[Oink1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hier I suppose you could say I'm a bit of a Naim convert. (Paul, Thanks for the cable by the way.)

NP mate - I nearly hacked it up a few weeks ago for the cable!

Ref the Naim - Good gear isn't it?!

 

[bigshot]

An iPod isn't designed to be a principle source... it's a portable one. Using lossless files in an iPod is like running your car on aircraft fuel. It may run, but not very well. Use the iPod for its intended use... for on the go listening with good sounding compressed files... and use your home CD player for its intended use... listening to uncompressed music.

See ya
Steve

 

[notnormal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Using lossless files in an iPod is like running your car on aircraft fuel. It may run, but not very well.

That's a dumb analogy. Anyway I recall you claiming in this thread that all line-outs are the same.

 

[bigshot]

Firstly, my point was that the different compression settings had more of an effect on sound quality than the electronics of the units.

Secondly, I was informed in that thread that Panasonic MP3 players had inferior sound from their line out. No one else was able to offer another player that had poorer sound quality with a lossless file through the line out than the original CD through the same headphone amp and cans. If you would like to offer one, I'd be happy to add to my list of exceptions which so far contains one brand... Panasonic.

See ya
Steve

 

[Duncan]

It 'could' be the cans... the HD497 i found to be quite harsh sounding... pretty crummy, which could exaggerate very minor differences in SQ...

...I don't use any 'MP3' player as reference anyway... as is said above, I just use it for a bit of casual listening on my commute every day, for which - to me, it excels.

 

[Hier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot An iPod isn't designed to be a principle source... it's a portable one.......... Use the iPod for its intended use... for on the go listening with good sounding compressed files... and use your home CD player for its intended use... listening to uncompressed music.

Intended use.......hmmmm? If you look at the peripherals available, that would including using the iPod as a primary source.

When it comes to my home set-up, I would probably agree with you. I'm a bit of a vinyl freak (5000+ albums), so my Linn deck is my primary source. Having said that I am starting to travel a lot, but this includes staying at my family holiday home. It’s not practical to transfer any of my vinyl collection or set up a vinyl based system. At the moment I'm looking at something simpler, based around the Linn Classik or the Arcam Solo.

I don't want to duplicate my CD or Vinyl collection at the holiday home, so surely the iPod-to-hi-fi is the way to go. In which case, only Lossless recordings are acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan It 'could' be the cans... the HD497 i found to be quite harsh sounding... pretty crummy, which could exaggerate very minor differences in SQ... ...I don't use any 'MP3' player as reference anyway... as is said above, I just use it for a bit of casual listening on my commute every day, for which - to me, it excels.

I've always found Senn cans to be neutral and honest to recordings, much like the Naim equipment I have a fondness for. I haven't found the 497's to be harsh and if anything, they are a little warmer than the cans they replaced (Senn HD 475's).

As far as exaggeration goes, it sort of makes my point. The difference is there and if I were to upgrade the cans then the difference should become more aparent, otherwise the better quality cans aren’t doing their job.

When it comes to portable use: yesterday I decided to test the battery life of the iPod with Lossless (11 Hours). This meant that I listened to the iPod all day. It was interesting to find that even when I was out and about, the AAC recordings would grab my attention (for the wrong reasons), even in busy/noisy environments.

 

[notnormal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Firstly, my point was that the different compression settings had more of an effect on sound quality than the electronics of the units.

Aircraft fuel is not superior to car fuel. Nor is car fuel superior to aircraft fuel. They are both designed for different engines. You compared aircraft fuel to lossless compression.

Quote:

Why Not Airplane Fuel Car engines operate in a totally different environment than do airplane engines. Airplane engines spend a great deal of their running life at full rpm, they have a constant airflow from the prop to aid in cooling and instant throttle response and acceleration is not as critical as with a car engine. Car engines spend most of their life accelerating from one corner to the next and are seldom at full RPM for more than a few seconds. They rely on an oversize heat sink head to dissipate combustion heat and racers actually tune car engines based on throttle response. Fuel designed for airplanes typically have from 15 to 20% oil. While the manufactures that truly understand the requirements of car engines typically put 8 to 12% oil in their car fuel. Why 8% to 12% Oil Using high oil content fuels (above 15%) in gas car engines won't provide improved engine life, as some would expect. The point of diminishing return as far as oil content to engine life is actually around 8% for most car engines. In other words any more oil than 8% in the fuel does noting to improve the life of a car engine. In fact the secondary effects of high oil content fuels can actually cause engine damage by encouraging over lean runs. Here's how. Using high oil content fuel causes a car engine to be unresponsive during acceleration acting as if the engine were running rich. Typically when using high oil content fuel, in order to get crisp acceleration and response, an engine will need to be adjusted overly lean. In addition the high oil content prevents lean bog when an engine is over-leaned thus allowing the engine to run at this lean setting without the customary telltale lean bog warning letting you know the engine is overheating. In summary, high oil content fuels don't give added protection. The point of diminishing return from a protection standpoint in a gas car application is about 8% oil depending on the oil type and engine. Anymore oil than this doesn't offer added protection and has potential secondary effects that reduce performance and can actually cause you to over lean your engine in an attempt to get crisp throttle response and acceleration.

Also, yes you did make the obvious claim that different compression settings had more of an effect on sound quality than the electronics of the units. But the question was about the quality of the lineouts given the same source. Furthermore, you then also claimed that line-outs are very simple to design and they all sound the same. This is the point that most posters disagreed and went as far to provide RMAA test results.

 

[azn_baller]

Umm, Sorry but I'm a newb and I'm wondering whats gapless playback? My uncle also told me about some lossless program that makes your ripped C.D.s sound better. If so can you guys tell me where I can get it? Thanks a lot.

 

[Raymate]

On my 60GB iPod colour I will only use lossless . the iPod may be a portable device but it's a portable device that can handle very good quality sound . it can have a line out so why not use it. With lossless I can have around 1800 songs, this save me many trips to my CD rack . yes at the end of the day my CD does sound better but the iPod is not that far away and for a portable gadget that's amazing.

Just wish someone would make a dock that could have a coax digital out.

Before Apple did the lossless I used AAC@320 and this was good but lossless was the first encoder to make me happy.

Now I only use AAC@256 or 320 for my shuffle

R