DAP history so short. Why are people getting it wrong?
Apr 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM Post #16 of 32

GIGANTOID

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Posts
342
Likes
10
Its popular to hate on what's popular. That's why kids like LostPhil get to pretend their subversive counter culture by using a Cowon audio player and for every Fan boy he dismisses there's an iPod user dismissing his posts as being a hater.

In the end these are all just fetish items and repping one huge mega corporations product over another is just silly.
 
Apr 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM Post #17 of 32

Podster

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Posts
9,352
Likes
10,452
Location
Middle Earth
Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGANTOID /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Its popular to hate on what's popular. That's why kids like LostPhil get to pretend their subversive counter culture by using a Cowon audio player and for every Fan boy he dismisses there's an iPod user dismissing his posts as being a hater.

In the end these are all just fetish items and repping one huge mega corporations product over another is just silly.



THX Gigantoid, sometimes I forget about the Pepsi genration
wink.gif
 
Apr 29, 2008 at 9:03 PM Post #18 of 32

toxicsweet

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Posts
102
Likes
0
Guys, will it be better if we all possess all the same things? Apple is not a standard, and won't be for sure. Its just selling well. But think about all the other manufacturers of DAPs - why are they considered worse compared to Apple by default? Yeah, Apple sell quality products, but that doesn't automatically mean the other DAPs out there are not in the same league. Everything is compared to Apple. Its just not right. And yeah, the Nano is crap, I have my Sony A818. I'm a hater, I know. And I'm definitely getting the new Nokia tablet and hooking it up with a Pico DAC/amp. Mass culture is a b**ch. When a company gains enough credit, it lowers the bar. And just that is the case with Apple on the DAP front. But I'll definitely consider buying iPhone 3G when it comes out, or maybe an HTC, or maybe Xperia X1, who knows.
 
Apr 29, 2008 at 11:00 PM Post #19 of 32

LostPhil

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Posts
219
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGANTOID /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Its popular to hate on what's popular. That's why kids like LostPhil get to pretend their subversive counter culture by using a Cowon audio player and for every Fan boy he dismisses there's an iPod user dismissing his posts as being a hater.


Right, so I bought my player just because it's not an iPod? I'm sorry if I'm missing the sarcasm here but I'm neither a "kid" or trying to be cool by using something different to an iPod. I bought the D2 after owning an X5 and liking that product so I wanted to keep to the same brand with the features I want in a player. I chose the X5 because I'd owned an iRiver iFP-899 before that (first player after using minidisc) and had been advised to use ogg vorbis, which the iPod doesn't support so was never considered after the iRiver.

And if you read my post carefully you'd also see that the point I was making (failing miserably, obviously) that a post including things such as "the iPod hasn't brought any new features to the table" in recommendation threads is just an indication of how biased the post is and duly ignored. And this is in regards to posts against apple so I really don't see what you're getting at.

Oh and Podster, I'm not sure if you're talking to me about the sound quality?

I would reply in a more civil manner but since this appears to just be a couple of eager members misunderstanding my posts:

a) I couldn't care less about how much you've spent on getting great sound quality. I get the best I can afford so yes, I own PX100's. They are cheap, open (for use at work) and sound decent for the price. If you'd like to look to the right of them on my sig, I use those the most and both are well regarded for the price range. If it was meant to try an invalidate my points because I don't have high end gear then that just shows you up to be the kind of poster that doesn't add anything of substance to discussions.

b) I've never mentioned anything about disliking the iPods SQ or even hearing it.

Apologies to the other guys who read this, it's late, I'm ill and I get irritated easily when I'm tired.

Oh and food for thought as an apology: It's competition that takes a market forward. Without it, the market leaders (in this case apple) have no reason to advance things. Where would we be if everyone else just gave up when the iPod series became popular? (or we all owned iPods)
smily_headphones1.gif


EDIT: The last bit is pretty much what toxicsweet was saying anyway!
 
Apr 29, 2008 at 11:38 PM Post #20 of 32

shigzeo

The Hiss King
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Posts
12,931
Likes
1,070
well the great thing is that there is choice in the market. blessingsx i think was never saying ipod are the greatest daps however he was saying that it is unfair to criticise it on the basis of : sq or not bringing anything new to the market. both of those assessments are true.

apple have brought innovation to a market that needed it desperately at the time and now we have many good makers. most makers have in some way been influenced heavily by the ipod. from orientation to control to mass storage to locked in software.

when i use my meizu and my cowon and my friend's iriver i used itunes to organise and drag and drop as it was what i used already and it works very fast and efficiently for me.

i was a hater till last year in 2007 when i picked up an ipod touch and found out how good it sounded as well as it bested its battery rating as well as the controls were so well thought out.

my meizu is wonderful too but it lacks basic creature comforts like a mostly congruent gui and it hisses like pre 2006-07 iriver players. my cowon drove my big phones very well with a good way of sweetening up the midrange but actually did not technically drive them any better than my ipod as for volume.

i must say, i am glad that apple brought what they did to the market and when they did. the whole hate around ipod i think started with hurt md people who realised that md was no longer the cool portable and that our feature set really held sway in recording. i came from that camp and was very spiteful toward ipod. before hearing one, i lambasted its sound, its battery and software. i bought one briefly in 2004 and sold it 2 months later but in that time, i loved how it sounded compared to my (and what is considered in md world as the one of the best sounding players - sharp mt dr7 recorder).

i stayed with that until getting meizu and cowon and liking them both for a bit but not liking how cowon treated my iems.

but the hate probably really began with amazing subculture initiateves - i call it that out of respect for the advert designers who went to 'great lengths' to call ipod buyers 'sheep'.

that was sansa. not attacking the product, they attacked potential market - in the most spiteful move i have seen any company do as well as the most silly. they make fine players now though perhaps not as well put together as some counterparts in the mp3 industry. but that advert woke me up. i thought, "are companies so desperate to show themselves as different that they choose to alienate customers"?

and we have the portable section in headfi. that is another wonderful cross section of some sort of counterculture whether any truth can be gleaned from it or not.
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 1:56 AM Post #21 of 32

Sweet Spot

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Posts
1,401
Likes
10
Just going to quickly say that the iRIver iHP 120 came out right before the first gen iPod, and IMHO has bested every gen iPod in terms of SQ and features (out of the box). To this day, I still use my iHP (which is now ROCKbox'd of course) over my 5th gen iPod, which is also Rockbx'd because the sound quality is just far superior to my ears. Meaning, less distortion and cleaner presentation and detail.

The iPod is fine I think for the ultimate in lazy integration (iLife so to speak), but I still personally prefer doing things manually, the way I see fit and not having to live up to proprietary standards. But that's just me. I do use the iPod from time to time, but only because I wouldn't want my iHP stolen while at work.
biggrin.gif
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 2:58 AM Post #22 of 32

uraflit

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Posts
2,945
Likes
15
there will always be haters. just look at the windows haters, aka. MAC users. LOL

vice versa of course =P

but in all seriousness, the ipod should be known as one of the pioneering DAPs that brought these "wars" in the first place.

all these talks about "i use my ipod b/c of this feature, and hate others b/c of lack of xxx" jlaskasfasklfhnasdjlfa

i give up, i lost my train of thought.
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 3:04 AM Post #23 of 32

Rumz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Posts
237
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Spot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just going to quickly say that the iRIver iHP 120 came out right before the first gen iPod, and IMHO has bested every gen iPod in terms of SQ and features (out of the box). To this day, I still use my iHP (which is now ROCKbox'd of course) over my 5th gen iPod, which is also Rockbx'd because the sound quality is just far superior to my ears. Meaning, less distortion and cleaner presentation and detail.

The iPod is fine I think for the ultimate in lazy integration (iLife so to speak), but I still personally prefer doing things manually, the way I see fit and not having to live up to proprietary standards. But that's just me. I do use the iPod from time to time, but only because I wouldn't want my iHP stolen while at work.
biggrin.gif



I owned an iHP-100 before I ever owned an iPod.

That said, your experience is subjective. True the iHP has a number of features absent from the iPod (optical digital output, built in mic, etc.), but after a while I found the sound to be too grainy for my like, and I came to find drag & drop to be unmanageable after a while (though I never did rockbox it, though-- this would likely have helped in the SQ department). You can't say either is "better" empirically-- only that you prefer one to the other, and more power to you if you prefer the iRiver.
smily_headphones1.gif


Also, did the iHP-100 really exist before October 2001? Somehow I'm doubting it. I do believe the iHP-100 series came out in 2003 (at least in the states)-- your post simply validates BlessingX's complaint about people not having their facts straight.
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 5:38 AM Post #24 of 32

Drag0n

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
3,706
Likes
16
I like my ipod, but not as much as my zunes.
Its clear and all..but i cant describe the part i dont like about the sound. Sorta shouty,lively,and like a stereo being played in a bathroom. Like a reverb sound. Its not full and warm.
Im over-dramatizing a bit just to try to convey what im hearing. Its very slight really, but it is forward sounding. Maybe system matching is key here, and ipods sound better on different headphones than zunes or other players, but thats what i hear.
Kinda anti-analog, or digital. A reverse smile EQ setting maybe.
Its kinda fatiguing.
Etchy and electronic sounding.
Again its not drastic, and i like the ipods sound on some of my equipment and on certain songs, but does anyone else hear what im hearing, if im even describing it correctly?
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 5:49 AM Post #25 of 32

Rumz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Posts
237
Likes
11
Yeah I'll give you that-- especially the Classic's sound is not terribly warm to my ears, I just let the headphones solve that. The 5.5g was a tad warmer, and I've not heard any other DAPs recently to compare with. If I go back farther, I had a Sharp auvi MD player that I really enjoyed it's warm signature.
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 1:58 PM Post #26 of 32

Sweet Spot

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Posts
1,401
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rumz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I owned an iHP-100 before I ever owned an iPod.

That said, your experience is subjective. True the iHP has a number of features absent from the iPod (optical digital output, built in mic, etc.), but after a while I found the sound to be too grainy for my like, and I came to find drag & drop to be unmanageable after a while (though I never did rockbox it, though-- this would likely have helped in the SQ department). You can't say either is "better" empirically-- only that you prefer one to the other, and more power to you if you prefer the iRiver.
smily_headphones1.gif


Also, did the iHP-100 really exist before October 2001? Somehow I'm doubting it. I do believe the iHP-100 series came out in 2003 (at least in the states)-- your post simply validates BlessingX's complaint about people not having their facts straight.



I'm fairly certain that the H series came out right before it, but am looking for the "facts" just to make sure. And that type of fact doesn't really denote any validation of BlessingX's statement, it's just a bit of semantics really. As far as the SQ goes, sure.. I'll give you subjectivity. But it's a known "fact" that any eq'ing on the iPod has always yielded some pretty cruddy bass distortion and rather unpleasant crunchiness.. Going back and forth from my iPod to the iHP is like night and day in terms of clarity, for me. You said that the IHP eventually sounded grainy to you.. which I just don't hear at all. In fact, I'd say it's the other way around completely. The iHP exhibits a smooth finesse and more of a laid back presentation when compared to my iPod. But anyway.. I digress.
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM Post #27 of 32

blessingx

HeadFest '07 Graphic Designer
Supplier of fine logos! His visions of Head-Fi
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
13,179
Likes
25
Date of which came out first is semantics?
confused.gif
That said the first and second gen iPods didn't have a true line-out either (approximate at 100% volume) and the third limited uncompressed support (because of buffering), but the early iHP deserves credit (and why it's still celebrated) for its optical out (and SQ). I wish I had one. In fact iRiver discontinuing, and everyone elses lack of optical outs, probably means that feature isn't about technical issues, but instead shares with DRM a business one. Course line-out is but one measurement and the form factor was a much larger issue here and why dates are important. Make no mistake I'm not claiming the iPod was the first DAP or first HD DAP. It wasn't (and technical introduction versus marketplace/popularity are two different ways to discuss influence). It was out much earlier than the iHP-100/120 though (iRiver announced the iHP-100 at CES 2003). There's a weird time compression where many think the iPod, Karma, iHP, etc. were all introduced roughly the same time. They weren't. Hate the iPod, I don't really care. Just give the first few generations deserved props. In fact search through old Head-Fi posts. You'd be surprised how much animosity there was for the Mac only iPod not working on Windows. There really was a lot of anger at the time.
 
Apr 30, 2008 at 4:40 PM Post #28 of 32

Rumz

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Posts
237
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Spot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm fairly certain that the H series came out right before it, but am looking for the "facts" just to make sure. And that type of fact doesn't really denote any validation of BlessingX's statement, it's just a bit of semantics really. As far as the SQ goes, sure.. I'll give you subjectivity. But it's a known "fact" that any eq'ing on the iPod has always yielded some pretty cruddy bass distortion and rather unpleasant crunchiness.. Going back and forth from my iPod to the iHP is like night and day in terms of clarity, for me. You said that the IHP eventually sounded grainy to you.. which I just don't hear at all. In fact, I'd say it's the other way around completely. The iHP exhibits a smooth finesse and more of a laid back presentation when compared to my iPod. But anyway.. I digress.


As BlessingX said, iHP came out in 2003. iPod in 2001.

Actually I enjoyed the iHP's sound up until I got some more detailed headphones (Shure E3c)-- perhaps the Shure just didn't synergize well with the iRiver. And yes, Apple's EQ is crap. Anyhow, I never had a real use for the optical output as far as portable / headphone listening goes, and the optical input was used to circumvent DRM
biggrin.gif
But then Hi-MD came out... yeah anyways. The iHP was great in it's day, and there's no way I would have bought an iPod back then either.

Anyways, sorry for going off topic, sound quality isn't the debate of this thread, nor is "which is better"... (in fact I'm sure it's debated endlessly on head-fi), it's about how people have selective or politicized memory about DAPs history, and I just found it interesting that someone came out in this thread and did just one of those things he started the thread about:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlessingX
It's been strange to me to watch how politicized peoples memory has become over technology of all things....and it seems here the anti-iPod crowd (such for a variety of reasons) are strangely unhistorical.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Sweet Spot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Just going to quickly say that the iRIver iHP 120 came out right before the first gen iPod


Hang on to that iHP :p (for what it's worth, if memory serves, the iHP-100 came out before the iHP-120, though perhaps not long before... I don't recall the 120 being available when I bought mine, I'd have loved 20 gigs.)
 
May 1, 2008 at 4:54 PM Post #29 of 32

LostPhil

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 30, 2007
Posts
219
Likes
10
I think I was way off with my first post in this thread so just coming back to this thread - When the market was changing back when I was in college (Summer 01-03), I could never afford any of these huge players. I remember seeing an advert for one of the earlier creatives and just thinking how insane it sounded (gb's? blimey!).

I never knew anyone with an iPod. In fact, the first iPod I'd ever seen was the mini whenever that came out and by then I had my iRiver.

But that's just it. The market as I'd seen it was never created by iPod, Apple just moved down gradually into the reaches of the non-enthusiast with the mini and shuffle. We'd been listening to small flash players for a year or two before I even saw one.

The gradual move towards affordability of players in general, enabled the general public to start lapping them up. A solid (ish) product combined with good marketing (50 cent video cameos et al) and the "designer" credentials associated with Apple gave them a good start. Credit to them, they pushed it and they reaped the rewards. After the initial push, people then knew others with iPods so had a word of mouth contact saying it was decent and so it became one of those must have products.

Nothing to do with bringing in features, lossless support, software integration, lawsuits etc etc. That is all for people in the know, the people who follow new products in these markets.

Unfortunately, the other mp3 player manufacturers have now dumbed down their products to cater for the general public rather than keeping an enthusiast product. See iRivers move from the H320/H120 to the H10 and now to small, UI centric players. So actually, I don't like the popularity of the mp3 players shooting up so quickly rather than hating Apple.

Luckily, now Apple has the tight grip on the general public, it HAS to use things like Gapless to win over the rest of the more cynical consumers. And that's the only thing I see I can congratulate Apple on. Now I hope other companies will follow suit.

This is just my view, obviously. Having looked at the iPods back way back when the market was just an infant I'm sure many of you would have a different viewpoint to yours truly.
 
May 1, 2008 at 7:29 PM Post #30 of 32

Podster

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Posts
9,352
Likes
10,452
Location
Middle Earth
Quote:

Originally Posted by LostPhil /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Right, so I bought my player just because it's not an iPod? I'm sorry if I'm missing the sarcasm here but I'm neither a "kid" or trying to be cool by using something different to an iPod. I bought the D2 after owning an X5 and liking that product so I wanted to keep to the same brand with the features I want in a player. I chose the X5 because I'd owned an iRiver iFP-899 before that (first player after using minidisc) and had been advised to use ogg vorbis, which the iPod doesn't support so was never considered after the iRiver.

And if you read my post carefully you'd also see that the point I was making (failing miserably, obviously) that a post including things such as "the iPod hasn't brought any new features to the table" in recommendation threads is just an indication of how biased the post is and duly ignored. And this is in regards to posts against apple so I really don't see what you're getting at.

Oh and Podster, I'm not sure if you're talking to me about the sound quality?

I would reply in a more civil manner but since this appears to just be a couple of eager members misunderstanding my posts:

a) I couldn't care less about how much you've spent on getting great sound quality. I get the best I can afford so yes, I own PX100's. They are cheap, open (for use at work) and sound decent for the price. If you'd like to look to the right of them on my sig, I use those the most and both are well regarded for the price range. If it was meant to try an invalidate my points because I don't have high end gear then that just shows you up to be the kind of poster that doesn't add anything of substance to discussions.

b) I've never mentioned anything about disliking the iPods SQ or even hearing it.

Apologies to the other guys who read this, it's late, I'm ill and I get irritated easily when I'm tired.

Oh and food for thought as an apology: It's competition that takes a market forward. Without it, the market leaders (in this case apple) have no reason to advance things. Where would we be if everyone else just gave up when the iPod series became popular? (or we all owned iPods)
smily_headphones1.gif


EDIT: The last bit is pretty much what toxicsweet was saying anyway!



Phil, I was not trying to be ugly but even after your last post I see here I feel you still missed the point Blessing was putting into his initial post. iPod is not the end all of DAPs by far but Apple did a lot to improve the community and DAPs in general. Of course IRV and Creative and others were on the verge as MD went out (Sharp 301 user I was and still took my time before moving into DAP) but none of the other players especially at the time were putting up the fights that Apple did to basically set the DAP market in full gear. His only point to me was lest we forget how instrumental Apple was to our hobby plain and simple.

Coming up on 52 this Oct. and been an audio enthusiast since I was 11 when my older brother gave me his second hand Grundig valve shortwave stereo he had while stationed in Germany and as they say the rest is history
wink.gif


As far as DAPs and how they sound to each of us is very subjective and actually hearing is very mood related as a matter a fact some days some of my systems sound totally different to me
biggrin.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top