ipod users have become so accustom to low quality audio they don't know any better. Try a decent mp3 player and good quality phones. The difference will be as striking as when you saw HD video for the first time.
I agree largely with this. But I do not think the general public really knew what decent audio was anyways before the ipod. However even if people listen to my Etymotic ER-4p's and notice the drastic difference on a decent portable source, they don't really care that much. Some people just don't appreciate music or music quality to get excited about hearing musicians breathing or moving sheet music (amongst other horde of other things used to describe "good" audio).
I don't even think the public knows what functionality is per se with regards to tech. In theory that is true, but most people just dont understand what you COULD do given lack of manufacture's constraints, etc. It took quite a while (relatively...) for DRM to start being understood by a decent chunk of the public before they figured out they shouldn't like it.
OziD: nobody ever put a price tag of thousands needed for good portable audio. And why do you have such an attitude about it? We are acknowledging the lack of applicability for most people. It is just peoples' interest or hobby. And...I will just assume your brother's band consists of truly great musicians? And when I said sheet music...I was referring to classical duos or other small ensembles where dynamics and silence with ambient noise from musicians really gives something extra to me and other appreciative audio hobbyists.
I use a first-gen iPod Nano. Initially I ripped all my MP3s at 128kbps, but noticed a lot of hissing, and basically just general crappiness in the audio quality. Re-ripped everything at 192 kbps VBR, and the difference was very noticeable. Definitely not "audiophile" quality, but more enjoyable.
So basically, the iPod is a decent MP3 player, tests have shown the various models have a good signal-to-noise ratio, and that audio is reproduced well. Problems are more with people not knowing the settings available within iTunes to better their listening enjoyment.
ps- why did the first-gen shuffle allow you to downgrade your MP3s on the fly to save space on the shuffle, but preserve high-bitrate songs on your computer...but the Nanos don't have that feature?
Couldn't agree better. But does the iPod support Apple's [mathematically] Lossless Audio format (average 500 kbps for mono, 1 Mbps for stereo) which iTunes can use for ripping CDs? Or is it restricted to lossy MP3 and AAC?
Too bad there are still no optical drives for computers that support SACD. Come on Sony, at least make an SACD-compatible BD drive for your über-expensive VAIO media centers, just like the unit you dumped into the PS3!
the Nook Color proved it was an undercover tablet all along, Barnes and Noble has hit back with this latest Nook as proof of its focus on one thing: reading.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
ipod users have become so accustom to low quality audio they don't know any better. Try a decent mp3 player and good quality phones. The difference will be as striking as when you saw HD video for the first time.
the ipod has been the death of quality audio.
I agree largely with this. But I do not think the general public really knew what decent audio was anyways before the ipod. However even if people listen to my Etymotic ER-4p's and notice the drastic difference on a decent portable source, they don't really care that much. Some people just don't appreciate music or music quality to get excited about hearing musicians breathing or moving sheet music (amongst other horde of other things used to describe "good" audio).
audio quality means nothing whatsoever to the public. what matters is functionality and ease of use.
yes because i really want to hear Ray J gasping for breath or Beck's new guitarist fumbling with his sheet music while i'm jogging or on the subway.
i'm not going to spend 1000's on audio equipment when I can pay my brothers band 50 bucks to play in my back yard.
I don't even think the public knows what functionality is per se with regards to tech. In theory that is true, but most people just dont understand what you COULD do given lack of manufacture's constraints, etc. It took quite a while (relatively...) for DRM to start being understood by a decent chunk of the public before they figured out they shouldn't like it.
OziD: nobody ever put a price tag of thousands needed for good portable audio. And why do you have such an attitude about it? We are acknowledging the lack of applicability for most people. It is just peoples' interest or hobby. And...I will just assume your brother's band consists of truly great musicians? And when I said sheet music...I was referring to classical duos or other small ensembles where dynamics and silence with ambient noise from musicians really gives something extra to me and other appreciative audio hobbyists.
"audio quality means nothing whatsoever to the public. what matters is functionality and ease of use."
Sounds like you drank the Apple Kool-Aid
Your ignorance is Apple's Marketing Dept's bliss
yeah i get a boner when i can hear them turn the sheet music page.
sheesh
I think your statement is partly true.
I use a first-gen iPod Nano. Initially I ripped all my MP3s at 128kbps, but noticed a lot of hissing, and basically just general crappiness in the audio quality. Re-ripped everything at 192 kbps VBR, and the difference was very noticeable. Definitely not "audiophile" quality, but more enjoyable.
So basically, the iPod is a decent MP3 player, tests have shown the various models have a good signal-to-noise ratio, and that audio is reproduced well. Problems are more with people not knowing the settings available within iTunes to better their listening enjoyment.
ps- why did the first-gen shuffle allow you to downgrade your MP3s on the fly to save space on the shuffle, but preserve high-bitrate songs on your computer...but the Nanos don't have that feature?
Couldn't agree better. But does the iPod support Apple's [mathematically] Lossless Audio format (average 500 kbps for mono, 1 Mbps for stereo) which iTunes can use for ripping CDs? Or is it restricted to lossy MP3 and AAC?
Too bad there are still no optical drives for computers that support SACD. Come on Sony, at least make an SACD-compatible BD drive for your über-expensive VAIO media centers, just like the unit you dumped into the PS3!
Srsrly.
The first time I listened to an iPod with those iPod earbuds my reaction was pretty much, "How can people listen to this?"