Fair Ipod shuffle review

[MdRex]

Hey guys, there is no need to bash up other DAPs if you don't like them. Let each one enjoy his own DAP and isn't that all it matters.

iPod shuffle has its own good and its own negative. so lets live with the existence of another player and be happy. That doesn't mean iPodders can go around bashing other DAPs. Cause I know of people who would touch a shuffle because it lacked a tuner.

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yyoo I see. If it's Apple-centric it's biased, but if it's PC-centric it's objective? Right.... At any rate, here is another review from the PC world. Of interest to head-fiers is their evaluation of sound quality. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1753026,00.asp

That is interesting.

"The shuffle achieves its random-play design goal. It's also highly competent as a music player. It has dead-flat frequency response, less harmonic distortion, and most notably, better bass response than its bigger siblings. The older iPods, especially the Mini, have been rightfully criticized for being somewhat deficient in bass, and although the bigger players have flat frequency response, they have trouble sustaining big bass notes. Not so the shuffle; it drives its earbuds well and hard without resorting to artificial bass boost. Though most digital audio players have moved past the Apple players' audio quality (by virtue of learning from Apple's mistakes and being fresher designs), the shuffle does them one better."

What's interesting is that (some) Apple fanatics on this board insist that the iPod has the best SQ of any DAP. That review pretty much reiterates what most Karma (and maybe iRiver/Zen) owners have known for months now: that the iPod/iPod Mini are NOT the last word in SQ among DAPs. The Shuffle sounds like an improvement, however.

And I have a question for the Shuffle owners...I know there is a Play/Pause button, but is there a button to skip to the next track?

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonadam Plus, Apple was in a great position to give us a great flash based product, to set the bar high, so that everyone would have to strive to make a better product, instead they gave us a flash key in a lipstick case with a headphone jack and a shuffle button. If any other company made the exact same item, at the same price, they'd do terrible business.

Exactly. Apple could make a tiny DAP designed to fit on a keyring that only holds 3 of your favorite songs and price it at $49.99...and the sad thing is, people would buy the heck out of it.

 

[Imyourzero]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yyoo Right now, the iPod is a Mercedes or a BMW to a bunch of Fiats. That may change, but that IS the way it is today.

Aside from build quality, what makes you draw that comparison? If you mean that the iPod is overpriced and bought as a status symbol, then yeah I guess it is the Mercedes or BMW of DAPs.

However, with other players such as the Karma having better SQ, longer battery life, FLAC/OGG support, an EQ that doesn't suck, more features, and are less expensive @ the same capacity as the iPod...why is it that you consider all of these other DAPs to be so inferior? Is it because they are not quite as intuitive to use, or because they don't have iTunes?

 

[yeeyy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utdeep I LIKE THE SHUFFLE!!! But I'm going to sell it once they come up with a new iPod mini, or a decent flash player with the Sigmatel chip that they're using because it sounds great!

I believe lots of players are using Sigmatel chip, for example Creative MuVo series are all built with Sigmatel STMP35XX chip.

 

[yeeyy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yyoo SQ is a pretty high priority here, and I'm sure many of the same folks who are dismissing the importance of sound quality in flashplayers would be the first to denounce the Shuffle if its sound quality were poor. At any rate, I'm not referring to audiophile quality sound, but just the ability to crank up the volume without significant distortion. Joe Snowboarder as well as John Head-Fi can appreciate that.

While I agree iPod mini/3G/4G ID is better than Creative players (except Zen Micro), but sound quality wise Creative players such as Zen Xtra or Zen Micro are definately better than iPod.

iPod Shuffle? Honestly speaking, since they are using Sigmatel ICs, the sound quality should be around the same as Creative MuVo series. And I seriously doubt that it will be better.

 

[BigFil]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IstariAsuka Wow, you're really showing your ignorance and Apple fanboy-ism here. The Forge was the most popular flash player on the market before the Shuffle showed up. It's made by Rio, who were the inventor of portable mp3 players. They were the #1 DAP producer before Apple showed up, and are still #2, ahead of iRiver, Creative, etc.

Wow, you're really showing your ignorance and anti-apple fanboyism here. Rio is not in fact the inventor of the portable MP3 player. Saehan's MPMan (Saehan-Eiger Labs F10/F20) was the first portable MP3 player by a few months. Rio must have been delibrately trying to deceive the general public into believing they were the first and best using their size and marketing to crush the little guy

.

http://news.com.com/Bragging+rights+...ml?tag=nefd.ac

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero And I have a question for the Shuffle owners...I know there is a Play/Pause button, but is there a button to skip to the next track?

ummm...have you actually seen one or read any reviews? you can skip tracks, ff through tracks, switch from random play to ordered play...wait, i guess that's about it.

 

[crimsonadam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kugino ummm...companies are supposed to market their products to make them attractive so that people will buy them, right? if companies want to sell their products, just build better products and market them better.

And if this was a forum dedicated to marketing and advertising we could all get giddy with apple-related excitement. But the number one game in this forum is quality reproduction of sound, so anytime a company does something which makes it so that our access to high quality is diminished, we have reason to be concerned.
The original issue was why do people have qualms with Apple as a company. Are they efficient marketers/propagandeers, sure, so was Hitler and Stalin. Congratulations. But in the world of the audiophile, marketing to a broad appeal, can often times make the quality suffer.

If a company's product is only successful, do to a marketing strategy and not due to the inherent qualities of the product. That is a bad thing for those who favor quality over hip-ness (which is probably 99% of the people that are part of the head-fi community).

If the general public thinks that the Ipod is the best that can be made, then the competors will spend their money on marketing their Ipod-ish like product, rather than on innovation, simply because there isn't a large enough knowledgable public to demand a better product. How much of the public is aware of VORBIS or FLAC or even the concept of Lossless. Wouldn't we (as audiophiles) be better off if they did.

It's like US Automobiles. When you have 3 or so companies all making essentially the same care, the innovation ends. You simply need to market better. When's the last time we saw a major automobile innovation that wasn't simply an add on (GPS, CD Player, Car Phones, DVD). Alternative case in point is air-bags. Those have been around forever, but the major auto companies didn't want to put them in their cars (same with seat-belts), so they were able to manipulate the public perception for a long period of time so that the public wasn't aware that they were even an option, and could therefore "demand" them.

but apple thinks it's a great product, even if you don't. they probably feel like they have set the bar high...doesn't matter if you don't think so.

I apologize if my previous post confused you, but the point is (and i think that recent history proves this) that if one company, or even a handful of companies control the market, they can slow down innovation, by focusing on marketing and keeping smaller innovating companies from gaining ground.

Just look at the next generation of CD/DVDs that have been around for quite awhile now, but haven't gained market share because the major companies are arguing about format types.

By controlling the market did Microsoft speed up or slow down computer software innovation?

 

[IstariAsuka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigFil Wow, you're really showing your ignorance and anti-apple fanboyism here. Rio is not in fact the inventor of the portable MP3 player. Saehan's MPMan (Saehan-Eiger Labs F10/F20) was the first portable MP3 player by a few months. Rio must have been delibrately trying to deceive the general public into believing they were the first and best using their size and marketing to crush the little guy . http://news.com.com/Bragging+rights+...ml?tag=nefd.ac

FYI, I have nothing against iPods in general. In fact, I think they're the second best full size DAP, behind the Karma, for a variety of reasons. I wouldn't object if someone gave me one for free. Similarly, the iPod Mini is not bad, it just isn't very exciting, compared to the Carbon/Micro. The Shuffle, on the other hand, I AM arguing is a terrible product. Not because it's made by Apple, but because it sucks.

About Rio being the first MP3 player producer, sorry, I guess I was mistaken. It's not that I really care, I was just trying to make the point that daphox should not be arguing the merits of the Shuffle vs other flash players if he doesn't even know what the other flash players ARE, what they offer, or who makes them.

FYI, I've used/owned a variety of mp3 players, including iRiver, Creative, Rio, and Apple. I have nothing against Apple. Mainly I have issues with many Apple users, who religiously preach how much better all Apple products are, whether or not they have used or know anything about alternatives. Such as daphox has been doing.

 

[MD1032]

My comments on the most initial replies to my inquiry are this:

1) Why do you use AAC? I have used MP3 for years now and it is the best way to store music IMO. I personally with my mid-fi rig cannot tell the difference between the original wav. files and the LAME-encoded MP3's I produce. Is AAC better sound quality? Even so, I'm guessing there's no way you'll be able to tell the difference on the ipod shuffle. Is it smaller? If so, seems valid that you would use it, but MP3's are so widely used and compatible I see no reason to switch at all.

2) Rechargeable li-ion? The N200 runs on a single AAA battery. Buy two NiMH rechargeable batteries and a charger and you've got electricity for quite a while. When the batteries expire many years down the road, you simply toss them and buy new ones. On the ipod shuffle, the Li-ion battery is only going to last about two years (more with proper or lack of use, of course) and then will become useless.

Capacity? Many other players come in sizes of 1 GB and 512 MB. There is nothing special about the shuffle's capacity. In fact, I've heard transfer rates to the ship are sub-par.

Weight?! WHAT?! If you can find me a flash player out there weighing more than the shuffle such that it makes a noticable difference, PLEASE let me know!

In general terms, I don't want to appear anti-apple or anything, even though I really am. In fact, I personally think the ipod and the ipod mini are excellent products, albeit a bit overpriced. Still, they're innovative and work very well. This ipod shuffle, though, falls short of the competition and is in my opinion an attempt by Apple to use their larger ipods and their cult factor to their advtantage, meanwhile cutting corners on the actual product.

edit: And ignore daphox by all means as usual.

 

[crimsonadam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yyoo How does Bose create the impression that they're the only game in town? Everyone knows Sony, Panasonic, Yamaha, Toshiba, .... , and even Radio Shack and RCA.

But not as "high quality audio." If the general public is looking for a high end speaker system, they typically think Bose (because they advertise in magazines and newspaper inserts). So they expect Bose to be more or less the best, which means that the bar is set there. So why would a company spend lots of R&D money making an amazing speaker/headphone, when they can spend a little less and just make it "1" better than Bose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yyoo You can argue that the iPod shuffle represents a step backwards as its features and UI are limited.

Exactly. The audiophile nation should be annoyed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yyoo What competitors will have to do is build smaller, high-capacity and, strangely enough, more feature-rich products at lower cost.

Or they'll take the e-machine route and simply build the same bare-bones machine for cheaper (price and quality), because the public won't be informed to ask for a better product.

The point to all of this is to point out, how a successful marketing scheme can hurt the public. If you want to play music or CDs on your computer you HAVE to use Windows Media Player or if you work hard at it Real Player Jukebox. Obviously this isn't true, but that's the perception for most of the public, and that's the level at which the standard is set.

 

[daphox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonadam That is a bad thing for those who favor quality over hip-ness (which is probably 99% of the people that are part of the head-fi community).

If that was the case 99% on the forum would use a Sharp MD with an Auvi-amp. I actually wonder why they don't?

 

[PodMan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonadam And if this was a forum dedicated to marketing and advertising we could all get giddy with apple-related excitement. But the number one game in this forum is quality reproduction of sound, so anytime a company does something which makes it so that our access to high quality is diminished, we have reason to be concerned. The original issue was why do people have qualms with Apple as a company. Are they efficient marketers/propagandeers, sure, so was Hitler and Stalin. Congratulations. But in the world of the audiophile, marketing to a broad appeal, can often times make the quality suffer. If a company's product is only successful, do to a marketing strategy and not due to the inherent qualities of the product. That is a bad thing for those who favor quality over hip-ness (which is probably 99% of the people that are part of the head-fi community).

Believe it or not, many headfi members here actually use the iPod not because it is hip, but because it is actually a good product. There is actually substance beneath all that style. Look in that huge thread where headfi members show off pictures of their audio gear. Yes, you will see many ipods, even some that are connected to portable amps through their line-outs. Are all of these people mislead by Apple marketing?

I actually think the iPod looks kinda plain, but I use it because it suits my needs the best, not based on how it looks or how many people in public is using it. I actually prefer Sony styling in terms of looks but until they can get rid of that annoying background hiss (hopefully when their digital amp reach their HD players) and support unicode in their SonicStage software, they are not going to get me to switch.

I can see how the shuffle is lacking. But that's fine, I am just not going to buy one. Soundwise, other people have already posted the shuffle is good enough for what it is.

 

[yyoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero What's interesting is that (some) Apple fanatics on this board insist that the iPod has the best SQ of any DAP. That review pretty much reiterates what most Karma (and maybe iRiver/Zen) owners have known for months now: that the iPod/iPod Mini are NOT the last word in SQ among DAPs. The Shuffle sounds like an improvement, however.

Apple "fans" I've read here tend to be a little more objective than some of the strident critics on the other side of the fence. Most of us acknowledge there is bass roll-off through the headphone jack for low impedance headphones (albeit most players have some degree of bass roll-off through their headphones jack). On the other hand, we can say that SQ through the line-out of the iPod is excellent, while many other makes don't offer a line-out. iPod fans on head-fi also appreciate the flat response of the iPod in general, because that's what most audiophiles strive for, not boomy bass or shrill treble.

One thing I hope Apple doesn't do is to put the Sigmatel chip in the regular iPods. It's fine for a flashplayer which will never get amped, but I don't want them to ruin what is maybe the best (the purest, flattest) line-out signal in the market.

Quote:

And I have a question for the Shuffle owners...I know there is a Play/Pause button, but is there a button to skip to the next track?

Yep, there's a skip forwards and a skip back.