Ignoring the question that asks "Wouldn't using a tube amp
on mp3s be the same as trying to polish a turd?" see:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000453036338/
You could just get an adapter cable that goes from
a 1/8 inch headphone jack to a pair of RCA jacks, and
plug that into your existing tube amp system. That would
do the same thing as this.

On 2005-06-22 16:41:15 -0400, robert casey said:

Ignoring the question that asks "Wouldn't using a tube amp
on mp3s be the same as trying to polish a turd?" see:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000453036338/
You could just get an adapter cable that goes from
a 1/8 inch headphone jack to a pair of RCA jacks, and
plug that into your existing tube amp system. That would
do the same thing as this.

All you need to hook up an iPod to any stereo is a dock and the above
stated cable. The dock gives you an 1/8 jack of the proper impedance
that is not controlled by the iPod's volume control. The audio output
is a a little less than a regular CD deck, but, in my opinon, not
enough to require a pre-amp. This is the only way I listen to my iPod
and I love it. If you use the m4a file format it sounds much better
than a CD - much less compressed, better sound stage. Granted, it's not
vinyl, but it's still a pleasant listen. Definitely not the same as
polishing a turd!

Cheers.

Malcolm Fuller wrote:
On 2005-06-22 16:41:15 -0400, robert casey said:

If you use the m4a file format it sounds much better
than a CD - much less compressed, better sound stage.

You're kidding... right? CD audio is not data compressed. Never was...
On the other hand, MP4 is. How can MP4 sound better than uncompressed
audio?

El Chico Gordo
The Great Randi of audio

On 2005-06-23 20:24:05 -0400, said:



Malcolm Fuller wrote:
On 2005-06-22 16:41:15 -0400, robert casey said:

If you use the m4a file format it sounds much better
than a CD - much less compressed, better sound stage.

You're kidding... right? CD audio is not data compressed. Never was...
On the other hand, MP4 is. How can MP4 sound better than uncompressed
audio?

El Chico Gordo
The Great Randi of audio

A Compact Disc uses audio compression, not data compression, and that's
what I'm referring to. In my experience, this type of compression takes
away sound stage depth.

But in speaking of data compression, be aware that I'm not talking
about straight MP4s, but M4As, which are MP4 files with Apple's AAC
codec built into them. AAC, aside from the copyright protection it
provides, compresses data a little differently. Before compressing the
musical data, It finds the parts of a song which have no musical value
- i.e. empty parts of a sounds stage - and takes it away from the
encoding process, resulting in a smaller file before compression and,
therefore, less of the musical data has to be compressed to achieve a
small file size. In a straight MP4, or MP3, everything, including
silent passages and empty areas of a sound stage, is encoded as data
and, therefore, more musical data has to be compressed to make a
smaller file.

I have a friend who is absolutely anal about listening to music in the
best way possible. All he ever listens to is vinyl and finds CDs
grating. I had him over to listen to my iPod mini and he said that he
thought that the iPod, though not perfect (which I know it's not), was
much better sounding than a CD (I encoded a CD he brought over to M4A
and A/Bed the two). He agrees with my assertions, which are stated in
the quote. If my friend thought that the iPod sucked, he would've said
it; he's brutally honest.

Malcolm Fuller wrote:

A Compact Disc uses audio compression, not data compression, and that's
what I'm referring to. In my experience, this type of compression takes
away sound stage depth.

Audio compression is used throughout the tracking, mixing and mastering
processes. Generally, when mastering for CD, less audio compression can
be used. Vinyl needs more compression during mastering for obvious
reasons.


But in speaking of data compression, be aware that I'm not talking
about straight MP4s, but M4As, which are MP4 files with Apple's AAC
codec built into them. AAC, aside from the copyright protection it
provides, compresses data a little differently. Before compressing the
musical data, It finds the parts of a song which have no musical value
- i.e. empty parts of a sounds stage - and takes it away from the
encoding process, resulting in a smaller file before compression and,
therefore, less of the musical data has to be compressed to achieve a
small file size. In a straight MP4, or MP3, everything, including
silent passages and empty areas of a sound stage, is encoded as data
and, therefore, more musical data has to be compressed to make a
smaller file.

While the newer data compression may be better it is still a lossy mode
of data compression. Lossy compression is lossy compression.



I have a friend who is absolutely anal about listening to music in the
best way possible. All he ever listens to is vinyl and finds CDs
grating. I had him over to listen to my iPod mini and he said that he
thought that the iPod, though not perfect (which I know it's not), was
much better sounding than a CD (I encoded a CD he brought over to M4A
and A/Bed the two). He agrees with my assertions, which are stated in
the quote. If my friend thought that the iPod sucked, he would've said
it; he's brutally honest.

How can an Ipod sound better than a CD when the M4A files were probably
taken from a CD to begin with? Also, the iPod's audio and conversion
chains are less than acceptable. Perhaps the marginal data and audio
chains within the iPod is masking the obvious for one reason or
another. When stated that a sound file encoded with lossy compression
sounds better, and, has a better sound stage than a media which is
noncompressed, I have to scratch my head.

El Chico Gordo

On 2005-06-25 12:49:25 -0400, "The Great Randi of Audio"
said:

How can an Ipod sound better than a CD when the M4A files were probably
taken from a CD to begin with? Also, the iPod's audio and conversion
chains are less than acceptable. Perhaps the marginal data and audio
chains within the iPod is masking the obvious for one reason or
another. When stated that a sound file encoded with lossy compression
sounds better, and, has a better sound stage than a media which is
noncompressed, I have to scratch my head.

El Chico Gordo

I'd rather trust my ears than trust theory, measurements, or any other
forms of second guessing. A year ago, I was a doubting Thomas just like
you. Then I started reading things, such as the consortium that was
devising the standards for DVD audio had unanimously chose AAC encoding
for their music file layer over every other encoding format because the
audio the AAC file produced was far superior. Again, I was skeptical,
but I decided to purchase some albums off of iTunes and hooked my
computer up to my stereo to listen to the files. What I heard impressed
me enough to buy an iPod mini. I haven't regretted the purchase.

And just another point. Before all this happened, and I was listening
to CDs, I rarely could sit in the sweet spot and listen to an entire
album. Now with the iPod, I find that it's hard to move from the sweet
spot to get other things accomplished. I find myself saying, "Wow, that
sounds good. Whatever I need to do can wait." Now, when I had my friend
over for the audition, it was the first time I had listened to a CD in
a year and, swear to God, it only took three seconds into the song he
wanted to hear to make me feel like thrashing something. There's
something inherent in a CD that's grating. I don't get that with the
iPod.

I know that this goes against conventual wisdom but, swear on my
mother's grave, it's true.

Malcolm

"Malcolm Fuller" wrote in message
news:1119731031.b9dec1d6ed163b5235a8c39c3154ba2f@t eranews...
I'd rather trust my ears than trust theory, measurements, or any other
forms of second guessing. A year ago, I was a doubting Thomas just like
you. Then I started reading things, such as the consortium that was
devising the standards for DVD audio had unanimously chose AAC encoding
for their music file layer over every other encoding format because the
audio the AAC file produced was far superior.

Truly wise words...
MLP

Malcolm Fuller wrote:
On 2005-06-25 12:49:25 -0400, "The Great Randi of Audio"
said:

How can an Ipod sound better than a CD when the M4A files were probably
taken from a CD to begin with? Also, the iPod's audio and conversion
chains are less than acceptable. Perhaps the marginal data and audio
chains within the iPod is masking the obvious for one reason or
another. When stated that a sound file encoded with lossy compression
sounds better, and, has a better sound stage than a media which is
noncompressed, I have to scratch my head.

El Chico Gordo

I'd rather trust my ears than trust theory, measurements, or any other
forms of second guessing. A year ago, I was a doubting Thomas just like
you. Then I started reading things, such as the consortium that was
devising the standards for DVD audio had unanimously chose AAC encoding
for their music file layer over every other encoding format because the
audio the AAC file produced was far superior. Again, I was skeptical,
but I decided to purchase some albums off of iTunes and hooked my
computer up to my stereo to listen to the files. What I heard impressed
me enough to buy an iPod mini. I haven't regretted the purchase.

And just another point. Before all this happened, and I was listening
to CDs, I rarely could sit in the sweet spot and listen to an entire
album. Now with the iPod, I find that it's hard to move from the sweet
spot to get other things accomplished. I find myself saying, "Wow, that
sounds good. Whatever I need to do can wait." Now, when I had my friend
over for the audition, it was the first time I had listened to a CD in
a year and, swear to God, it only took three seconds into the song he
wanted to hear to make me feel like thrashing something. There's
something inherent in a CD that's grating. I don't get that with the
iPod.

I know that this goes against conventual wisdom but, swear on my
mother's grave, it's true.

Malcolm

I think this demonstrates very well that probably most people can't
stand the truth whether in sound reproduction, politics or human
relations.
We have even come to prefer our food cooked and processed.
I'm back off to my cave now and if anyone discovers what truth is,
I don't want to know.

Steve

This an interesting observation, I must say as munch of my kettle chips
and processed ham and cheese sandwitch, for lunch.

Might this also be evidence the all cd players are created equal?

Scott

Stevel wrote:

Malcolm Fuller wrote:


On 2005-06-25 12:49:25 -0400, "The Great Randi of Audio"
said:



How can an Ipod sound better than a CD when the M4A files were probably
taken from a CD to begin with? Also, the iPod's audio and conversion
chains are less than acceptable. Perhaps the marginal data and audio
chains within the iPod is masking the obvious for one reason or
another. When stated that a sound file encoded with lossy compression
sounds better, and, has a better sound stage than a media which is
noncompressed, I have to scratch my head.

El Chico Gordo


I'd rather trust my ears than trust theory, measurements, or any other
forms of second guessing. A year ago, I was a doubting Thomas just like
you. Then I started reading things, such as the consortium that was
devising the standards for DVD audio had unanimously chose AAC encoding
for their music file layer over every other encoding format because the
audio the AAC file produced was far superior. Again, I was skeptical,
but I decided to purchase some albums off of iTunes and hooked my
computer up to my stereo to listen to the files. What I heard impressed
me enough to buy an iPod mini. I haven't regretted the purchase.

And just another point. Before all this happened, and I was listening
to CDs, I rarely could sit in the sweet spot and listen to an entire
album. Now with the iPod, I find that it's hard to move from the sweet
spot to get other things accomplished. I find myself saying, "Wow, that
sounds good. Whatever I need to do can wait." Now, when I had my friend
over for the audition, it was the first time I had listened to a CD in
a year and, swear to God, it only took three seconds into the song he
wanted to hear to make me feel like thrashing something. There's
something inherent in a CD that's grating. I don't get that with the
iPod.

I know that this goes against conventual wisdom but, swear on my
mother's grave, it's true.

Malcolm



I think this demonstrates very well that probably most people can't
stand the truth whether in sound reproduction, politics or human
relations.
We have even come to prefer our food cooked and processed.
I'm back off to my cave now and if anyone discovers what truth is,
I don't want to know.

Steve

scottp wrote:
This an interesting observation, I must say as munch of my kettle chips
and processed ham and cheese sandwitch, for lunch.

Might this also be evidence the all cd players are created equal?

Scott

No. The best ones arn't even slightly equal and anyway they
all evolved from the primodial silicon sludge far far back
in the 1960's.

Steve

Stevel wrote:

Malcolm Fuller wrote:


On 2005-06-25 12:49:25 -0400, "The Great Randi of Audio"
said:



How can an Ipod sound better than a CD when the M4A files were probably
taken from a CD to begin with? Also, the iPod's audio and conversion
chains are less than acceptable. Perhaps the marginal data and audio
chains within the iPod is masking the obvious for one reason or
another. When stated that a sound file encoded with lossy compression
sounds better, and, has a better sound stage than a media which is
noncompressed, I have to scratch my head.

El Chico Gordo


I'd rather trust my ears than trust theory, measurements, or any other
forms of second guessing. A year ago, I was a doubting Thomas just like
you. Then I started reading things, such as the consortium that was
devising the standards for DVD audio had unanimously chose AAC encoding
for their music file layer over every other encoding format because the
audio the AAC file produced was far superior. Again, I was skeptical,
but I decided to purchase some albums off of iTunes and hooked my
computer up to my stereo to listen to the files. What I heard impressed
me enough to buy an iPod mini. I haven't regretted the purchase.

And just another point. Before all this happened, and I was listening
to CDs, I rarely could sit in the sweet spot and listen to an entire
album. Now with the iPod, I find that it's hard to move from the sweet
spot to get other things accomplished. I find myself saying, "Wow, that
sounds good. Whatever I need to do can wait." Now, when I had my friend
over for the audition, it was the first time I had listened to a CD in
a year and, swear to God, it only took three seconds into the song he
wanted to hear to make me feel like thrashing something. There's
something inherent in a CD that's grating. I don't get that with the
iPod.

I know that this goes against conventual wisdom but, swear on my
mother's grave, it's true.

Malcolm



I think this demonstrates very well that probably most people can't
stand the truth whether in sound reproduction, politics or human
relations.
We have even come to prefer our food cooked and processed.
I'm back off to my cave now and if anyone discovers what truth is,
I don't want to know.

Steve