
1. You’re not comparing the same kinds of signals from both sources.
2. Your headphones don’t work well with the iPod.
3. You’ve encoded your music with format and settings that are difficult for the iPod’s decoder, but not for your software player. This is unlikely to happen.
4. Your iPod is malfunctioning.
5. Nothing’s wrong. You’re just very sensitive to distortion and you have a very low tolerance for it.
Let’s see if we can rule out one or more of these: [1] I’m assuming that you already have neutralized or bypassed the tone controls on all sources—bass/treble on the receiver and the equalizers in the iPod and the software player. Also check your sound card’s software to see if it has its own tone controls. If your receiver has a “loudness” switch, make sure it’s turned off because it boosts the bass and the treble.
Some folks say they can tell if automatic level controls have been turned on. You may want to turn these off, just for comparison. On the iPod and in iTunes, it’s called “Soundcheck.” In WMP10 it’s called “Auto Volume Leveling.”
Also make sure that any digital signal processor (DSP) “enhancements” on the software player, the sound card, and the receiver are turned off. For example, in iTunes, there is a “Sound Enhancer” check box on the Audio tab under the Edit/Preferences menu. Your sound card might have something like this too; for example, the Sound Blaster Live! and Audigy cards have built-in hardware DSPs. If your receiver has any DSP effects, turn them off—they’re sometimes labeled “Surround,” “Theater,” “3D Sound,” “Ambience,” “SRS,” “WOW,” “Sensaura,” “BBE,” or “Spatializer,” or whatever. If you’re to make a fair comparison, you have to make sure that in the entire signal path from the media file to the headphone jack, you have kept the audio signal as plain as possible, with no additional processing in any stage:
MP3/AAC/WAV --> Software Player --> Sound Card --> Receiver --> Headphones
[2] If all tone controls and DSP effects, have already been turned off, then maybe your headphones simply don’t work well with an iPod. Some models, even high-end ones, will sound awful on an iPod. You said that you used the same pair on your Sony receiver. Have you tried the stock iPod earbuds on both sources? Is the difference in quality still as noticeable?
In your post, you said that you suspected that the iPod might not have the power to drive your pair of headphones. You can test that by using a more efficient pair of ‘phones. You can also do that by finding out what your headphones sound like when the iPod is connected to an amp; do this by hooking up the iPod’s headphone output to one pair of line-in jacks on your receiver:
iPod --> Receiver --> Headphones
The sound quality should improve a little bit because this time the iPod isn’t driving a difficult load (compare my RMAA results for loaded and unloaded). If there is a dramatic difference in quality, your headphones are probably too difficult for the iPod to drive.
[3] is unlikely (even with VBR MP3), so if the iPod still sounds bad through the receiver’s headphone amp, then [4] it might be malfunctioning. You could use RMAA to get some numbers to verify this if you want a more objective measure.
If you’re pretty sure that your iPod isn’t malfunctioning and it still sounds bad through the amp, then perhaps you have to address [5] by replacing the iPod with a much better source. I don’t know if a Creative Zen will be good enough. A while ago I listened to a Zen micro for a few hours, and I still remember how good it sounded. But I can’t tell you that it sounded THAT much better than an iPod because I didn’t listen to them side-by-side. RMAA measurements of the Zen aren’t too convincing—i.e., they aren’t that much better than the iPod’s figures (this is for unloaded case only; I don’t have any RMAA figures for the Zen when it’s driving a load).
I hope you find a solution that works, because eventually there has to come a point when we have to stop listening to audio and start listening to music. I remember a long time ago on the school bus, when I deeply enjoyed the music on cassette tapes playing back on my walkman clone. I recently dug up my old portable rig and I played back some stuff. Awful! By today’s standards the sound quality is atrocious: SNR around 50 dB (maybe 60-65 with Dolby B or C noise reduction), Frequency response = > 40 Hz to < 14 kHz, lots of distortion, and lots wow and flutter (their version of jitter, only much worse). So I’m thinking, “How could I have possibly enjoyed music on this crap?” But back then, I did!—very much so. In those days I didn’t know that portable audio could be much, much better, and so the audio quality didn’t bother me and I just listened to and enjoyed the music. I guess many of us have been spoiled by our 20 GB+ collections on our iPods and Zen’s.
Believe me, I have no golden ears (I’m more engineer and musician than audiophile). But many people can tell the difference between an original PCM source and a 320k CBR MP3 if they know what to listen for. You can actually train yourself to get better at spotting these audio problems; see http://www.pcabx.com and htttp://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm for details. If I’m really trying, and I’m using a revealing pair of headphones (Sony MDR-7506 in my case), even I can do this on most of my MP3s, especially if the music has instruments that have lots of high-frequency content, e.g., triangles, cymbals, high-hats. Some high-pitched instruments should “chime with crystal purity,” as Alfred Cortot would put it. But with lossy encoding, particularly at lower bit rates, it doesn’t quite sound like that—the chime has a slight ringing or warbling sound along with other compression artifacts.
But I don’t let all of this stop me from enjoying 128k MP3s and 96k VBR WMAs on my portable players. Some folks are just lucky that they can turn off audiophile mode. We may have to wait a few months or maybe a few years for better players; there’s simply a relatively low demand for audiophile-grade portable players. Several forums have suggested that the Rio Karma came the closest, with gapless playback, parametric EQ, better capacitors, etc. But these audiophile-type features cost manufacturers money; making the player $10 more expensive to make just to cater to audiophile tastes might cut into their profit margins.
BTW one of my computers has
Emu 0404 --> Samson Q5 --> K271S | HD280 | 7506 | SR-125
Another signal path is
Yamaha DS2416 --> 2x Yamaha AX44 --> same headphones
Don't ask me about my computers' speaker monitors, which I actually use more often. It's complicated than it should be.
My portable rigs:
iPod Mini (1st gen) --> Sony MDR-EX81 (black) | Koss KSC-75
MPIO FY400 (1 GB) --> Sony MDR-NX1 (black)
I wonder what folks are using nowadays.
Hmm
by equazcion - 5/28/05 6:33 PM In reply to: What equipment do you have? by yurivI'm really not the nitpicky type when it comes to music. Yes, I can easily hear differences in quality that others can't. But usually I don't care much. Like I said, even stock FM from my dad's '95 Plymouth will have me dancing in my seat. iPod sound really just sucks to me. Go figure.
iPod's earbuds sound pretty damn good through my home setup; not great though. There's a noticeable lack of bass, as is to be expected, but definitely a lot better than when the iPod is driving them. I'm fairly certain this isn't a headphone issue.
My regular phones are Sony MDR-G72, 24 ohms impedance, but I'm not familiar with impedance so I don't know if that's good or bad. My sound card is a Sound Blaster PCI512. The reciever is a Sony STR-DE835 component reciever (headphone jack power output spec would be useful here, but it is not listed anywhere in my manual). As you can see, the only high-end device is the reciever. With the speakers cut and the headphones in, nothing else is in the chain except for cables, and even those are cheap; generic RCA-type coax from Radio Shack, and not even their ''gold''-type ones
As an aside, I'm curious to compare my current setup with the phones directly plugged into the card, no reciever in-between. I'll have to try that. I'll report any significant findings.
No DSP, effects, equalizers or anything of the like are active on any device in the chain, with two exceptions: about 25% treble gain using the standard Windows bass/treble equalizer, and a ''Bass Boost'' (static +6Db@70Hz) toggled on (a non-standard feature, separate from the EQ and DSP) on the reciever. I have tested with these off though.
As far as the iPod goes, I usually have a bass boost EQ preset active, and again, I've tested with that off as well.
Winamp 5 is my software of choice, EQ disabled, no plugins activated. I've used many songs to compare, ranging from metal to classical, Slipknot to Beethoven, results always the same. Files are, in the vast majority of cases, 128Kbps 44KHz MP3s. Most files have not been ripped by me, so I couldn't say which program or settings were used for encoding.
4G iPod
by jaydee - 5/22/05 2:05 AM In reply to: Update by equazcionNice posting equazicon you seem to know exactly what you're taling about!!
I can relate to most things you are saying - there is no huge 'warmth' from the iPod's sound. However, I do have to agree with everyone when they say it "isn't really so bad."
I can hear depth, clarity and spaciousness when I listen to my iPod. Most of my high bit rate (256kbps) songs really do give me that 'fuzzy' feeling you're talking about. I'm no audiophile, but I really do appreciate a quality work. I also find low quality music extremely painful to listen to - I usually leave it after about 10 seconds, not half and hour!
I don't even have expensive headphones - Sony MDREX71SL - although they are well above the standard iPhones. My 3 systems at home are above average (Sony, Yahama-Jamo, and NAD), and my iPod still sounds great on them. Yes, I strongly agree that there are differences between the iPod and a record/CD, but for what it is, its damn good.
I have to wonder why I am happy yet you are somewhat disappointed. I have always found my iPod to be fantastic!! Perhaps you are expecting too much of your iPod? Remember, your system at home is far bigger than your iPod, and you would of paid a heck of a lot more for it. And your iPod can do an awful lot for its size. Comparing the iPod to a full-blown amp is like comparing Apple's and Oranges (forgive the corny pun.)
This discussion has brought something interesting to my attention. You say that Apple may have sacrificed 'sound quality for battery life' and I believe you may be spot on there. With each new generation iPod, they get thinner and more powerful, with more storage and battery to boot. Something has to be sacrificed!
What really makes this interesting is the fact that I have a 1st generation iPod. This is the largest, thickest and least capable of all iPod's to date. It has none of the glitzy features of the current models, and was designed purely for music. I've been considering upgrading it for some time now, purely on the basis of needing more storage and features. But perhaps I won't. I don't want to lose sound quality, because that is of great importance to me.
I've compared my 1st Gen to my brother's 3rd Gen and I can remember noticing a difference - a lack of warmth from the 3G. Does anyone else out there have a 1st Gen iPod? They're rare, I know, but I'm beginning to think that when it comes to music, they're the pick of the bunch. Or maybe its just my ears...
James
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
