[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:01:26 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...



On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:51:01 AM UTC-8, ScottW wrote:



On Monday, November 25, 2013 4:38:37 PM UTC-8, Audio_Empire wrote:



But we part company when you start comparing iPod and iPod-like

devices and ear-buds favorably with a good stereo system.



Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such as
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as well
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 what you say
were true, what good would all of those "great specs" be when the youngsters
attached to them have filled them with 32 or 64 KBpS MP3s of terrible-sounding
(even on a good system) pop recordings?


Headphones and earphones are a different story. It is undeniable that they
bypass room acoustics and HRTFs. While neither room acoustics nor HRTFs are
exactly accuracy-enhancing components of the listening experience, their
absence suggests the need for a period of acclimatizing that not every
listener is going to emerge from as a happy camper.


The world's best headphones just aren't as good a listening experience as
a decent pair of speakers, by virtue of the comfort factor, even if nothing else.


But you've said here before that your unique ear makes a std earbud a
non-option for you. Perhaps you should try one of those custom forming
buds before declaring them "unsatisfying" and implying your personal
inability extends to so many.

I wonder if the unique ear is a medical condition or a behavioral one.

Mr. Kruger; my "unique ear" is not all that unique. I lack (as do many people) the
turned-over fold below my ear canal that allows ear buds to hang from them. It's
a physical difference, neither a medical nor a behavioral condition. IOW. ear-buds
won't stay in my ear. They fall out! BTW, I see your above comment as unnecessary
and somewhat offensive to me.


Maybe such a playback is satisfying to you, but I know many
audiophilesincluding myself, that would not find these portable devices
anything more than a convenient way to carry their music with them when
they need to do so.

Something about old dogs and new tricks?

Is it really necessary to engage in personal rancor?


Perhaps that is where "audiophiles" have become less about sound and more
about something else. Reality is earbuds or headphones are audibly far
more capable in every measure except soundstage at a fraction of the
cost.

Agreed.

So, you're agreeing that people who prefer to listen to speakers over listening to
earbuds and other forms of headphones have that preference because they care
more for equipment than music? It couldn't be because music sounds better and more
realistic and therefore more satisfying through speakers than through ear-buds could it?


OTOH it could just be that ear buds suffer from a set of inherent
limitations that preclude them from being something that some of us would
ever consider to be high end sound. The inability to cast a sound stage
that can in any way shape or form create anything close to an illusion of
live acoustic music precludes them from ever being high end in my book. I
think it's great that we can get what we can get with portable audio these
days. But IMO it ain't high end audio.


Why the "could just be"? The major issue was conceeded explicitly: "...more
capable in every measure except soundstage..." I would add that if you wear
earphones or headphones for hours and hours they can become painful if not
well-fitted, and sweaty even if well fitted.

Then why are you complaining about people who don't particularly like headphone
listening, and use them ONLY because they are a necessary evil with portable players?
Why the overall tone of criticism aimed at those who think of earphones only as worthy of
private and/or portable listening?

[allen]

On 6 Dec 2013 00:05:18 GMT, Audio_Empire
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:01:26 AM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:

snip

Techincally speaking there are no audible techical deficiencies such as
noise and distortion in the better iPod-like devices. They measure as well
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 what you say
were true, what good would all of those "great specs" be when the youngsters
attached to them have filled them with 32 or 64 KBpS MP3s of terrible-sounding
(even on a good system) pop recordings?


I'm not Arny.

Stereophile 2003:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players—ironic,
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
engineering from an unexpected source.—John Atkinson"

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...r-measurements

And your 32-64Kbps MP3 reference is a straw man if I ever read
one...who listens to MP3s encoded at such a ridiculous bit rate..?

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

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