On Friday, December 6, 2013 7:48:00 AM UTC-8, allen wrote:
On 6 Dec 2013 00:05:18 GMT, Audio_Empire
=20
wrote:
=20
=20
=20
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:01:26 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
=20
=20
=20
snip
=20
=20
=20
Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such a=
s=20
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as =
well =20
if not better than a good stereo receiver driven by a good CD player.
I'd like to see some some proof of that assertion, please? And even if w=
hat you say=20
were true, what good would all of those "great specs" be when the youngs=
ters=20
attached to them have filled them with 32 or 64 KBpS MP3s of terrible-so=
unding =20
(even on a good system) pop recordings?=20
I'm not Arny.
Yes, I'm aware of that.=20
Stereophile 2003:
=20
=20
=20
"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players=EF=BF=BDiron=
ic,=20
considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC
files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance.
But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the
ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an
excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio=20
engineering from an unexpected source.=EF=BF=BDJohn Atkinson"
Did those measurements include the built-in headphone driver amplifier? You=
r quoted text
doesn't say. My experience is that those amps aren't very good - and the la=
ter ones sound
worse than the early ones.=20
http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...-player-measu=
rements
=20
And your 32-64Kbps MP3 reference is a straw man if I ever read=20
one...who listens to MP3s encoded at such a ridiculous bit rate..?
Kids. "I have more songs on my iPod than you do on yours" I know youngsters=
who readily=20
admit that they use low bit-rates to maximize their available storage.=20
Audio_Empire