[apnk]

I don't mind ipods. I think they are cool except the new nano, I hate elongated look, looks weird. I also dislike bloatedTunes.

 

[shigzeo]

it is all up to the beholder. sound quality in a forum like this means what is not mainstream. mainstream means bad as we are a niche community.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roebeet /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't use iTunes either, but my friends / relatives do. I had assisted two people with rebuilding their PC's. In scenario one, the drive was completely fried - the user was able to logon afterwards and retrieve all their purchased music, however. In scenario two, we had a backup of the drive and we didn't have to re-download any music. we just had to logon once and the tracks on the disk were re-authorized, I believe. I'll admit that I was impressed with that - Apple had done their homework and must have thought about these scenarios and how to correct them. (But drag and drop is still better, imo).

ummm you can make up to 5 copies of any music you buy from the itunes music store and itunes keeps a record of your ethernet address not your CPU, HD or whatever. so yeah even if you have to throw out your computer and get a new one, as long as you still have the music you can load it on without any problem. I dont see the problem with DRM, do you want everything for free, for something that gives so muych joy I think the pennys we are asked to pay for music is totally reasonable. I do wish they had more in higher bitrate format though. as it is, you just have to pray that the music is 256 or above there is no way of choosing except for the new lossless and high bitrate section. not much to choose from yet though, but you cant blame apple for that.

 

[Mors]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodSugar00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another in a long line probably but I just wanted to have my say and express my befuddlement as to why ppl are so downputting on ipods for their SQ. I have here in my possesssion, a sony NWZ-A829, which I own, and then an array of 6 other DAP's I'm side-testing and trialing with a view to purchase at least one of them off Advancedmp3players.co.uk. They are, the Sony NWZ-S639, Samsung YP-Q1, Ipod Classic 6.5G (120GB), Ipod Nano 4G (16GB), Cowon D2, with DAB radio functionality, 16GB and the Sandisk Sansa Fuze 8GB, all of which, except the Samsung Q1- not a fan of the UI but will examine more thoroughly- and Sony S639- recieved a week later than other players on order due to a last minute stock run out- I have listened to quite extensively, and I have to say, I'm amazed as to why ppl pan the ipod Classic's SQ! I will say, that comparatively to the nano and D2, it can seem lacking a certain sparkle and glitter and shimmer that they possess in the mids-highs, and, comparatively to the Fuze it lacks the robustness and brilliant defintion of bass that that players thumps out- N.B.// this is all with an 120 Ohm resistor adaptor and with the UE's Triple Fi pro 10's headphones/IEM's. It lacks anythin particulary special but it does everything proficiently and adeptly, just, and this is only when going from one of the aforementiond, singled-out players to it, ie, you do quickly adjust to the classic's sound sig, nothing exceptionally. Otherwise, whilst it's highs may be more subdued/darkened and/or distant than and/or quicker decaying than say those provided by the D2 or nano, they are nonethesless very much there and not particulary rolled-off at all, just that little bit more stifled and darkly presented. The ipod's overall sound to me is very neutral, with no one area of the frequency range recieving any real accentuation of note; bass, mids, highs all reproduced at a good, pretty much level to one another, volume. The sound appears to have a slight colur and/or veil to it but this is part of it's sound sig and sound distinction and isn't really an affect on sound quality. It affects sound clarity slightly, being more translucent than transparent say, but the quality is still very good to my ears. Also, another minor quibble may be that, on occasions, it's vocal presentation can be a little constricted and in the head. However, given it's massive memory advantage and potential for an amp if I am to buy one in future, though I might prefer some of the other DAP's sound over it, somewhat, its easily acceptable enough to me to be considered as a keeper over the others for those reasons coupled with a decent SQ. More testing to do though

I've just A/B'd the D2 and Sony A818 (which I wish I'd never bought) against my colleague's Ipod touch with the same tracks. With my E530's the sound quality is as follows (we both agreed).

1. D2



2. A818









3. iPod touch



iPod was bottom by a mile and I can't stand the sound of that A818.
The ipod looks nice though....

 

[Dublo7]

I find Head-Fi is pretty neutral when it comes to iPods. Some like them, some don't - that's cool.
If you want to see some pathetic iPod bashing, check out the anythingbutipod forums. A complete bunch of idiots simply bashing on the ipod because it's the top dog.

However, in saying this, my main problems with ipods stem from their lacking of good lows. I don't think I've yet listened to an iPod of which I've recieved a decent bass response.
The Touch is an amazing device - it will never dethrone my D2 as the king, though.

 

[plonter]

i too own the cowon d2 which is pretty amazing..also got the best battery.
not long ago i bought myself an ipod. i wanted to use his line out to connect to my amp...although thte d2 sounded pretty good too but it doesnt have line out so the signal is amplified twice and it bothered me.
becuase i looked for a kind of "pure" signal to feed my amp and i didnt want to use my computer i went on the ipod. it has 120 gb which allows me to rip all my music to apple lossless and believe me or not....i like the sound more than the d2. yeap,its true. i think the ipod sound so much better and natural when on flat eq. not just when connected to an amp also with earbuds .
the only thing i miss in the ipod is the pretty poor battery life.

 

[pata2001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicksonrt66 /img/forum/go_quote.gif DRM - Digital Rights Management. TO keep you from sharing copies of purchased music/video/whatever. I think there are 3 common systems for on-line music: Itunes (Itunes music only plays on Ipod, and Ipod only plays Itunes music), Microsoft "Plays for Sure" (used by Napster and Walmart), and a second one from Microsoft just for Zunes/Zune store (trying for the Apple style customer lock in). In general it involves some encryption of the material and some way of keeping the decryption key for your account secure.

iTunes plus tracks don't have DRM. They're playable on iPods, Zune, Sony players, PS3, cellphones, and anything that support AAC. Zune marketplace also sell unprotected MP3s now. Obviously, Zune pass subscription music have DRM.

Speaking of iTunes protected tracks, even though they have DRM, I find iTunes' fairplay DRM to be the easiest to manage. I can simply copy the tracks to any media, and anytime I want to restore/copy it back, iTunes will simply authenticate the track when I play it. No need for backing up certificates, libraries, etc (compared to DRM in Sonicstage and Windows Media Player).

Another side, I find it funny how people are complaining about DRM, yet wanting subscription music, which is obviously DRM-heavy.

 

[pata2001]

Being on different forums, I can clearly see the trend and iPod bashers everywhere. I'm just going to describe some of them.

From what I've seen, most of them are Sony fanboys. In general, what I see is people correlate more bass as better SQ. Sony and other manufactures obviously know this, thus offering sound distorting "enhancements" (clear bass, BBE, x-fi, etc etc), and people love it. EQ has never been the strongest feat of the iPods, thus they become easy target for the bashers in the name of "SQ." I mean think about it, how many people think the EX71 is a great in-ear phone (boomy bass, harsh highs, non-existant muddy mids)? Quite a lot of people do.

As for other type of bashing, one of the biggest one was gapless playback. People were bashing iPods to no end (again, usually the same Sony fanboys) about the lack of gapless playback, claiming gapless playback as the holy grail. Now, iPods are gapless capable, yet most other DAPs Iincluding the ones from Sony (only gapless with WAV)) are not. Suddenly, gapless playback is not important anymore, and the same people are toning down gapless playback as "not important' or "nobody listen to gapless music." I observed this on dapreview, comparing the comments made during the Rio Karma era and after gapless playback is introduced on iPods.

Then, there are the MD fanboys.

The obvious bash is that iPods cannot record. Most of this type of bashing failed to include MD player/downloader only units, which obviously cannot record. A different type of bash is about storage. Many MD users used to bash iPods for the limited capacity, bragging about the "unlimited" capacity of removable media. Fast forward to 160GB iPod, now I see comments from the same people on MD board about how "1GB is enough," "I don't need to carry all my music," etc.

Many still bash iPods today, claiming iPods have "poor" battery life and no gapless playback.

Next is the iTunes bashers, starting from the claim that iPods can only be used with iTunes, while forgetting that iPods can be used on Windows, Macs, and even Linux, with a variety of software (winamp, songbird, etc). The funny part is that hardly anybody complaint about the Zune being locked into 1 software, windows only, and not even UMS.

Next bash is how AAC is "Apple's proprietary" format. There are also the general iTunes bashers, ignoring the advance features of iTunes like Podcast, smart playlist, etc. I find some of these people are still using, and actually prefer Sony's abandoned Sonicstage. As for the bashing of iTunes being bloaty (on windows), I think that is somewhat acceptable, especially when comparing with the speedier older versions of iTunes (when there was no video support). Luckily Mac users don't experience this.

Then, there are the general bashers. This mostly can be seen on engadget or digg, as people will bash iPods/Apple just because, even on non-Apple related articles.

Simplified, the common basher points were battery life, gapless playback, and sound quality. Battery life and gapless playback are no longer an issue in current iPods, thus bashing based on SQ, which is highly subjective, is the best and will remain as the most popular pick.

 

[walkingman]

Personally I dislike the click wheel. It may just be me, but I can never get it to be as accurate as a d-pad. The second is not really the product itself, but the general feeling of smugness I get from owners (not on Head-fi mind you) which irritates the hell out of me. The condescending Apple ads generally confirms these sort of patronising attitude problem, which is why I stay clear of their product.

Anyway isn't it in to hate on Sony as well? I see more Sony bashing than iPod bashing these days. And plenty are from Mac fanboys who claim Sony stole design cues for their Vaios for example...

 

[BloodSugar00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pata2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Being on different forums, I can clearly see the trend and iPod bashers everywhere. I'm just going to describe some of them. From what I've seen, most of them are Sony fanboys. In general, what I see is people correlate more bass as better SQ. Sony and other manufactures obviously know this, thus offering sound distorting "enhancements" (clear bass, BBE, x-fi, etc etc), and people love it. EQ has never been the strongest feat of the iPods, thus they become easy target for the bashers in the name of "SQ." I mean think about it, how many people think the EX71 is a great in-ear phone (boomy bass, harsh highs, non-existant muddy mids)? Quite a lot of people do. As for other type of bashing, one of the biggest one was gapless playback. People were bashing iPods to no end (again, usually the same Sony fanboys) about the lack of gapless playback, claiming gapless playback as the holy grail. Now, iPods are gapless capable, yet most other DAPs Iincluding the ones from Sony (only gapless with WAV)) are not. Suddenly, gapless playback is not important anymore, and the same people are toning down gapless playback as "not important' or "nobody listen to gapless music." I observed this on dapreview, comparing the comments made during the Rio Karma era and after gapless playback is introduced on iPods. Then, there are the MD fanboys. The obvious bash is that iPods cannot record. Most of this type of bashing failed to include MD player/downloader only units, which obviously cannot record. A different type of bash is about storage. Many MD users used to bash iPods for the limited capacity, bragging about the "unlimited" capacity of removable media. Fast forward to 160GB iPod, now I see comments from the same people on MD board about how "1GB is enough," "I don't need to carry all my music," etc. Many still bash iPods today, claiming iPods have "poor" battery life and no gapless playback. Next is the iTunes bashers, starting from the claim that iPods can only be used with iTunes, while forgetting that iPods can be used on Windows, Macs, and even Linux, with a variety of software (winamp, songbird, etc). The funny part is that hardly anybody complaint about the Zune being locked into 1 software, windows only, and not even UMS. Next bash is how AAC is "Apple's proprietary" format. There are also the general iTunes bashers, ignoring the advance features of iTunes like Podcast, smart playlist, etc. I find some of these people are still using, and actually prefer Sony's abandoned Sonicstage. As for the bashing of iTunes being bloaty (on windows), I think that is somewhat acceptable, especially when comparing with the speedier older versions of iTunes (when there was no video support). Luckily Mac users don't experience this. Then, there are the general bashers. This mostly can be seen on engadget or digg, as people will bash iPods/Apple just because, even on non-Apple related articles. Simplified, the common basher points were battery life, gapless playback, and sound quality. Battery life and gapless playback are no longer an issue in current iPods, thus bashing based on SQ, which is highly subjective, is the best and will remain as the most popular pick.

Excellent work and reaping together of all (most, maybe) the different shades of ipod bashing!

I think one of your first comments, in particular, is very insightful- the recognition of the correlation between bass quantity/presence and percieved SQ. I myself fell in this trap, to a degree (the bass roll-off on the D2 is unacceptable without added impedance with most IEM's), and was seduced by the sony bass of my A-829. Now, a more experienced and better developed listener, yes, I still love good bass and mids, but I appreciate quality highs so much more and the D2 shines here (as does the Ue Triple fi, though, obviously these are headphones, which I own). I can imagine, even though I would keep it in better perspective I believe, that I might of criticised ipods on tht basis if I had of tried them at that time.

Everything else makes sense also and is excellently brought together, explained and put across. Very observant work.

 

[roebeet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dublo7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find Head-Fi is pretty neutral when it comes to iPods. Some like them, some don't - that's cool. If you want to see some pathetic iPod bashing, check out the anythingbutipod forums. A complete bunch of idiots simply bashing on the ipod because it's the top dog.

Unfortunately true. Similar to the Apple fanboys who bash Microsoft just because it's the top dog in the desktop OS space.


Quote:

Originally Posted by pata2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Next is the iTunes bashers, starting from the claim that iPods can only be used with iTunes, while forgetting that iPods can be used on Windows, Macs, and even Linux, with a variety of software (winamp, songbird, etc). The funny part is that hardly anybody complaint about the Zune being locked into 1 software, windows only, and not even UMS.

What amazes me is that the Zune is even more locked down than iPods, which I didn't think could be possible. Although keep in mind that all the iPod support in Linux is from Linux developers, and not Apple itself. Without them, iPods would be just as unusable there. And Apple supporting Windows is a no-brainer - if they hadn't done that, they'd never have the customer base they currently enjoy.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pata2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Being on different forums, I can clearly see the trend and iPod bashers everywhere. I'm just going to describe some of them. From what I've seen, most of them are Sony fanboys.

We just don't like how apple fanboys look down on everybody else.

But seriously, ipods do not sound great out of the box. Maybe the latest models do, but they cost a lot more than say a sansa fuze or sony mp3 player, which sound exceptionally well and even better than any ipod.

One advantage of ipods is gapless playback, but that's just it. Not everyone needs gapless playback, so don't tell me I need gapless when I don't.

 

[olblueyez]

They suck, they don't suck, who cares?

 

[Kicksonrt66]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pata2001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif iTunes plus tracks don't have DRM. They're playable on iPods, Zune, Sony players, PS3, cellphones, and anything that support AAC.

The Plus tracks are pretty recent. Extremely recent for me since they don't appear on the old release of Itunes I had and the Itunes update would just whine about how it wasn't able to update Quicktime. I finally used Google to find how to blast the old version off my system (apparently it's a common problem with Itunes, but no help from Apple!) Anyhow, now I can see the plus tracks in the store.

Another DRM issue was that the default when ripping your own CD's was protected AAC, again, only for Ipod.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif We just don't like how apple fanboys look down on everybody else. But seriously, ipods do not sound great out of the box. Maybe the latest models do, but they cost a lot more than say a sansa fuze or sony mp3 player, which sound exceptionally well and even better than any ipod. One advantage of ipods is gapless playback, but that's just it. Not everyone needs gapless playback, so don't tell me I need gapless when I don't.

haha, it sounds more like bitterness that has driven you away. i hated ipods too and actually, looked down in anyone who used one. then i heard one and realised that my 'excellent better than ipod pmp' was really just another pmp with a fanbase that looked down on ipod users. i will not buy that people who use ipods look down on other people. people use them because they are easy to find and have good accessory support and are a known quantity.

if anything, people who use non-ipods turn more heads than those who don't as those persons actually had to go looking for one. but to say that other players sound better is wrong. they don't. the ipod has never been a bad sounding player, just never exceptional until recently.

klickson: a default is only a click away from anything else. my itunes (as far as i have used it in now 2 years) has never defaulted to protected aac, in fact i have never seen this option. my sony plays my itunes aac files perfectly as well as other software and some car players. im not sure where you get this.

i think that ipod haters in general make up a huge amount of dross just to protect their identity as ipod haters.

as far as pricing is concerned, the ipod is not as cheap as sansa or meizu or comparing it to older releases from other companies like the d2 for instance, but compared to new releases it is usually the same price or cheaper. if you buy the sony that only work with sonic stage, you shell out much more money than you would ever shell out for non-sonicstage sony machines. my 829 8gb cost much more money than an ipod of 8 gb. it is a nice player if i can get used to the hiss but far more expensive