Samilktray Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 A good pair of headphones is more important to sound quality than the actual iPod.
adam1 Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 A good pair of headphones is more important to sound quality than the actual iPod. Sound quality of the mp3 player is far more important. Headphones are of secondary importance. Good mp3 player with bad headphones = bad sound. Bad mp3 player with good headphones = bad sound.
Samilktray Posted 5 January 2011 Posted 5 January 2011 Well I've no complaints with how my iPhone sounds through my headphones, so I cant agree.
James. Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 Sound quality of the mp3 player is far more important. Headphones are of secondary importance. Good mp3 player with bad headphones = bad sound. Bad mp3 player with good headphones = bad sound. So you're saying that your Creative whatever it is with some nice white Apple headphones would sound better than my iPod Classic/iPhone with Sennheiser CX300's? Bullshit.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 So you're saying that your Creative whatever it is with some nice white Apple headphones would sound better than my iPod Classic/iPhone with Sennheiser CX300's? Bullshit. No, he's just repeating the old hi-fi adage that it doesn't matter how good your output kit is (headphones in this case), the end result is only going to be as good as your source (the mp3 player). I don't think Ipods are terrible sound quality wise (the headphones are truly dreadful - but so are those bundled with every audio capable device I've ever had a go on) but they're not the best despite being amongst the most expensive. It's by the by really because, as has been noticed elsewhere, the general shift to non-physical formats of music has proved that for the majority of the music consuming public, sound quality isn't that big a consideration which isn't really a surprise. For the first few years of downloading people were cheerily using mp3s ripped at feeble bit rates because they sounded fine compared to what they'd been listening to. An Ipod may not be an audiophile's dream device but to most people they sound at least as good as anything they've heard previously, and people have lots of other reasons for choosing an Ipod than sound quality
samlcfc Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 Sound quality of the mp3 player is far more important. Headphones are of secondary importance. Good mp3 player with bad headphones = bad sound. Bad mp3 player with good headphones = bad sound. Ive had loads of different headphones in the past ranging in price to about £60. They all sound different and now ive got some bose ones for like twice that price and they sound rediculously good so this isnt true
Bellend Sebastian Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 Ive had loads of different headphones in the past ranging in price to about £60. They all sound different and now ive got some bose ones for like twice that price and they sound rediculously good so this isnt true That's not what he's saying though. The Bose ones might sound better than the other headphones you have, but they'll only ever sound as good as your mp3 player. Plug your Boses into my Dad's old ITT music centre (turntable! Cassette deck! Manual radio with longwave!) and listen to Bellend Sebastian Live In Ted's spare room on C60 and trust me they'll sound bloody awful
James. Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 My point was that headphones matter more than adam1 is implying. I listen to a CD on my pretty decent separates system at home and I don't think it sounds that much better than listening to the same album on my iPod with Sennheisers. Maybe my ears are a bit rubbish. EDIT: and just to add I actually misread adam1's first post hence why my response probably didn't make much sense.
Jon the Hat Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 The idea that sound quality is the most important factor is clearly nonsense. Oh, and to get new music onto my ipod i plug it into my computer and pour myself a nice glass of something, then unplug it again. How is that harder than opening folders and dragging and dropping bullshit? Apple make awesome simple user interfaces for people who dont care whether it the best technical way of doing something, only that it is simple and quick. These same people have better things to do like work and listen to their music. Hence they can also afford to pay Apple prices. Even old people can use itunes and ipods. Oh and if you are whinging about a few quid extra for the ipod you probably can't afford the headphones good enough to make a blind bit of difference to the quality between ipod and whatever the best in class might be.
Smudge Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 Not being a tech bod myself, I ripped straight into iTunes then they were in MPEG4 which I can't use anywhere else, but as you say if you rip in using mp3 it is better. But I can't be arsed to go and do it all again! Into mp3... therefore stuck! No it isn't? Mp3 is compressed to hell. Mp4 has 10 times the information as long as you have a large enough hard drive leave it in lossless. I have and auxiliary input on my car radio and bought a very high quality cable (Straightwire musicable), the music sounds so much better.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 My point was that headphones matter more than adam1 is implying. I listen to a CD on my pretty decent separates system at home and I don't think it sounds that much better than listening to the same album on my iPod with Sennheisers. Maybe my ears are a bit rubbish. I doubt that. Someone that knows more about hifi equipment than I do will probably have a better explanation than I do, but I've always found the headphone stage on separate CD players and the like has been bloody awful - far inferior to listening to even a modest personal audio device - something to do with amplification, I imagine. The idea that sound quality is the most important factor is clearly nonsense. Well that depends on who you are. It's massively important to me, and it has a direct impact on my enjoyment of music. It's why I've invested heavily (compared to most people) in audio equipment, and also why I resisted the mp3 revolution for as long as I did. I didn't buy an mp3 player of any sort for ages because I thought they were shite. The ability to store x thousand number of tracks on one device wasn't something I ever craved previously and I'm not convinced anybody else did, and I wasn't going to readily compromise on sound quality to be able to do that. I thought it was a backwards step and even now I've sort of embraced it all I think it's a sideways step rather than a forward one. A revolution in storage and piracy more than anything else.
James. Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 I doubt that. Someone that knows more about hifi equipment than I do will probably have a better explanation than I do, but I've always found the headphone stage on separate CD players and the like has been bloody awful - far inferior to listening to even a modest personal audio device - something to do with amplification, I imagine. I was comparing a CD played through speakers on a separates system with an mp3 played on an iPod through decent headphones. I find the benefit of having the music inside your head kind of offsets any improved crispness and sharpness of the music when played through good speakers. I completely agree about your point regarding the importance of sound quality. I just haven't noticed any issues with my current set ups as yet.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 I was comparing a CD played through speakers on a separates system with an mp3 played on an iPod through decent headphones. I find the benefit of having the music inside your head kind of offsets any improved crispness and sharpness of the music when played through good speakers. I completely agree about your point regarding the importance of sound quality. I just haven't noticed any issues with my current set ups as yet. I put two and two together and came up with five, I am inclined to do that. When I had shit audio equipment (a midi system, remember them?) I used to love listening to music through headphones. I still hear music most either through headphones (walking to work) or in the car because I don't have the spare time to sit in front of the hi fi as much as I'd like, but I'd always plump for the latter if I could, as I'm still often amazed at how wonderful it can sound. Headphones always feel like a compromise to me, even good ones, regardless of what source I'm listening to. I listen to mp3s on my personal player ripped at 320 kbps using LAME which I've been told is still the best mp3 encoder but I must confess that I simply cannot be arsed to explore other file formats. It's good enough. Look at me compromising!
Smudge Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 I doubt that. Someone that knows more about hifi equipment than I do will probably have a better explanation than I do, but I've always found the headphone stage on separate CD players and the like has been bloody awful - far inferior to listening to even a modest personal audio device - something to do with amplification, I imagine. Well that depends on who you are. It's massively important to me, and it has a direct impact on my enjoyment of music. It's why I've invested heavily (compared to most people) in audio equipment, and also why I resisted the mp3 revolution for as long as I did. I didn't buy an mp3 player of any sort for ages because I thought they were shite. The ability to store x thousand number of tracks on one device wasn't something I ever craved previously and I'm not convinced anybody else did, and I wasn't going to readily compromise on sound quality to be able to do that. I thought it was a backwards step and even now I've sort of embraced it all I think it's a sideways step rather than a forward one. A revolution in storage and piracy more than anything else. That's because the DAC in a small cheap device is limited. The way forward is with music servers, now being developed by such luminaries as Linn, Rega, Ayre and Naim most without storage built in (reduces electronic noise). Linn are so commited to this they have stopped making CD players.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 That's because the DAC in a small cheap device is limited. The way forward is with music servers, now being developed by such luminaries as Linn, Rega, Ayre and Naim most without storage built in (reduces electronic noise). Linn are so commited to this they have stopped making CD players. I want one NOW. Damn you! (but thanks, I'll be exploring that)
Smudge Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 I want one NOW. Damn you! (but thanks, I'll be exploring that) Unfortunately the expense doesn't end with the box, you'll need a NAS (network attached storage); you can use your computer or an external hard drive; and a gui (graphical user interface) on a laptop, iphone or ipad. I don't have enough experience with them yet to decide whether you can hear the difference between hard wire and wireless but according to Linn hard wiring is the only way to go. Cymbiosis in Leicester are dealers for Linn and Rega but to hear a demo they'll want you to make an appointment; beware they are somewhat toffee nosed, but very knowledgeable
Bellend Sebastian Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 I knew Linn aren't cheap but I looked at the prices and dear lord, it's going to be a while before I contemplate going down that road, but as you say, it's the future
Smudge Posted 6 January 2011 Posted 6 January 2011 I knew Linn aren't cheap but I looked at the prices and dear lord, it's going to be a while before I contemplate going down that road, but as you say, it's the future A less expensive approach to consider is the new Apple tv, you can stream the music on your computer from itunes through your system. It has an optical audio output which you can feed into the back of your preamp or surround sound receiver. That way you will use the Dac in your system. I have just installed one and I'm quite pleased with it. Good for Netflicks, Youtube and Flickr as well as audio streaming. Mind you if you have a PS3 you can do all of that anyway I believe.
Jon the Hat Posted 7 January 2011 Posted 7 January 2011 Well that depends on who you are. It's massively important to me, and it has a direct impact on my enjoyment of music. It's why I've invested heavily (compared to most people) in audio equipment, and also why I resisted the mp3 revolution for as long as I did. I didn't buy an mp3 player of any sort for ages because I thought they were shite. The ability to store x thousand number of tracks on one device wasn't something I ever craved previously and I'm not convinced anybody else did, and I wasn't going to readily compromise on sound quality to be able to do that. I thought it was a backwards step and even now I've sort of embraced it all I think it's a sideways step rather than a forward one. A revolution in storage and piracy more than anything else. You are very right, but also in the minority who value the sound quality that highly. MP3 technology is about 25 years old I believe, and not very good.
martyn Posted 7 January 2011 Posted 7 January 2011 Although I myself have the Sandisk Sansa (very decent cheap player), for pure sound quality, the Cowon J3 (or indeed S9), or the Sony NWZ-A847 are by some distance the best I've heard. Just a shame that with the Sony you are tied in to the EU decibel limiting law. The EQ options on the Cowon are tremendous.
Finnegan Posted 7 January 2011 Posted 7 January 2011 I'm almost envious of the knowledge of some of you when it comes to sound. I read all of this, fascinated. But it was like watching Star Trek - I didn't understand a word.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 7 January 2011 Posted 7 January 2011 Although I myself have the Sandisk Sansa (very decent cheap player), for pure sound quality, the Cowon J3 (or indeed S9), or the Sony NWZ-A847 are by some distance the best I've heard. Just a shame that with the Sony you are tied in to the EU decibel limiting law. The EQ options on the Cowon are tremendous. I have a Sandisk Sansa and considering how cheap it was I think it's a very good little device and it's never let me down in 3 years. If I was buying a large capacity player I'd probably buy a Cowon, so it's good to hear another endorsement of them. My current dilemma is whether I actually need a big player. The Sansa holds 100 albums at a high bit rate and that's without expanding the memory. I know it's not that many, but as I tiresomely point out to people, you can only listen to one at a time, and it's not much bother wiping it and picking another 100 when I get bored. The car stereo has a USB port and it's just as easy to use a memory stick and as these are getting bigger all the time I can see a point in the not too distant future where I have a little player for jogging, walking to work etc and my whole music collection on a couple of memory sticks What's a decibel? Ten times the size of a Babybel
Trav Le Bleu Posted 7 January 2011 Posted 7 January 2011 Bellend, I understand what you're saying about headphones/speakers. I totally get it and you're 100% right. Anyone who knows their audio will tell you the same. It's such a simple concept I can't believe people are questioning it. Let's put it another way... A fiat punto engine in a ferrari... A ferrari engine in a fiat punto... which one will be faster? Oh, and I saw mention of Bose... Bose is audio for asthetes and posers as are B&O (though I DO think their stuff looks sexy!) And iPods are mp3s for people who don't like music much... as Jon the Hat argues... sound quality isn't important. Nah, of course not!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.