MP3 players: Who HATES iPod's sound quality?
Let's get back on track.
by equazcion - 5/28/05 2:11 PM In reply to: Update by equazcionSome of you have pointed to music file compression rates and headphones as the cause for the iPod sound problems. While the purchase of decent headphones is a reasonable expectation, that's just about where the 'reasonableness' stops.
A regular, run-of-the-mill, 128Kbps 44KHz MP3 should already sound CD-quality. There is no question that the iPod's sound is defficient, although there is the question of just how defficient.
The iPod Shuffle is reputed to have perfect sound, even as far as bass response goes.
Surprised? I'm not.
I already know that Apple sacrificed sound quality for battery life in their hard drive device, the regular white iPod. Hard drives use a lot of battery power because they have moving parts. They require motors to spin their disks and move their actuating arms. Flash-ROM devices like the Shuffle have no moving parts and require very little power. Therefore nothing had to be sacrificed for perfect sound; there was plenty of power to pump out to the 'phones.
On the opposite end there is the iPod Mini, the smallest hard-drive device. It still contains a hard drive though, and it (1st gen 4GB) has the worst sound of all the iPods (worse than the full-size white version). Smallest device containing a hard-drive, and of those, the worst-sounding. The Mini had to be able to power a hard drive, with even less battery space to work with than the white iPod. So more sacrifices needed to be made, and again, they were made in the form of a further drop in sound quality.
If you think the white iPod's sound problems can be attributed to file compression rates and headphone quality, I invite you to think again. You can make your iPod sound better by using a higher compression rate or higher-end headphones; this I don't dispute. However, the iPod's problems are not SOLVED by these things; they are only COMPENSATED FOR.
After spending $300 on a device, I should not have to compensate for problems, especially not by spending more money.
Sound quality was sacrificed to make the iPod what it is. From where I'm standing, there can be no question about this. Apple knows how to make a device with perfect sound; they did it with the Shuffle. I read in one of Bill Machrone's reviews that the sound quality is due to the Shuffle having four transistors, two for each channel of output. While this is beyond me, I say, great, now we know how to do it. Okay Apple, shove four transistors into the 5th generation white iPod, don't charge any more money for it, and we'll really have something respectable.
The point though, is that the white iPod clearly could have had excellent sound. It was not given this because it would then not have been as light and pretty, and appealing to the masses.
Before you bring headphones or file compression rates into the discussion of how to use the iPod, first go and compare the Shuffle sound to the white iPod, using the same average headphones and the same average 128Kbps MP3. Then come talk to me. I'm usually very liberal about other peoples' opinions, I try to keep an open mind, but after reading through some of this, I have to say, come on people. Give Apple their due criticism. A 128/44 MP3 should sound perfect, and nothing should have to be done to it.
Stop talking about ways to compensate. We all already know that higher data rates, better headphones, powered amps, etc etc will make ANYTHING sound better. It's obvious, and it doesn't matter for our discussion. Eventually someone will say, ''Just rip your music in 320 by 48, and then play your iPod through the PA system at the PNC Bank Arts Center. You'll see, there's nothing wrong with the sound. See? The iPod is fine if you just use it the right way.''
I'm not pointing at any one person. But generally let's steer away from this kind of uselessness, because that's what this discussion seems to be deteriorating into. We're comparing the different hard-drive players and identifying the reasons for their sound differences. Not comparing ''tips for getting better sound from underperforming devices.''
A good ipod alternative
by tombrokenjaw - 5/26/05 11:38 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionI'm a freak. Yes, a veritable nut case. I scare friends and family. Why? Because I insist on listing to on-the-go mp3 audio on my hog lapotp, otherwise known as a Toshiba Satellite P15-S420. The reason is quite simple, actually. The FREE audio processing available to the demanding (and knowledgable) listener rivals that of a large market radio station with a rack of equipment worth literally tens of thousands of dollars. However, the Toshiba Satellite is one of the physically largest notebook PC's on the market. It's heavy, uses A LOT of power, and really isn't cheap enough to subject to the rigors of continual on-the-go listening. This was the inevitable moment at which I decided to look into mp3 players.
The sheer popularity of the Ipod made me suspicious of it from the beginning. My life experience has shown me that when EVERYBODY is engaged in ''something'', no matter what it is, that ''something'' probably blows mule shaft. From music to technology to food choices, this is usually true. Live by that creed.
When I investigated the brands carried by Best Buy, I found that Creative was probably going to be the most trustworthy brand to go with since, uhh, after all, their primary business is the manufacture of sound components. From speakers to sound-cards, Creative makes it all. When you compare THAT background against a laughable computer company that squandered the opportunity of a century in order to take hold of only 5% of the computer market, you begin to ask yourself if perhaps the herd is marching into a highway rest area toilet stall rape, and asking you to come with. Forget it.
You've heard horror stories of those who can't get certain files to play on their Ipod because of licensing issues? Well, those stories exist for a reason. The model I settled on, the Creative Zen Xtra, pays no mind to file licensing information. Yes, kids, that's right. If the format of the audio fits that of the player's capabilities (of which there are plenty), it plays it. No hassle. You can easily drag and drop files from your computer onto the unit, which acts as an external hard drive when plugged into your computer's USB 2.0 port.
It also has some very interesting audio processing features. My favorite is the ''Night Time'' setting which prevents drastic volume changes during the course of any given file you're listening to. The best part is that this processing setting (I haven't messed around much with any of the others, as this is the most important one by far) is so well executed that your ears don't tend to pick up on the fact that your audio is indeed being manipulated. That's when you know processing is being done right.
For my money (I think it was around $220 at the time), it's the Creative Zen Xtra. Great audio quality, very satisfactory signal to noise radio, very versatile input allowances, and very durable physically. Oh, and the rechargable li-ion battery will give you a nice 10-12 hour run each charge. Beat that.
Mike Walker
tombrokenjaw@kmeat.net
www.kmeat.net
Nice post.
by equazcion - 5/28/05 3:16 PM In reply to: A good ipod alternative by tombrokenjawHi freak, how you doing?
As far as things that are popular probably blowing mule shaft, I do have something to say:
I don't completely agree with that creed. Yes, when something is popular and you check it out for that reason, it is cause to be careful, suspicious even. But it's a bad idea to disregard things just because they are very popular.
That's my sister's excuse for not watching The Simpsons. Without seeing a single episode, she has decided she doesn't like it, simply because it's too popular.
Old people especially (or old-fashioned people) live by this type of ''wisdom''. It can be a hinderance of progress. While I doubt you meant that you completely disregard that which is wildly popular without further investigation, I just wanted to clarify the care with which your creed should be implemented. Be careful, but see and judge for yourself before deciding.
As far as the ''Why go with a screw-up like Apple'' question, I went with them because I like the way they build their portable devices. Whether that be the iPod or their iBook laptops, I feel they are pretty good at building solid portable devices. Their devices have a dense and proportioned ''heft'' to them, a feeling of solidness and quality, that is sorely missing from electronic products these days. Of course I got it in the keester in terms of sound quality, but hey, we all make mistakes.
I like that you pointed out the ''Night Time'' processing feature of the Zen. I myself use something similar on my home computer, a plug-in for the Winamp audio player. It performs ''real-time dynamic normalization'' of sound volume, which is what you describe from the Zen on that setting.
Two reasons I would not go with the Zen are the controls and the lack of an FM reciever. I'm not crazy about the vertical touch pad, and I've always felt that all portable music devices should have FM built-in; I've never understood why they don't. But it does seem so far to be the lesser of all the evils. It has the sound quality, the uncomplicated transfer interface, the battery life and the price.
iRiver
by terrywolfer - 5/27/05 9:36 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionFirst, you need to start with the headphones. Anyone complaining about sound while still using the earpiece that came with the player should be slapped. As a reference I am in the audio business and use the Shure E5c as my selected headphones. I have had the iPod, Rio Karma & iRiver H320. The Rio is a better audio product than the iPod but then again so may be everything else. The iRiver has a much greater depth and when using the EQ or sound settings really has a distinguishing sound difference. BUT, the iRiver is a lousy consumer interface.
Most true audio does not require EQ or altered settings but I have found not all MP3 recordings or song styles are equal and sound better or "to my liking" improve with some good effects. Sound is subjective but I can tell you that the iRiver H320 is an outstanding audio product compared to others.
My next try will be the new H10. Hopefully they did not change the audio quality and improved it's navigation and interface.
iPod sound quality?
by gwats1957 - 5/27/05 9:58 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionAnybody awake out there?
iPods are PORTABLE music players! This NOT an audiophile device! The 1st thing I did when aquiring my latest ipod was to trash the white earbuds and buy a GOOD set from sony. 100% improvement in sound quality. Next, I have two pairs of noise-cancelling phones from Maxell and Sony. Great for listening on long Airplane flights.
iPods are for listening on the GO. If I want music hall quality, I have a $3000 stereo in the Family room @ home! Pretty hard to pack that sucker in my carry-on bag!:)
For what is, it does it's job quite well
I'm on my 5th ipod and the products QC is getting better all the time.
I think you expect too much from a product the only introduced a mere 3 years ago. Hell, even Bill Gates has had more lead time with ''Longhorn'
than that.
Apple has continued to upgrade and improve it's core products. Give them a chance
What is quality?
by terrywolfer - 5/28/05 11:21 AM In reply to: iPod sound quality? by gwats1957You said it in your first sentence or judgment. The iPod is a MUSIC player. Your second intuitive comment is that the iPod was designed for listening. Both statements confirm it should be reviewed as an audio product not a data transferring device. The point is any manufacture getting high dollar for a product that plays music should be held accountable for its capacity to deliver the audio. I think the issue is in the convergence of technology and its consumer acceptance. Is the iPod an extension of my PC or is it a replacement for my CD player? How much should it cost to get better sound quality? Is your idea of paying $3000 for a stereo good enough? As I mentioned in my earlier feedback it is all a matter of the perception of value. The iPod is at the top of the scales in cost and in fact does a comparative poor job in the audio quality. It is a great invention for the portable accumulation, storage, building and accessing of large data. I like it and prefer its looks, feel and all it’s other deliverables except how it performers at reproducing the sound. . I would hate to see any manufacture and especially that of portable audio products loose focus on what they are actually offering as sound quality.
On your 5th iPod?
by chillyxpress - 5/28/05 9:57 PM In reply to: iPod sound quality? by gwats1957iPod for the masses? OK. I congratulate Apple for doing such a good job on marketing the number 1 selling mp3 player on the planet. For the majority of people, the sound quality of the iPod is sufficient so why would Apple want to change their winning formula? Improve their iPod, add extra cost to production and only have a minority of people notice the difference in sound? I agree with you that the iPod is a portable jukebox, made to be carried with you and not an audiophile product, but for some people such as myself, we would like the sound to be as close to a $3000 sound system as possible. Knowing that there are better sounding quality products other than the iPod is the reason why there is such a debate. I hope Apple never improves its iPod. ^^
Forgot to ask...
by chillyxpress - 5/28/05 9:58 PM In reply to: On your 5th iPod? by chillyxpressWhat happened to the other 4 iPods? Did the batteries die or inexplicable hard drive failures occur?
Let's get back on track.
by equazcion - 5/28/05 2:15 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionSome of you have pointed to music file compression rates and headphones as the cause for the iPod sound problems. While the purchase of decent headphones is a reasonable expectation, that's just about where the 'reasonableness' stops.
A regular, run-of-the-mill, 128Kbps 44KHz MP3 should already sound CD-quality. There is no question that the iPod's sound is defficient, although there is the question of just how defficient.
The iPod Shuffle is reputed to have perfect sound, even as far as bass response goes.
Surprised? I'm not.
I already know that Apple sacrificed sound quality for battery life in their hard drive device, the regular white iPod. Hard drives use a lot of battery power because they have moving parts. They require motors to spin their disks and move their actuating arms. Flash-ROM devices like the Shuffle have no moving parts and require very little power. Therefore nothing had to be sacrificed for perfect sound; there was plenty of power to pump out to the 'phones.
On the opposite end there is the iPod Mini, the smallest hard-drive device. It still contains a hard drive though, and it (1st gen 4GB) has the worst sound of all the iPods (worse than the full-size white version). Smallest device containing a hard-drive, and of those, the worst-sounding. The Mini had to be able to power a hard drive, with even less battery space to work with than the white iPod. So more sacrifices needed to be made, and again, they were made in the form of a further drop in sound quality.
If you think the white iPod's sound problems can be attributed to file compression rates and headphone quality, I invite you to think again. You can make your iPod sound better by using a higher compression rate or higher-end headphones; this I don't dispute. However, the iPod's problems are not SOLVED by these things; they are only COMPENSATED FOR.
After spending $300 on a device, I should not have to compensate for problems, especially not by spending more money.
Sound quality was sacrificed to make the iPod what it is. From where I'm standing, there can be no question about this. Apple knows how to make a device with perfect sound; they did it with the Shuffle. I read in one of Bill Machrone's reviews that the sound quality is due to the Shuffle having four transistors, two for each channel of output. While this is beyond me, I say, great, now we know how to do it. Okay Apple, shove four transistors into the 5th generation white iPod, don't charge any more money for it, and we'll really have something respectable.
The point though, is that the white iPod clearly could have had excellent sound. It was not given this because it would then not have been as light and pretty, and appealing to the masses.
Before you bring headphones or file compression rates into the discussion of how to use the iPod, first go and compare the Shuffle sound to the white iPod, using the same average headphones and the same average 128Kbps MP3. Then come talk to me. I'm usually very liberal about other peoples' opinions, I try to keep an open mind, but after reading through some of this, I have to say, come on people. Give Apple their due criticism. A 128/44 MP3 should sound perfect, and nothing should have to be done to it.
Stop talking about ways to compensate. We all already know that higher data rates, better headphones, powered amps, etc etc will make ANYTHING sound better. It's obvious, and it doesn't matter for our discussion. Eventually someone will say, ''Just rip your music in 320 by 48, and then play your iPod through the PA system at the PNC Bank Arts Center. You'll see, there's nothing wrong with the sound. See? The iPod is fine if you just use it the right way.''
I'm not pointing at any one person. But generally let's steer away from this kind of uselessness, because that's what this discussion seems to be deteriorating into. We're comparing the different hard-drive players and identifying the reasons for their sound differences. Not comparing ''tips for getting better sound from underperforming devices.''
"A 128/44 MP3 should sound perfect,"?
by DarkHawke - 5/28/05 4:03 PM In reply to: Let's get back on track. by equazcion"A regular, run-of-the-mill, 128Kbps 44KHz MP3 should already sound CD-quality."
In what world? In my experience, it doesn't, and that's the reason the discussion went to codecs and compression rates. Before the re-encoding I wrote about above, I compared 128k MP3s to 128k Ogg and 128k WMA. The MP3s were not only not what I would call CD-quality, they were clearly inferior to the Ogg and WMA files encoded at the same rate. Sound quality is a subjective thing, but though most companies will tout their MP3 player's storage based on 128k MP3s, I've rarely if ever heard anyone call such files CD-quality.
I'm wondering why you're getting so picky about the advice we're giving you. Folks have given you, what, five or six alternative player to the iPod that they think sound better. Isn't that enough? And if you don't the cash to buy a new player, you've also got other helpful folks suggesting ways to improve the sound you're getting. Perhaps I haven't been reading the threads closely enough, but I don't recall anyone defending the iPod's sound quality. But if folks are willing to pass on their experience towards improving the results you're getting with what you have, isn't that helpful? I'll testify that it's a pain in the yaktabeh to re-encode your entire music collection to a higher bit rate and/or different codec, but if music fidelity on the player you have is your goal, it's a time-consuming but worthwhile endeavor.
Yes.
by equazcion - 5/28/05 4:34 PM In reply to: "A 128/44 MP3 should sound perfect,"? by DarkHawkeIn my experience, yes, 128/44 is fine, and not all that distinguishable from CD. However that's not the point. Substitute in any setting/format that you are usually satisfied with. It doesn't matter.
Whichever it is, it will sound worse on the iPod, good on the Shuffle, and like crap on the Mini 1st gen.
If I sound unappreciative of the alternative advice, I apologize, but I honestly have no interest in re-coding my files or buying additional equipment for my iPod. That's the whole premise of this discussion; the iPod is fundamentally flawed, I realize these can be compensated for but I shouldn't have to, and what out there is better?
Right On.
by rars222 - 6/2/05 7:10 AM In reply to: Yes. by equazcionI have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. I too was blinded by all of the cool marketing Apple bombarded us with. Fortunately for me, my pod was a gift.
I have become dissatisfied with the sound quality. I went to audio forums for suggestions on how to make my files "sound" better. I am now using LAME for mp3 encoding and audiograbber for "ripping". I do notice a difference in quality. Interestingly enough though, I have also started having problems with iTunes "recognizing" these newly ripped files.
To say the least, I am fed up. It's proprietary all the way. If you want mediocre sound and the convenience of carrying your music collection in the palm of your hand...than Apple and iPod are for you. If you despise being forced to use propietary software and the likes - keep shopping.
I was shopping for an alternative to bring my pod up to snuff in my vehicle - but recently decided not to invest the additional $300. I won't even use the FM transmitter. I would rather burn a CD and use it in my 6-disk changer that I would have to disable to have a hard-wired connection.
So, I eagerly await new & better products...
LAME encoding
by HotAgent - 6/2/05 6:07 PM In reply to: Right On. by rars222yeah LAME VBR is my favorite type of compressed music format. there is no VBR AAC (or is there?) encoding, and its only compatible with the ipod. OGG is awesome for quality, but its not compatible with everything. LAME MP3 is compatible with EVERY player and sounds excellent when using VBR encoding.
right on
by dr.anthony - 8/17/06 2:22 AM In reply to: Let's get back on track. by equazcionWell, this looks like an old thread but the topic is right on! The Ipod sound quality is clearly inferior. One of the biggest problems is an uncustomizable EQ! Why did Apple do it this way!!?? I bought a Nano and promptly took it back because of lackluster sound. The sound is the most important aspect of the player for me period. I heard that the Cowon players sound best but I have never tested them because they seem to be mail order only. Love my Rio Chiba sound quality. I'll write more if this thread is still alive.
iriver
by harpoongill - 6/2/05 11:56 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionthe H320/340 has immaculate sound. I'm as picky as they come and considering the quality of MP3, this takes the cake, just turn off the SRS junk and use the excellent EQ. Killer low end and crisp highs.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
