MP3 players: Who HATES iPod's sound quality?
128kbps mp3
by tombrokenjaw - 6/6/05 8:49 AM In reply to: iriver by harpoongillI'm just astonished that people are actually willing to wh*re themselves off to the gods of poor audio resolution by suggesting 128kbps mp3 audio is anywhere NEAR cd quality. As i said in a previous post, ''cd quality'' doesn't just refer to what your untrained, wax-filled ears detect on a set of 1945 Sennheisers you dug up under a dust-bin in your deceased grandmother's basement. ''CD quality'' means something mathematically... and looking at the math on paper, there's NO COMPARISON in terms of resolution when cd quality audio and 128kbps audio are compared. I challenge you to find me a SINGLE mp3 encoded at 128kbps 44.1khz, Lame codec or otherwise, that doesn't conatin a profound MOUNTAIN of artifacts. For those who don't know, artifacts are the digital ''gargles'' that you hear in poorly encoded audio as the codec (COmpressor-DECompressor) seeks to compensate for the lack of headroom as it converts the 1's and 0's. Let's get it together, people. 1GB is now what 1MB used to be, and as such, hard drive space is exponentially cheaper and more plentiful. If you're going to use an inefficient compression method like mp3, there's no excuse for encoding your mp3's at anything other than 320kbps 44.1khz when you're walking around with a 20 or 30GB portable unit... never mind storing music on your home pc's 300GB drive. 128kbps? BLEH!!
Re: 128kbps mp3
by - 6/6/05 12:24 PM In reply to: 128kbps mp3 by tombrokenjawI beg to differ. 320kbps isn't absolutely necessary.
You can achieve very satisfactory results around 160kbps or 192kbps, especially using VBR (variable bitrate).
128kbps is not TOO bad... it can be very good for portable use, considering you will mostly be in noisy environments such as the city streets with your MP3 player.
Halleluya
by equazcion - 6/6/05 12:30 PM In reply to: 128kbps mp3 by tombrokenjawCongratulations. We all bow to your superior sound quality detection abilities. We can only hope to one day come close to your level of aural superiority.
Please stop.
Different people are satisfied with different things. There's no reason to call their ears "wax-filled". If you like a higher resolution, fine, go higher. That's your business. Accept other peoples' opinions though.
Saying your way is the only way is childish. You've only succeeded in making yourself sound ignorant and immature. There isn't anyone, aside from the people who agree with you and also consider themselves to be superior human beings, who would respect what you said.
Furthermore, I doubt you can even tell the difference between a 192 and a 320 in a "blindfolded" test. If it were possible I'd love to prove that. Even assuming you could, there's no reason to encode at that resolution, since VBR would adjust the resolution when needed and give you more efficient use of space.
128kb MP3
by chillyxpress - 6/7/05 12:04 AM In reply to: Halleluya by equazcionI agree that 128kb is not really comparable to CD quality, but only to the masses. IMO 192kb VBR is pretty much CD quality. If I had a HDD mp3 player then I would be stuffing it full of 192kb VBR mp3 files, 320kb is unnecessary unless you want to make a statement that your ears are that of a superior being (like me ^^).
Re: 320kbps MP3
by - 6/7/05 1:19 AM In reply to: 128kb MP3 by chillyxpress320kb is unnecessary unless you want to make a statement that your ears are that of a superior being (like me ^^).
Nah. If you want better quality than 192kbps VBR MP3 then you really ought to be using another format, such as Musepack.
bitrates
by HotAgent - 6/7/05 5:20 PM In reply to: Re: 320kbps MP3 byyeah i agree, 320 is overkill. if you care that much then why not go lossless? for compressed audio i think LAME APS is best. i dont really like ABR though....
its kinda like faux VBR.
Trust me...
by chillyxpress - 6/7/05 11:19 PM In reply to: bitrates by HotAgentHave you tried any other format other than MP3, such as OGG or Musepack? These are much better quality codecs at higher bitrates than the 320kb Mp3 you speak so highly of.
Everyone should not trust tombrokenjaw because he is evil. Trust the good guys. I am the only supreme being here, and perhaps NRen2K. If you are new to Mp3, then in my honest opinion, 192kb VBR is sufficient.
Word
by equazcion - 6/8/05 6:54 AM In reply to: bitrates by HotAgentI said you can't tell the difference between 192 and 320, not CD and 192. And I stand by that. Looks like everyone else here does too.
''I'm just astonished that people are actually willing to wh*re themselves off to the gods of poor audio resolution.''
Haha... That says it all right there. 'The gods of poor audio resolution'? While my post may have sounded to you like a motivational speech, yours sounds like an ignorant editorial column of a cranky 12 year-old technology pundit. Like John Dvorak would've sounded if he wrote for his 7th grade newspaper. The unpopular socially awkward kid that could never quite master the art of talking to people because he spent all his time at home on his computer, thinking positively about his social status. ''Who needs them? I'm better. I know about computers. One day they'll all be sorry. Snort snort.'' 
Thanks for the laugh anyway.
What Saturday Nights Are For
by Jonnie2005 - 6/11/05 10:26 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionI've just completed reading the 51 posts about this topic and have got a better handle on what is important to me (well, at least for the time being).
That is a balance of portability and sound quality.
We've got a 3G 40gig iPod, and it has tons of mostly d/l's from Apple - the player was a gift for a family member so my access was brief (grin). The first time I listened to it, I paused it after a couple of songs and went and grabbed a pair of Sony MDR-7506's. Ah, ear relief. Overall the player is really slick.
It's so slick that it got dropped after week-2 of ownership and went back to Apple for their refurbished replacement. $500 for the player, then $250 for repair - geesch, it's good to have a job!
For my use I bought a portable disc player from Panasonic that would support MP3PRO (and there are not a lot of them out there). It took me a couple of weeks ripping some 400 CD's with Musicmatch into that format.
The disc player is awkward to carry if I want to go for a walk, and I use a smaller, less musical pair of headphones (either ear buds of sports-type headphones).
In the portable mode (going for walks, background music when I'm trying to ignore my coworkers in the cube farm), I think the MP3 format is fine.
The disc player is laying around somewhere. I jack into the laptop to listen when I'm at home (yes, laptop audio is another pain). I bought a RCA Lyra solid state player (because it too supports MP3PRO).
I'm having second thoughts on MP3PRO, I like the concept, but the same song ripped at 192k really sounds worlds better. I'm no audio head so I can't tell you the details of why it sounds better, it's just fuller, clearer and the stereo effect seems wider.
So the Lyra is now getting tons of use, because I can hook it on my lanyard around my neck that my work ID badge hangs on. It's best feature at work is how I don't seem to get as many phone calls at my desk when it's in use, but my voicemail calls go up. Hmmm...
The other plus about the small size of a player like the Lyra is that I can take it for walks easier, unlike the disc player that looks a little funny stuffed into my jeans pocket. Interestingly I play the volume at it's lowest level on the Lyra when walking so I can hear my surroundings - nothing like stepping in front of a moving car while on foot to cancel out the benefits of the walk!
And playing the volume low on the Lyra you can hear some system racket. Since there are not any moving parts I have to wonder if the MP3PRO format is requiring extra processing that is bleeding into the audio signal.
So at this point I'm swinging back into pushing for better sound quality.
Good headphones are a must, and larger file size (less compressed) music files are also needed.
I grabbed a couple dozen of my Hawaiian CD's and ripped them again at 192k. They sound much better on the PC and on my Lyra.
And the frosting is going to be grabbing my audio CD, putting it into the home system and really listening. Not as background noise, not while I'm doing something else, just listening - well, maybe a cup of coffee and something for the sweet tooth.
Portables shouldn’t sound bad, but how good they should sound is really subjective.
Ipods suck
by silverdragon1712 - 6/13/05 5:00 AM In reply to: What Saturday Nights Are For by Jonnie2005They lack bass. Un paralelled bass is SONY!!!!
Iriver and other companies and catching up, but the mindless population of the world is so brainwashed by the ipod logo, they can't think of anything else but the white earphoned army that doesnt know what real sound quality is!
I hate ipod sound quality, its so shallow, has no bass lacks mid ranged sounds it sounds likes a cat meowing down a tin can!
Its a known fact by teh audiophiles of the world how crappy an ipod sounds.
Saturday nites are for partying ppls!!!!! chicks, friends, booze and other crazy stuff!
$250 for repair
by - 6/19/05 4:55 AM In reply to: What Saturday Nights Are For by Jonnie2005And why in the hell, sir, did you not think to get an extended warranty for a $500 toy? 
Extended Warranty
by Jonnie2005 - 6/19/05 10:23 AM In reply to: $250 for repair byAs a rule, I don't purchase extended warranties, and I didn't think about it being dropped (which in hindsight was kinda dumb)...
iriver players
by koala72 - 6/19/05 2:54 AM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcion....have great sounds! editors say it and ill say it to!
look at cnet and take a look at the archos gmini 400
by keabler - 6/20/05 1:53 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionthers a recent review they did on sound quality and sony seamed to come out ontop and i do have one of their more expensive protable cd palyers and i must say they do sound good but the reason im wriging is you should look at the archos gmini 400 its less than an ipod has a 20 gb hdd and you can watch movies :O it also sound great as good as my sony cd playe. ther is really an eq on it but you can adjust the bass and trebil and there is a bass boost i lvoe how it sounds, and think it is a great alternative to just an mp3 player
sound quality
by wmtyrance - 6/20/05 5:09 PM In reply to: Who HATES iPod's sound quality? by equazcionThats why i bought the Archos Gmini 100 series. My friends have ipods and thought i was crazy buying the archos,That is until they heard it. Of course i did buy better earbuds too. Then when i told them how much i paid for it,They all flipped. Never be a follower i always say.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
