[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Some symphonies, particularly those by Mahler and Beethoven sometimes have no discernable break between movements. One movement transitions right into the next with no pause. See ya Steve

Really?

Odd, but I've been attending classical concerts all over the world for more than fifty years, and, despite having heard all 19 symphonies multiple times, I've never experienced a single such performance.

I wonder how Karajan could have been so wrong.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 I can attest to classical on an iPod, as that's all that I have on mine. The menus make complete albums, tracks, and the like easy. In fact, I tend to run my operas together so I can listen straight through. This becomes nice with stuff like Der Ring des Nibelungen (both as a whole and as separate pieces). As for gaps, they are not terrible on purely instrumental pieces, but they can be distracting with vocal works. Very distracting to me, anyway. However, the iPod is great for classical as it can hold an enormous amount of high quality stuff.

I'm also an opera buf and a Wagner fan as well (the music, certainly not the man). I must say I admire your stamina as much as your taste--if you really do listen to all 15-plus hours of Wagner's Ring "straight through." As you know, it's normally performed over four consecutive nights, one opera each night. I was so impressed when first seeing the entire Ring that I happily paid more than $400 for the LD set.

Now, so as not to be total thread hijacker, I'd like to add that, like most top-line players, the iPod's line-out is essentially flat. With any lossless format the output will be indiscernible from the original CD. Most of us can't even tell the difference with anything encoded above 160 AAC.

Get yourself a good--or better--amp and some decent cans and you'll be thrilled for at least an iPod generation or two.

One more thing (as Mr. Jobs is wont to say), don't listen to this scat about this generation of iPod being better than the other. I've owned them all except the Shuffle and there's no real difference sound-wise. IMO the 4G is the best owing to its click wheel and, in the case of the photo, superior screen. The only model I haven't absolutely loved was the 3G with its infernal buttons.

 

[Spad]

Hey Bigshot,

I take it back--sort of. I did think of one Symphony that is performed without a break: Mahler's Tenth. Anyone familiar with the work will know why this is the exception.

 

[Beethovenian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad Really? Odd, but I've been attending classical concerts all over the world for more than fifty years, and, despite having heard all 19 symphonies multiple times, I've never experienced a single such performance. I wonder how Karajan could have been so wrong.

Having also attended many concerts of all Beethoven and Mahler symphonies, and owning at least four different recordings of each of them, I can say that no conductor has ever inserted a pause between the last two movements of Beethoven's Fifth or the last three of Beethoven's Pastorale. As for Mahler, the Urlicht and the Finale in the Second are played with as brief a pause as possible, though there's no continuation there (like Beethoven's Op.131 string quartet). But it's true that Mahler symphonies have essentially entire independent movements. The issue is that many recordings (Bernstein's and Karajan's) divide each movement, as it's usually done with the recitative part of Beethoven's Ninth Finale. And in that case I'm sure a recording perfectionist like Karajan would be mad of having the iPod or any other player inserting pauses.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beethovenian Having also attended many concerts of all Beethoven and Mahler symphonies, and owning at least four different recordings of each of them, I can say that no conductor has ever inserted a pause between the last two movements of Beethoven's Fifth or the last three of Beethoven's Pastorale. As for Mahler, the Urlicht and the Finale in the Second are played with as brief a pause as possible, though there's no continuation there (like Beethoven's Op.131 string quartet). But it's true that Mahler symphonies have essentially entire independent movements. The issue is that many recordings (Bernstein's and Karajan's) divide each movement, as it's usually done with the recitative part of Beethoven's Ninth Finale. And in that case I'm sure a recording perfectionist like Karajan would be mad of having the iPod or any other player inserting pauses.

But can you think of a single symphony of either Beethoven's or Mahler's that is performed without any pauses between movements--other than Mahler's Tenth, of course. It's true that the third and fourth Allegro movements are played without pause, but there are pauses between the other movements of the Fith.

I too have a large music collection, so when you mentioned Karajan's rendition of Beethoven's Fith, I had only to grab my laserdisc copy (Sony Classical SLV 46 366) to see him actually conduct it in DLP glory. Yep, pauses of several seconds between the first and second as well as between the second and third movements.

BTW, if one wants to avoid the break between the third and fourth movements, all that is necessary is to join the tracks. There, iPod perfection is just a coupla mouse clicks away.

You obviously know your music, Beethovian. I assume you're more than just another happy listener. It's a pleasure "chatting" with you.

 

[Beethovenian]

True, Beethoven's Fifth and Sixth are not played entirely without pauses. But the String Quartet Op. 131 is, and there are other examples of big orchestral or instrumental works that are supposed to be played continuously: Nicholas Maw's Odyssey, Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie, John Tavener's The Protecting Veil, Stravinsky's Firebird are some. You can arguably make all of them one single big file and enjoy the iPod or another player, if you don't mind losing access to specific points. You can also believe the gaps are too small to be noticeable (though in the case of the iPod they're VERY noticeable to my ears). That's all fine. But I think that's not the point of the complaints. The point is that we're in the 21st century and we shouldn't be discussing an issue such as this. There's no point in defending Apple and others for ignoring such a problem. In the case of Apple it's even worse, because they sell music in iTunes that requires gapless playback, but they don't do what they suggest, merging tracks. Meaning, they sell music that won't play as supposed to. They had the opportunity to fix the problem when adopted AAC, but didn't. True, very few people care about. But it's a musical requirement nonetheless. And it's particularly important for classical music.

 

[PSmith08]

Gapless playback and the lack thereof is the one serious flaw with the iPod for classical (the reliance on the questionable Gracenote CDDB service is another issue). As others have noted, many albums need gapless, classical or not. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or The Wall (even The Final Cut) need gapless to sound right. However, the sheer volume of music that can be held on my 40GB iPod (and what I know 60GB looks like) makes up--in some small way--for that problem. If the difference between having my music with me all the time or not is gapless, I'll take the gaps.

 

[Beethovenian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 Gapless playback and the lack thereof is the one serious flaw with the iPod for classical (the reliance on the questionable Gracenote CDDB service is another issue). As others have noted, many albums need gapless, classical or not. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or The Wall (even The Final Cut) need gapless to sound right. However, the sheer volume of music that can be held on my 40GB iPod (and what I know 60GB looks like) makes up--in some small way--for that problem. If the difference between having my music with me all the time or not is gapless, I'll take the gaps.

Fair comment, and your position is completely understandable. I just wonder if that is indeed the price we have to pay for having lots of music with us. Why can Sony and Rio have gapless playback and the others don't? Why is it so difficult? Why the iPod is unable to play gaplessly even if you have WAV or lossless files? My guess is most people are too tolerant and the ones who complain are not enough to convince them to look at this, besides having to hear the comment that this thing doesn't matter. And I also wonder if Steve Jobs never hear Pink Floyd, Beatles, DJ mixes and such. (I certainly don't think he listens to classical.)

 

[PSmith08]

I think this issue reveals, very effectively, the core market for the iPod. Apple clearly is marketing this at people with a decent collection of random music. Audiophiles are attracted to it by storage capacities, digital line-out, WAV capabilities, and the other possibilities that it has. I think the needs, and gapless is a need, of people who enjoy classical music are far removed from their consciousness. They have managed to build what could be the perfect beast, and then ignore the people who could really push it to the limits of the design.
I like the iPod; I like my iPod; as I have noted, the storage concerns outweigh the gapless and the CDDB issues, but the iPod is not perfect. Minidisc doesn't have the storage (even the 1GB HiMD blanks have their limits) and its longevity--while eternally surprising--isn't guaranteed at all. For me, iPod is as good as it's going to get, for better or worse. That doesn't mean the product shouldn't be better, though.

 

[Jmmmmm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 I like the iPod; I like my iPod; as I have noted, the storage concerns outweigh the gapless and the CDDB issues, but the iPod is not perfect. Minidisc doesn't have the storage (even the 1GB HiMD blanks have their limits) and its longevity--while eternally surprising--isn't guaranteed at all. For me, iPod is as good as it's going to get, for better or worse. That doesn't mean the product shouldn't be better, though.

I disagree. I'm glad that you like your ipod and think there is nothing wrong with that. However, I don't think you can legitimately say it's the best without having tried other mp3 players and determining them inferior. Again, I'm not saying anything is wrong with the ipod, but have you fairly compared it to others, which should be mandatory to declare it 'as good as it's going to get'?* I felt the same as you, until I got used to the rio karma, and now I see all the the ipods faults, and I can't stand to use one anymore.

Still, the portable line out is extremely tempting, and if they improve the battery life on the 5g non-photos, I will most likely overlook the other glaring problems and buy one.


[size=x-small]
*if you have actually given an extended, unbiased comparison to other players, that is different. However, I don't think many have actually done that. I also am not saying this in an angry or attacking way, so please don't take it as such.[/size]

 

[Beethovenian]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 I think this issue reveals, very effectively, the core market for the iPod. Apple clearly is marketing this at people with a decent collection of random music. Audiophiles are attracted to it by storage capacities, digital line-out, WAV capabilities, and the other possibilities that it has. I think the needs, and gapless is a need, of people who enjoy classical music are far removed from their consciousness. They have managed to build what could be the perfect beast, and then ignore the people who could really push it to the limits of the design. I like the iPod; I like my iPod; as I have noted, the storage concerns outweigh the gapless and the CDDB issues, but the iPod is not perfect. Minidisc doesn't have the storage (even the 1GB HiMD blanks have their limits) and its longevity--while eternally surprising--isn't guaranteed at all. For me, iPod is as good as it's going to get, for better or worse. That doesn't mean the product shouldn't be better, though.

Sad to think that this is as good as it's going to get. I'm not willing to accept that yet. (That's why I support Sony's continuing use of Atrac in its HD players; SonicStage is the price I'm willing to pay for gapless playback.) And all your argument makes sense. I just wish more people were able, like you, to clearly state the iPod is not a perfect product and lack of gapless is a problem they have. The fact that its virtues make people blind to any fault is the aggravating one. That way this may be indeed as good as it (the iPod) can get.

 

[PSmith08]

For--generally--my needs and wants, the iPod is the best current offering on the market. I do not presume to make general or universal statements; I was speaking purely for myself and my demands of a HDD player. I'm sorry if it seemed that I did otherwise.
The iPod will never be my universal best until the gapless issue is solved and battery life increases. An integrated line-out would be nice, too.

 

[PSmith08]

Atrac is not a bad compression codec (for HiMD/MD). I prefer WAV for a whole host of reasons, but I have not been disappointed by Atrac 3+; I avoid SS and stick to MD Simple Burner 2.0 or whatever it is.
You shouldn't accept it. Even I get frustrated when, in the middle of an opera that I am really into, the thing cuts out for a split second. But, you already know why I am willing to accept it. If I could, I would carry around a good PCDP, a good amp, and my 'phones. But, alas, that isn't really feasible.
I recommend the iPod, and (at the same time) I recommend finding a player that suits an individual's needs. My needs are so far removed from the 50th percentile buyer that I cannot pretend to give good advice to a lot of people. Finally, I have some issues with personality cults springing up over technology. Nothing Apple is acting like it's going to produce deserves excessive devotion. Appreciation? Maybe. Devotion. Not a hope.

 

[AuroraProject]

You know, itunes does have a "join tracks" feature. I have all my trance albums ripped using the join tracks feature and I have no gaps. It's easy enough to use the clickwheel to navigate to a certain time in the track. People have said you will get gaps with this method when the ipod flushes and refills the buffer, but I've yet to hear an interruption.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beethovenian True, Beethoven's Fifth and Sixth are not played entirely without pauses. But the String Quartet Op. 131 is, and there are other examples of big orchestral or instrumental works that are supposed to be played continuously . . . .

In my view, the movements in symphonic music can often be thought of as acts in a play or chapters in a book. They provide the natural emotive breaks that allow the transition of mood, place, or character. But sometimes such transitions aren’t necessary or even desirable as between movements three and four of Beethoven’s Fifth. These are both Allegro movements and don’t present the abrupt break that moving from say an Adagio to Allegro movement would.

We’re beating this to death and it’s a bit OT, so I’ll shut my pie hole and get back to my book and a little Mozart sonic wallpaper.