I really need few honest anwers about quality of ipood output. Let say if you use original cd file 44khz 16bit aiff or wave soundfile. Would you dare to compare it to other higend stuff with top headphones.
What do you guys use for reference with ipod Etys 4s or 4p, Grado rs1 or even somethin better.
I have all my CDs encoded with AAC at 192kb. They sound great, probably not as good as AIFF but very close, and takes up less space. I would recommend the ER-4S, the sound is incredible and the iPod can power them but you might want to look into a portable amp later. Just my .02
Hello Mizig, got your email. I'd use the Grado 60's or 80's if your not concerned with noise leaking out. The Ipod will drive these both fine without an amp. The ety's in my estimation, require a amp with the Ipod. The ety's are nice, but I guess I've gotten used to the wider soundstage and better details with the Grados.The Ety's are good if you require lots of isolation. I do quite a bit of traveling on planes, I've never had complaints of sound leakage when I've taken my Grados.
As for format, if you got the space, always use a lossless such as Aiff, or Wav. That way you don't loose any of the nuiances or details( I listen to a lot of jazz so I don't want to lose things such hearing the gutiar player hitting the fretts) I guess its just depends on the music you listen to. I guess to me most pop/rock albums over-compensate the bass. Thats the nice thing with headphones, you hear the lil details, you never noticed before.
1. True, the player will hold less music, but with up to 30 gigs on the Ipods i really don't think this is a problem.
2. Battery life less? that does not make sense. I've had my Ipod for a year, Battery life is the same to me, mp3 or aiff. If you want to save battery life, turn the lighted display off. I think non-Ipod users often confuse fact with fiction. With the new firmware upgrades, the worry about battery life is solved. 10hrs is a heck of a long time to listen to a portable device. A few companies make a battery pack that can charge the Ipod without a A/C outlet, or using a firewire cord of a computer.
3. A loseless format always sounds better than a lossy one. Unless you don't have the space, then maybe go with a lossy format. That's why 99% of the users on this board buy CD's. I think if a lossy format was the rage in audiophile circles, there would be more discusions about mp3 home devices.
Headphone Hussy (will wear anything if it sounds good)
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Posts
6,761
Likes
13
Quote:
Originally posted by orl2222
1. True, the player will hold less music, but with up to 30 gigs on the Ipods i really don't think this is a problem.
It's the difference between 375 songs (~80MB/song) and 5,000 songs (~6MB/song for good quality AAC). That's a big difference.
Quote:
2. Battery life less? that does not make sense. I've had my Ipod for a year, Battery life is the same to me, mp3 or aiff.
Not possible.
Quote:
If you want to save battery life, turn the lighted display off. I think non-Ipod users often confuse fact with fiction.
The biggest (by *far*) battery drain with the iPod (or any other hard drive-based player) is the hard drive itself. The way the iPod works is that it spins up the hard drive and fills the RAM cache with data (music). It then shuts the hard drive down and plays music from the RAM cache. When the RAM cache gets close to being empty, the iPod spins up the hard drive and fills it again... and so on.
The iPod has ~28MB of RAM cache available for music. With AAC/MP3 files of 5-6MB, that means the iPod can store 4-6 songs in the RAM cache. So the iPod only has to spin up every 15-20 minutes. With AIFF/WAV files, the iPod can only store 1/2 (or less) of a song in the RAM cache, so the hard drive has to spin up every few minutes.
This is a *major* difference in battery usage. The only way you'll ever come *close* to the full advertised battery life is if you're playing 128k-160k MP3 or AAC files, and you let the iPod play tracks on its own (without manually switching tracks, which causes the player to load the RAM cache more often). Playing AIFF and WAV files gives you *significantly* less battery life.
By the way, it's usually helpful to understand the issues at hand before you accuse people of not knowing what they're talking about.
Before a flame war starts, I was answering some specific question that Mizig asked me via personal email. I answered both ways. Secondly, the answers that I gave were for general use, not really a "battery life" or " format" question.
I will give you somewhat of a anology.
I work as a trainer for general motors. the same arguement comes to mind when i answer questions about EPA ratings. they are a guide, your milage will vary. I oftern tell dealship personel that you could probably get 35 mpg, but under ideal conditions, which in reality don't reflect real world conditions. I think the same thing applies here. Really, most people buy a Ipod to enjoy it, and listen to the music. Thats what it is really all about.
MacDef's explanation is spot-on fact, not fiction. The miles per gallon analogy doesn't quite fit this compressed/uncompressed music and battery life situation, because the HD will spin whenever it needs to fill the RAM, and it will spin much more often with uncompressed audio files, and more HD spintime means less battery time. This does make sense. A car will be less fuel efficient with city driving than with highway driving, but the iPod will always be less battery efficient with uncompressed files. If one wants optimal battery efficiency, compress the music such that you are satisfied with the sound despite the loss in quality.
So, while you might say not to worry about storage, you may want to consider battery life with uncompressed music, especially since the new iPods have a shorter battery life than previous models.
I really need few honest anwers about quality of ipood output. Let say if you use original cd file 44khz 16bit aiff or wave soundfile. Would you dare to compare it to other higend stuff with top headphones.
Well, since everybody else here seems to want to ignore this part of your post, I'll give it a shot.
The iPod doesn't have the best audio out (although the line out option on the new ones is better). To compare it with other "highend stuff with top headphones" is kind of a joke (IMHO). Sure, I LOVE my iPod. It sounds pretty darn good for what it is -- and quite acceptable for around town. But a high-end system? No way. Not at zero compression, not anything. I haven't seen (or heard) ANY portable players out there that would compare favorably to high-end stuff. The Zen is much better (maybe the best I've heard for MP3 players), but not high-end!
Maybe you'd best clarify "highend" for my benefit.
Not really. But it's been repeated so much that some people will believe it
Upon listening to both, I certainly thought so. The S/N on each would seem to bear that out as well. I don't think too much of that wolfson DAC/amp combo in the iPod, but it's certainly a small solution. I'm not a big fan of the DAC and amp being in one IC.
Still, for the iPods intended application who'd know the difference. I'd still take it over the Zen any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays (hey, that's today!)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
