[[email protected]]

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source. Is it even
feasible? What issues would have to be resolved? Is it likely to ever
happen?

ESTG/

[Rich Teer]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, wrote:

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source. Is it even

Two things would be required:

1. The use of uncompressed or losslessly compressed files. If you're
using MP3 or AAC, you're wasting your time. Use WAV or AIFF insteadx
(insert rant here about why Apple should support FLAC on their iDevices
and iTunes), at the highest possible word size and bit rate.

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. Use the Wadia i170 transport or similar
(just plugging your iPod into a regular dock will no doubt use the
crappy internal DAC).

HTH,

--
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine

www.vinylphilemag.com

[bob]

On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...layer-measure=
ments

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob

[Stephen McElroy]

In article , bob
wrote:

On Oct 25, 10:35*am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. *

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...yer-measuremen
ts

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

That's assuming the current iPod uses the same DAC as the 2003 and that
it's possible to get that clean DAC output without it being degraded by,
say, headphone amps chips.

Stephen

[bob]

On Oct 25, 1:35=A0pm, Stephen McElroy wrote:
In article , bob
wrote:
I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...music-player-m...
ts

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

That's assuming the current iPod uses the same DAC as the 2003

No, it's assuming the later iPods don't use a DAC that's appreciably
worse. I know of no evidence that this is the case, nor any particular
reason to believe it might be.

and that
it's possible to get that clean DAC output without it being degraded by,
say, headphone amps chips.

Well, that has nothing to do with the claim that the DAC itself is "a
piece of crap," now, does it? Whether it's true or not I don't know
(and neither do you, apparently), though it's certainly more plausible
than blaming the DAC.

bob

[Walt]

On 10/25/2011 6:36 AM, wrote:
...what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source. Is it even
feasible? What issues would have to be resolved? Is it likely to ever
happen?

With uncompressed data storage (.wav or Apple Lossless), I think it
would qualify as-is. If you think of it as a digital storage device, as
long as it spits out the same stream of ones and zeroes that you give
it, it won't affect the sound at all. DACs and analog output technology
is so well understood today that these should not be the weak link in
any system.

As for whether it still qualifies with compressed storage, that's open
for debate. See http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/itunes.htm


//Walt

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

wrote in message
...

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source.

Ipods are true CD quality devices which means that in a rational world, they
are already capable of "high end" quality *if* you load them with the right
music files.

Stay clear of low bitrate lossy-compressed recordings and hook them to a
suitable reproducers, and they are fine.

The same is true of good quality far lower cost completive devices such as
the Sansa Clip and Fuze.

Devices that attempt to put a high end gloss onto iPods by bypassing their
internal analog circuitry are mostly there for lightening the pocketbooks of
people who are easily scared by hype.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Rich Teer" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, wrote:

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source. Is it even

Two things would be required:

1. The use of uncompressed or losslessly compressed files. If you're
using MP3 or AAC, you're wasting your time. Use WAV or AIFF insteadx
(insert rant here about why Apple should support FLAC on their iDevices
and iTunes), at the highest possible word size and bit rate.

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. Use the Wadia i170 transport or similar
(just plugging your iPod into a regular dock will no doubt use the
crappy internal DAC).

There's quite a bit of evidence that none of the 3 or more different
internal DACs that have been used in the vaious submodels of the top model
of the iPod have been anything but sonically transparent.

Even Stereophile's test of an early generation iPod shows nothing to
complain about:

http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index.html

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in message
...
In article , bob
wrote:

On Oct 25, 10:35 am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality.

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...yer-measuremen
ts

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

That's assuming the current iPod uses the same DAC as the 2003

It isn't but the sequel parts have not shown any signs of degradation. Of
course there are claims that every new generation uses either a totally
inferior part or a vastly superior one.

Occasionally someone measures the current product and finds that it is still
just fine.

and that it's possible to get that clean DAC output without it being
degraded by,
say, headphone amps chips.

Betting that headphone amp chips hurt sound quality without reliable
evidence is just as risky as betting that the DACs are problematical or
getting worse.

In fact the worst audible problem with digital player headphone amps come
when their maximum output has been limited due to legal restrictions in some
localities.

Relevant quote from the SP article cited above:

"The thin bottom edge contains the jack for the 32-pin dock connector
(interestingly, FireWire uses only six pins-this may represent some sort of
future-proofing on Apple's part). In addition to carrying data at 400Mbps,
this cable also recharges the iPod's internal lithium-ion battery. "

IOW, the iPod has a digital audio output.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 03:36:53 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source. Is it even
feasible? What issues would have to be resolved? Is it likely to ever
happen?

ESTG/

Using ALCA (Apple Lossless Compression Algorithm), the performance of my iPod
Touch is just fine thank you. although I haven't done a formal (or even an
informal, for that matter) DBT between the Touch and the CD playing through
my stereo system, I have done a cursory comparison. I find no glaring
differences between the two when levels are matched and I switch between one
and the other. Frankly, after a while, I became confused as to which I was
listening and I was doing the switching using a remote control!
IOW, the iPod Touch sounds good enough to NOT be an issue FOR ME when
listening to music.

Of course, if one finds iPod sound not good enough, one can always purchase a
music server client like an Apple TV box or a Logitech Squeezebox Touch or
some other music server client (not the Cambridge NP-30, though. It doesn't
support Apple Lossless) and use these client boxes with a good outboard D/A
converter. Then there are the high-end players sold by HiFiMan (HM-601 -
$259, HM-602 - $399, HM-801 - $790) which purport to use discrete audio
circuitry and ostensibly have sound quality much improved over that of iPods
and other players.

http://www.head-direct.com/

If you use MP3 there will always be some artifacts. Even at the highest data
rates (320 Kb/s), there will be artifacts (mostly pre-echo and noise bursts
riding on percussive sounds like piano and acoustic guitar), but these might
be tolerable to some, depending on the music and the individual. Keep in mind
that uncompressed, full-bit-rate 16-bit/44.1 KHz (CD quality) music is
streaming at 1,411.2*Kb/s! So you can see that a 128 Kb/s MP3 file throws
away about 91% of the music (that's an 11 to 1 compression ratio)!

I don't like MP3 for iTunes storage of ripped music, and I won't buy music
from Apple's store because everything I've ever bought from them sounds
AWFUL. Ripping the CD yourself is much preferable - even using MP3. I accept
MP3 radio because even with the compression artifacts, MP3 radio can be much
more quiet and the compression artifacts are much less annoying than what we
have to put-up with these days from over-the-air FM broadcasts (severe,
brick-wall limiting, horrible dynamic range compression, multi-path
distortion, etc.). Everything has it's place, as they sat.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:35:35 -0700, Rich Teer wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, wrote:

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source. Is it even

Two things would be required:

1. The use of uncompressed or losslessly compressed files. If you're
using MP3 or AAC, you're wasting your time. Use WAV or AIFF insteadx
(insert rant here about why Apple should support FLAC on their iDevices
and iTunes), at the highest possible word size and bit rate.

Agree with you there. While ALCA (Apple Lossless Compression Algorithm)
sounds fine, it kind of restricts what devices you can use. I have a
Squeezebox Touch music server client connected to my stereo system and
luckily, it supports ALCA, so I'm fine (all my music is ripped via ALCA). But
I recently was sent a Cambridge NP-30 music server client to test and it does
NOT support the Apple Lossless format. Neither, apparently, do the high-end
portable players sold by Hifiman. Can you imagine going back and re-ripping
everything in another format? Until I started looking into the matter, I
assumed that everybody would support ALAC since iTunes and iPods were so
ubiquitous, but such is not the case. If Apple would add FLAC to it's list of
supported formats, then iTunes would support all of these music server
devices.

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. Use the Wadia i170 transport or similar
(just plugging your iPod into a regular dock will no doubt use the
crappy internal DAC).

I keep reading that Apple's player's DACs are crap, but you can't prove it by
me. I have superb equipment and on an A/B between an iPod and the CD of the
same performance through my stereo system, I don't hear any obvious
differences.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:22:54 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...layer-measure=
ments

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob


This tallies with my listening experiences, for sure.

[Stephen McElroy]

In article , bob
wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:35*pm, Stephen McElroy wrote:
In article , bob
wrote:
I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...music-player-m...
ts

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

That's assuming the current iPod uses the same DAC as the 2003

No, it's assuming the later iPods don't use a DAC that's appreciably
worse. I know of no evidence that this is the case, nor any particular
reason to believe it might be.

There was a controversy. This guy did some measurements:

http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijlig...son/measuremen
ts/measurements.html

The many online discussions are anecdotal, of course.

and that
it's possible to get that clean DAC output without it being degraded by,
say, headphone amps chips.

Well, that has nothing to do with the claim that the DAC itself is "a
piece of crap," now, does it? Whether it's true or not I don't know
(and neither do you, apparently), though it's certainly more plausible
than blaming the DAC.

If the DAC is fine but the iPod sounds awful, I suppose that's a comfort.

Stephen

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:22:54 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...layer-measure=
ments

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob


This tallies with my listening experiences, for sure.

I did however notice a considerable improvement when I bypassed the
amplifier in my iPhone and started using a "line out" from the bottom
connector.

Greg

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 25, 9:22=A0am, bob wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...music-player-m...

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob

Does that mean you actually trust the reviews of Stereophile so long
as they have done some measurements?!!!!?

[bob]

On Oct 26, 12:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Does that mean you actually trust the reviews of Stereophile so long
as they have done some measurements?!!!!?

No, it means I trust the measurements.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 26, 10:49=A0am, bob wrote:
On Oct 26, 12:46=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Does that mean you actually trust the reviews of Stereophile so long
as they have done some measurements?!!!!?

No, it means I trust the measurements.

bob

Was just poking fun but it did look to me like you were saying you
would trust the person, in this case the editor....

[bob]

On Oct 26, 2:36=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Was just poking fun but it did look to me like you were saying you
would trust the person, in this case the editor....

Let's say I would trust the editor when he's interpreting his
measurements.

bob

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Greg Wormald" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:22:54 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...layer-measure=
ments

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob


This tallies with my listening experiences, for sure.

I did however notice a considerable improvement when I bypassed the
amplifier in my iPhone and started using a "line out" from the bottom
connector.

The line out no doubt provides a far higher source impedance than the
headphone out.

What you are perceiving as a considerable improvement is, for better or
worse, a signal with far rougher frequency response as the input to your
headphones than is present at the headphone jacks. Since headphones tend to
have peaked up impedance curves particularly at the bass end, you are
probably enjoying some bass boost.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/why-head...pedance-issues

Shows a real world example of this.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:46:45 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 9:22=A0am, bob wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...music-player-m...

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob

Does that mean you actually trust the reviews of Stereophile so long
as they have done some measurements?!!!!?


It's a safe bet that measurements would tell most anyone whether or not a DAC
was "lousy". Now, how the analog output section of the device actually sounds
MIGHT be another issue, but lousy DACs are pretty much going measure lousy.
I'd say if the DAC measured "better than many CD players", it's probably
decent.

[allen]

On 26 Oct 2011 22:50:36 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Greg Wormald" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:22:54 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...layer-measure=
ments

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob


This tallies with my listening experiences, for sure.

I did however notice a considerable improvement when I bypassed the
amplifier in my iPhone and started using a "line out" from the bottom
connector.

The line out no doubt provides a far higher source impedance than the
headphone out.

What you are perceiving as a considerable improvement is, for better or
worse, a signal with far rougher frequency response as the input to your
headphones than is present at the headphone jacks. Since headphones tend to
have peaked up impedance curves particularly at the bass end, you are
probably enjoying some bass boost.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/why-head...pedance-issues

Shows a real world example of this.

Is the poster nor referring to plugging the dock line out into the
amplifier rather than the headphone out into the amp?

Last time I checked my iPod's line out was not sufficiently powerful
to drive any headphones between 32 and 600 ohms, and why should it be,
after all it's a true line out?

[allen]

On 27 Oct 2011 13:15:35 GMT, allen wrote:

On 26 Oct 2011 22:50:36 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Greg Wormald" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:22:54 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 10:35=A0am, Rich Teer wrote:

2. Connect your iPod to an external DAC using a digital connection.
The iPod's internal DAC is a piece of crap, so bypassing it is a must
for decent sound quality. =A0

I think I'd prefer to trust an editor who's actually measured said
piece of crap:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...layer-measure=
ments

Money quote:

"The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players"

There may be other issues related to using an iPod as a source
component, but the DAC is not one of them.

bob


This tallies with my listening experiences, for sure.

I did however notice a considerable improvement when I bypassed the
amplifier in my iPhone and started using a "line out" from the bottom
connector.

The line out no doubt provides a far higher source impedance than the
headphone out.

What you are perceiving as a considerable improvement is, for better or
worse, a signal with far rougher frequency response as the input to your
headphones than is present at the headphone jacks. Since headphones tend to
have peaked up impedance curves particularly at the bass end, you are
probably enjoying some bass boost.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/why-head...pedance-issues

Shows a real world example of this.

Is the poster nor referring to plugging the dock line out into the
amplifier rather than the headphone out into the amp?

Last time I checked my iPod's line out was not sufficiently powerful
to drive any headphones between 32 and 600 ohms, and why should it be,
after all it's a true line out?

Ah, rereading your answer Arny...personally I haven't noticed any
difference in the sound of an *amplified* iPod whether using the line
out or headphone out as source (with volume set at approx 70%).

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:15:35 -0700, allen wrote
(in article ):

On 26 Oct 2011 22:50:36 GMT, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

I noticed a considerable improvement when I bypassed the
amplifier in my iPhone and started using a "line out" from the bottom
connector.

The line out no doubt provides a far higher source impedance than the
headphone out.

What you are perceiving as a considerable improvement is, for better or
worse, a signal with far rougher frequency response as the input to your
headphones than is present at the headphone jacks. Since headphones tend to
have peaked up impedance curves particularly at the bass end, you are
probably enjoying some bass boost.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/why-head...-frequency-res
ponseimpedance-issues

Shows a real world example of this.

Is the poster nor referring to plugging the dock line out into the
amplifier rather than the headphone out into the amp?

Last time I checked my iPod's line out was not sufficiently powerful
to drive any headphones between 32 and 600 ohms, and why should it be,
after all it's a true line out?


Depends on the headphones, now, doesn't it? Headphone efficiency, like
speaker efficiency, is all over the place as is headphone impedance. Some
'phones are 32 Ohms, some 200 Ohms, some higher and some lower. I once had a
pair of Japanese headphones from Olsen Electronics (remember them?) that were
designed to be driven by line outputs of components and were even terminated
in a pair of RCA plugs. They didn't sound very good, but they were loud
enough to require a volume control on each ear-cup.

[Mr. Finsky[_2_]]

On Oct 25, 6:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source.

Ipods are true CD quality devices which means that in a rational world, they
are already capable of "high end" quality *if* you load them with the right
music files.

Stay clear of low bitrate lossy-compressed recordings and hook them to a
suitable reproducers, and they are fine.

The same is true of good quality far lower cost completive devices such as
the Sansa Clip and Fuze.

Devices that attempt to put a high end gloss onto iPods by bypassing their
internal analog circuitry are mostly there for lightening the pocketbooks of
people who are easily scared by hype.

Your analysis seems to focus on the issue of storage more than
playback. If an iPod or Clip (my low cost alternative preference) can
store a .wav or .aiff file, will it play back on a true high-end
system in a respectable manner? If the device can store but not play
an uncompressed file well, why is the device needed for anything other
than portability? Why shouldn't users just focus on a computer based
audio system and ignore their portable drive?

The world seems to be full of docking stations and pseudo-boomboxes
for the iPod. Are these all passing on a decent sound in a fancy
package or can the output really sound great without bypassing the
internal DAC?

My greatest concern is that the iPod seems to be a newer version of
the cassette format. The emphasis to 95% of the world is to have a
device or format for portable sound that ignores sound quality. Apple
could have mandated a format that didn't have compression. The fact
that most of the world has no idea what music should sound like fits
the pattern of cost over quality that is so prevalent in today's life.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:54:45 -0700, Mr. Finsky wrote
(in article ):

On Oct 25, 6:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source.

Ipods are true CD quality devices which means that in a rational world, they
are already capable of "high end" quality *if* you load them with the right
music files.

Stay clear of low bitrate lossy-compressed recordings and hook them to a
suitable reproducers, and they are fine.

The same is true of good quality far lower cost completive devices such as
the Sansa Clip and Fuze.

Devices that attempt to put a high end gloss onto iPods by bypassing their
internal analog circuitry are mostly there for lightening the pocketbooks of
people who are easily scared by hype.

Your analysis seems to focus on the issue of storage more than
playback. If an iPod or Clip (my low cost alternative preference) can
store a .wav or .aiff file, will it play back on a true high-end
system in a respectable manner? If the device can store but not play
an uncompressed file well, why is the device needed for anything other
than portability? Why shouldn't users just focus on a computer based
audio system and ignore their portable drive?

The world seems to be full of docking stations and pseudo-boomboxes
for the iPod. Are these all passing on a decent sound in a fancy
package or can the output really sound great without bypassing the
internal DAC?

My greatest concern is that the iPod seems to be a newer version of
the cassette format. The emphasis to 95% of the world is to have a
device or format for portable sound that ignores sound quality. Apple
could have mandated a format that didn't have compression. The fact
that most of the world has no idea what music should sound like fits
the pattern of cost over quality that is so prevalent in today's life.

While it's certainly true that for the AVERAGE user (who cares little or
nothing about the issue of sonic quality that you have raised), the idea of
extreme portability and large storage capacity are the most attractive
aspects of devices like iPods. I can't speak for other than the Apple brand,
but I've had several and they all sound just fine when played through a
decent stereo system. Switching between the ipod playing a lossless file of a
CD ripped to iTunes and the CD itself (on a Sony SD-XA777ES) where the two
have been level matched, shows me no appreciable difference. The only thing
that gives away the fact that a switch has taken place is the fact that the
two aren't perfectly synchronized in their playback.

I also have a Squeezebox Touch from Logitech and I use it mostly to play
iTunes ripped discs on my stereo. I've done double-blind tests using the
lossless files from iTunes and the disc itself, and again, nobody could tell
the difference. I use the Squeezebox over the iPod for this task mostly for
convenience as I see (hear?) little to differentiate them sonically. I might
add that I don't use the built-in D/A in the Squeexebox Touch, but rather, I
use the same outboard, up-sampling 24-bit, 192 KHz outboard DAC that I use
for all my digital sources. If you are really concerned about iPod playback
quality, you might want to look into getting yourself a music server client
(one that supports Apple lossless formats - careful, not all do) such as
the Logitech Squeezebox Touch or perhaps an AppleTV box and couple those
digitally to a good quality outboard DAC such as the Cambridge DACMagic, or
the new Musical Fidelity V-DAC II.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mr. Finsky" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 6:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

As I write I am listening to Los Indios Tabarajas "Jungle Dream".
Source is an Ipod playing through my Quad Esl63/Gradient based system.
I have to admit it doesn't sound half bad and am wondering what would
it take to make the Ipod a truly High End source.

Ipods are true CD quality devices which means that in a rational world,
they
are already capable of "high end" quality *if* you load them with the
right
music files.

Stay clear of low bitrate lossy-compressed recordings and hook them to a
suitable reproducers, and they are fine.

The same is true of good quality far lower cost completive devices such
as
the Sansa Clip and Fuze.

Devices that attempt to put a high end gloss onto iPods by bypassing
their
internal analog circuitry are mostly there for lightening the pocketbooks
of
people who are easily scared by hype.

Your analysis seems to focus on the issue of storage more than
playback.

No, I'm mentioning the strongest influence on the sound quality of these
players, which is the files that they play. Second is the transducers that
you use with them. The players themselves are generally very good.

If an iPod or Clip (my low cost alternative preference) can
store a .wav or .aiff file, will it play back on a true high-end
system in a respectable manner?

What is unclear about:

" Ipods are true CD quality devices which means that in a rational world,
they are already capable of "high end" quality *if* you load them with the
right
music files."


If the device can store but not play
an uncompressed file well, why is the device needed for anything other
than portability?

The idea that an iPod can store but not play an uncompressed file well has
already been dealt with.

Again what is unclear about

" Ipods are true CD quality devices..."

Why shouldn't users just focus on a computer based
audio system and ignore their portable drive?

Most people find that portability is a great benefit, even when there is a
fixed-emplaced audio system a few yards away. If someone wants to listen to
music while vacuuming a rug, they can either blast the stereo in the same
room and run back and forth to it to operate it, or use their portable
player with IEMs and have better sound quality given the noise of the vacuum
cleaner, and the convenience of full operator controls on their person.

The world seems to be full of docking stations and pseudo-boomboxes
for the iPod. Are these all passing on a decent sound in a fancy
package or can the output really sound great without bypassing the
internal DAC?

The bogus issue of bypassing the very good quality DAC inside the iPod has
already been dealt with.

My greatest concern is that the iPod seems to be a newer version of
the cassette format.

There's no comparison in terms of sound quality. Analog cassette was one of
the most seriously compromised audio formats since the Shellac 78 rpm
record. iPods have been found by many serious invetigators to be entirely
exploitave of CD format media, if proper storage formats are used such as
not-lossy AIFs. Other players support FLAC which is a free-available format,
not lossy and entirely exploitave of CD format music.

The emphasis to 95% of the world is to have a
device or format for portable sound that ignores sound quality.

No actual evidence has been provided for this argumentative and potentially
demeaning opinion.

Apple could have mandated a format that didn't have compression.

As I understand they support non-lossy files.

The fact that most of the world has no idea what music should sound like
fits
the pattern of cost over quality that is so prevalent in today's life.

There are valid reasons to make different choices among the variety of
music formats, depending on the application. For example, I use 64 kbps mono
MP3s for spoken word recordings. It is unreasonable to demand that hardware
and music suppliers educate customers with all of the details, conflicting
opinions, and politics related to the various file formats.

In the end people pick formats that meet their needs, which why the LP and
cassette tape effectively died as mainstream formats once portable digital
players became freely and reasonably inexpensively available.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:06:50 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

In the end people pick formats that meet their needs, which why the LP and
cassette tape effectively died as mainstream formats once portable digital
players became freely and reasonably inexpensively available.


Cassettes died because at a bit over 4" in diameter, CDs were viable as a
portable medium and car players for CDs were eminently viable. Of course, if
the CD in conjunction with the computer hadn't killed the cassette, the MP3
player also in conjunction with the computer certainly would have. LP? It's
still flourishing - and will likely be with us for many years to come.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
LP? It's still flourishing

By whatever criteria one might use to come to
that conclusion, one could also say that Latin
is a flourishing language and the Eutruscans
are a flourishing people.

That's not to deny that there are peaople selling
and buying LPs, but it continuously amazes me how
one can take a product whose current sales are but
a small fraction of what they once were and call
that "flourishing."

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Harry Lavo[_3_]]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Audio Empire wrote:
LP? It's still flourishing

By whatever criteria one might use to come to
that conclusion, one could also say that Latin
is a flourishing language and the Eutruscans
are a flourishing people.

That's not to deny that there are peaople selling
and buying LPs, but it continuously amazes me how
one can take a product whose current sales are but
a small fraction of what they once were and call
that "flourishing."

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+


Fact of the matter is, I walked into a Best Buy for the first time in a few
months, and there on a rearranged shelf were three different brands of
turntables. Hardly a sign of dying interest.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...

Audio Empire wrote:

LP? It's still flourishing

By whatever criteria one might use to come to
that conclusion, one could also say that Latin
is a flourishing language and the Eutruscans
are a flourishing people.

That's not to deny that there are peaople selling
and buying LPs, but it continuously amazes me how
one can take a product whose current sales are but
a small fraction of what they once were and call
that "flourishing."


Fact of the matter is,

I'm not disputing your facts. I'm challenging the
conclusion.

I walked into a Best Buy for the first time in a few
months, and there on a rearranged shelf were three
different brands of turntables. Hardly a sign of
dying interest.

And 40 years ago, if I walked into any of 15 independent
stereo stores within 20 miles of downtown Boston, or any
Radio Shack, Lafayette Radio, Lechmere's, Sears, Montgomery
Wards, and MANY more, I'd see ten times that number of
brands.

Let's stick with your facts, Harry. Walk to the other
end of Best Buy. How many different labels of LPs do they
sell. Okay, let's make it easy: how many LP's do they
sell.

Let's keep sticking with your facts, Harry: how many of
those three brands of turntables at Best Buy would you
let within 10 feet of any of your LPs?

And still staying on those facts: how many of those
three brands of turntables at Best Buy would be considered
on par performance-wise with a typical mid-line turntable
carttridge setup from 35-40 years ago.

Let's, instead, jump to my facts. How many of those 15
independently owned stero stores still sell three or more
brands of turntables? Well, it's a trick question, because
not a single one of them still exists, most of them having
disappeared 10 or more years ago.

Well, okay, of the remaining chains I mentioned, how many
of them have 3 or more brands of tunrables available?
Oh, sorry, another trick question: many of them are gone,
also.

So, given that the population of the US, at least,
200,000,000 40 years ago and is over 300,000,00 now,
what, in FACT, has happened to the number of stores selling
turntables, the number of turntables available, the number
of new LPs being released, the number of new LPs available
and sold, per person 40 years ago vs today?

If you treat the facts honestly and without prejudice, how
can one say that "LPs are flousriching?"

And, Harry, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire of
facts, if you don't mind. I did not say LPs were dying,
nor did I say interesting in LPs were dying, no more
than the use of Latin or appreciation of Etruscan art
has vanished form the face of the earth. The notion
that "interest in LPs is dying" is YOUR invention and
are YOUR words, not mine. I would appreciate it if you
would no longer confuse your prejudices with my words,
rthanks you.

And the fact is, I have a very healthy LP collection
myself, which includeds many valuable and irreplacement
performances of music that simply isn't being recorded
or released on any medium today.

Those are the facts, Harry. And facts are different than
conclusions, as I'm sure you are aware.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
LP? It's still flourishing

My objection to this conclusion is based on the
common, widespread and accepted definition of
"flourishing."

Here are some definitions:

flour·ish·ing
1. to be in a vigorous state; thriving
2. to be in its or in one's prime; be at
the height of fame, influence, etc.
3. to be successful; prosper.
4. to grow luxuriantly, or thrive in growth

Are LPs "in a vigorous state, thriving?" Well, in a very
narrow view, you could make that argument, but it's a very
restrictive context, in my view.

Are LPs "in their prime, at the height of fame or influence?"
I think it could be argued they most definitely are not, by
any reasonable objective measurement (sales, availability,
commonality, number of units sold per person, number of
units owned per person), etc..

Are LPs "sucessful?" Again, if you're willing to constrain
the context, you could make the point. But you could also
say that Latin, as a language, is "successful and prospering."
Stand on any street corner and say the following to any
passerby: "Nonne alicubi prius convenimus? Credo fatum nos
cegisse. Apudne te vel me?" Out of 100 people, how many
laugh, how many smile, how many hit you?

Is the LP business "growing luxuriantly, thriving in
growth?" Again, you want to pick a VERY specific and
restrictive context, maybe you could make such an
argument.

But for any of your arguments to be successful, you
have to get the other party to agree your context is
valid.

And that's where the problem lies. You don't get to wipe
out a common species to the point of having a single
mating pair, and then claim the species is "flourishing"
because they had sex in the confines of a zoo.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Fact of the matter is, I walked into a Best Buy for the first time in a
few
months, and there on a rearranged shelf were three different brands of
turntables. Hardly a sign of dying interest.

Equipment being offered for sale is not the same as good, useful equipment
actually selling in volume.

Harry, what you are not telling us is the exact nature of those 3 turntable
offerings.

I'll bet money all 3 were sub-$150 USB turntables. There might even be one
or more of those hopelessly cheap Crosley retro-devices. Ceramic cartridges
anybody? Groove-busters all. At least one of them was no doubt less than
$99.

So tell us Harry would you actually recommend that an audiophile buy *any*
of them? Would you replace your current vinyl playback system with any of
them?

Probably not so much.

Probably just another example of a false impression created by not telling
the relevant facts.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 16:33:01 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
LP? It's still flourishing

By whatever criteria one might use to come to
that conclusion, one could also say that Latin
is a flourishing language and the Eutruscans
are a flourishing people.

That's not to deny that there are peaople selling
and buying LPs, but it continuously amazes me how
one can take a product whose current sales are but
a small fraction of what they once were and call
that "flourishing."


It's very simple. Ten years ago, there was essentially no 'new' LP
market and turntable and cartridge sales were all but finished, with
essentially no new models from any manufacturers. Now, there are new
LP pressing plants that didn't exist 10 years ago, and they are
backlogged with work and can't keep up with demand. LP mastering
engineers like Stan Ricker, who in the mid 90's packed up their
mastering studios and stored them away, have unpacked them, set them
up again, and have all the business that they can handle - and more.

Companies like Thorens who had essentially stopped making 'tables 10
years ago are back with a dozen new models at all price points. There
are scores of new 'tables from the likes of SME, Linn, Music Hall,
Rega, VPI, Pro-Ject, J.A. Michelle, Well Tempered, Clear Audio, Denon,
Avid, etc. to name but a few. There are hundreds of new cartridges
from the likes of Clearaudio, Grado, Denon, Ortofon, Lyre, Linn,
Sumiko, and dozens more companies. Same with tone-arms and stand alone
phono preamps. Amplifier companies who, ten years ago, were taking
phono stages OUT of their preamps and integrated amplifiers are now
putting them back in. The LP business is doing fine, and while it will
never be the market it was when LP was essentially the only source of
mass listener-owned music there was (and why would it even HAVE to be
to remain successful?), it is a healthy niche that is, according to
statistics, still growing steadily. The vinyl market remains strong
even though I've heard some folks say that it's moribund because
there's really nothing new under the sun. The vinyl playing equipment
sold today is technically little different from that being sold at the
peak of vinyl's heyday in the mid eighties. They are right there,
there is little new technology in the vinyl playback field (except
perhaps the introduction of some new materials such as carbon fiber).
But that's not because the field in moribund, but rather because vinyl
playback is a mature technology - like subsonic aircraft design. The
U.S. Air Force still flies 60-year old B-52 bombers because if they
replaced the B-52 with a new design with similar capabilities, that
new design would be, essentially, another B-52 because subsonic
airframe design is a mature technology. So is vinyl playback.

LP is hardly the moribund market that some=A0seem to want to think it
is.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 06:40:28 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...

Audio Empire wrote:

LP? It's still flourishing

By whatever criteria one might use to come to
that conclusion, one could also say that Latin
is a flourishing language and the Eutruscans
are a flourishing people.

That's not to deny that there are peaople selling
and buying LPs, but it continuously amazes me how
one can take a product whose current sales are but
a small fraction of what they once were and call
that "flourishing."


Fact of the matter is,

I'm not disputing your facts. I'm challenging the
conclusion.

I walked into a Best Buy for the first time in a few
months, and there on a rearranged shelf were three
different brands of turntables. Hardly a sign of
dying interest.

And 40 years ago, if I walked into any of 15 independent
stereo stores within 20 miles of downtown Boston, or any
Radio Shack, Lafayette Radio, Lechmere's, Sears, Montgomery
Wards, and MANY more, I'd see ten times that number of
brands.

Forty years ago, vinyl was THE source of listener-owned music media. Today it
has to compete with a myriad of other viable music sources. That's a sign of
musical source diversity.

Let's stick with your facts, Harry. Walk to the other
end of Best Buy. How many different labels of LPs do they
sell. Okay, let's make it easy: how many LP's do they
sell.

They don't, but there are lots of stores that do sell LPs. New ones too.

Let's keep sticking with your facts, Harry: how many of
those three brands of turntables at Best Buy would you
let within 10 feet of any of your LPs?

All of the Pro-Ject models I saw at my Best Buy would be fine performers. I
don't know what you're getting at here

And still staying on those facts: how many of those
three brands of turntables at Best Buy would be considered
on par performance-wise with a typical mid-line turntable
carttridge setup from 35-40 years ago.

All of them. Project. Music Hall, and Rega all make fine performing
"high-end" turntables. There's no market for any other kind.

Let's, instead, jump to my facts. How many of those 15
independently owned stero stores still sell three or more
brands of turntables? Well, it's a trick question, because
not a single one of them still exists, most of them having
disappeared 10 or more years ago.

There is a store not 10 miles from me than sells NOTHING but new turntables
(dozens of brands all the way from $200 for a Chinese built belt drive unit
with a decent arm and a cartridge of unknown quality (sold by Music Hall) to
Walker Proscenium selling for more than $60,000.), new turntable accessories
and records.

Well, okay, of the remaining chains I mentioned, how many
of them have 3 or more brands of tunrables available?
Oh, sorry, another trick question: many of them are gone,
also.

But there are scores of new ones that have taken their place. The absolute
bottom tier is gone, that's true. There are no more cheap mass-market tables
from the likes of Pioneer, Yamaha, Panasonic etc., if that's what you mean.
But there are plenty more higher end tables from Japan, China, GB,and Europe
and even the good ol' USA!

So, given that the population of the US, at least,
200,000,000 40 years ago and is over 300,000,00 now,
what, in FACT, has happened to the number of stores selling
turntables, the number of turntables available, the number
of new LPs being released, the number of new LPs available
and sold, per person 40 years ago vs today?

Not a valid question. Vinyl is no longer the ONLY source of listener owned
music media as it was 40 years ago.


If you treat the facts honestly and without prejudice, how
can one say that "LPs are flousriching?"

Because, as a niche market, it is. If you insist that vinyl has to be the
dominate music source in the marketplace in order to be healthy and
flourishing, then we have no common ground to discuss this, because that is a
false requirement in my estimation. The sale of vinyl and the attendant
equipment to play it with is large enough to support the number of players in
that market, and the market segment is growing, not shrinking. That's the
criteria for a flourishing market, not some erstwhile market dominance from a
simpler age when the average music lover had little choice but to buy vinyl
because there was, essentially, nothing else.

And, Harry, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire of
facts, if you don't mind. I did not say LPs were dying,
nor did I say interesting in LPs were dying, no more
than the use of Latin or appreciation of Etruscan art
has vanished form the face of the earth. The notion
that "interest in LPs is dying" is YOUR invention and
are YOUR words, not mine. I would appreciate it if you
would no longer confuse your prejudices with my words,
rthanks you.

That might work with Harry, but not with me. I'm taking issue only with your
statement that LP is not flourishing by any criteria you know and your rather
weak attempts at backing that opinion up.

And the fact is, I have a very healthy LP collection
myself, which includeds many valuable and irreplacement
performances of music that simply isn't being recorded
or released on any medium today.

That's one reason to keep one's LP playing equipment up to date.

Those are the facts, Harry. And facts are different than
conclusions, as I'm sure you are aware.

Well, Dick, your "facts", as stated, seem to lack current market knowledge.
Statements like "...how many of those three brands of turntables at Best Buy
would you let within 10 feet of any of your LPs?" shows that you don't seem
to know that today's record decks, even the cheap ones are very good with
fine performing arms and low-friction bearings. So, with seemingly outdated
"facts" and some of the assumptions that you seem to have made, above,
you'll forgive me for taking your conclusions on this issue with a grain of
salt.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 07:47:47 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
LP? It's still flourishing

My objection to this conclusion is based on the
common, widespread and accepted definition of
"flourishing."

Here are some definitions:

flour·ish·ing
1. to be in a vigorous state; thriving
2. to be in its or in one's prime; be at
the height of fame, influence, etc.
3. to be successful; prosper.
4. to grow luxuriantly, or thrive in growth

Are LPs "in a vigorous state, thriving?" Well, in a very
narrow view, you could make that argument, but it's a very
restrictive context, in my view.

The market easily supports the players in a growing field. There's probably
more than a hundred different BRANDS of turntables, scores of arms, hundreds
of different cartridges at all price-points, scores of stand-alone phono
preamps, again at all price points from under $50 to over $10,000. I'd say
that's a vigorous state and thriving.

Are LPs "in their prime, at the height of fame or influence?"
I think it could be argued they most definitely are not, by
any reasonable objective measurement (sales, availability,
commonality, number of units sold per person, number of
units owned per person), etc..

No, they are not.

Are LPs "sucessful?" Again, if you're willing to constrain
the context, you could make the point. But you could also
say that Latin, as a language, is "successful and prospering."
Stand on any street corner and say the following to any
passerby: "Nonne alicubi prius convenimus? Credo fatum nos
cegisse. Apudne te vel me?" Out of 100 people, how many
laugh, how many smile, how many hit you?

Yes LPs are successful. Ask Stan Ricker who dismantled his mastering lab in
the 1990s and put it in storage, who has now set it up again and who has more
work than he can handle. Ask the various record plants that have opened in
the last five years or so and who are working at capacity with new clients
beating on their doors daily.

Is the LP business "growing luxuriantly, thriving in
growth?" Again, you want to pick a VERY specific and
restrictive context, maybe you could make such an
argument.

Yes. Given that vinyl is no longer the only practical source of
listener-owned music media, it is thriving in growth.

But for any of your arguments to be successful, you
have to get the other party to agree your context is
valid.

And that's where the problem lies. You don't get to wipe
out a common species to the point of having a single
mating pair, and then claim the species is "flourishing"
because they had sex in the confines of a zoo.

Agreed, but then, that's hardly the case with the LP.

The LP market easily fits definitions 1, 3, and 4. But it no longer fits #2.
But that's OK. There are lots of paths to owning music these days, LP is but
one of them.

[bob]

On Nov 2, 7:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Forty years ago, vinyl was THE source of listener-owned music media. Toda=
y it
has to compete with a myriad of other viable music sources. That's a sign=
of
musical source diversity.

Let's not oversell this. The moment vinyl faced serious competition it
started losing market share. In the 80s, it was losing out not only to
CD, but also to cassettes, for heaven's sake. It was dead. It's now
back from the dead. That's something, but a 2% market share is nothing
to crow about.

snip

All of them. Project. Music Hall, and Rega all make fine performing
"high-end" turntables. There's no market for any other kind.

I wouldn't call them "fine performing." But certain know-nothing
reviewers have anointed them "high-end," and that's been enough.

snip

But there are scores of new ones that have taken their place. The absolut=
e
bottom tier is gone, that's true. There are no more cheap mass-market tab=
les
from the likes of Pioneer, Yamaha, Panasonic etc.,

Not those brands in particular, but the low end is still well-
represented. Last time I was in Best Buy (a while ago), the only thing
they carried was a sub-$100 Sony. It's still made, and has plenty of
competition.

Let's not forget that the only thing that kept vinyl alive in the 90s
AT ALL was the DJ market. (And they were not using the hamster-powered
belt drives of today's entry-level audiophile market.) The SL1200 is
out of production, but several copycats are still out there.

What's really missing today is the p-mount, which brought acceptable
and non-destructive reproduction to the masses.

bob

[UnsteadyKen]

Audio Empire wrote...

There's probably
more than a hundred different BRANDS of turntables

There are more than 160 manufacturers by my reckoning.
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/turntable.html
Heaven knows how many brands.

It may be that there is less interest in vinyl in the USA now, over here
in Europe it is still relatively healthy.

Some simple statistics to illustrate the point.

USA population: 312 million
TT manufacturers:33

UK population: 62 million
TT manufacturers: 34

Germany population: 81 million
TT manufacturers: 35

Although they may only illustrate why the Euro is going down the pan:-(

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 16:12:06 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Fact of the matter is, I walked into a Best Buy for the first time in a
few
months, and there on a rearranged shelf were three different brands of
turntables. Hardly a sign of dying interest.

Equipment being offered for sale is not the same as good, useful equipment
actually selling in volume.

In this case it is.

Harry, what you are not telling us is the exact nature of those 3 turntable
offerings.

I'll bet money all 3 were sub-$150 USB turntables. There might even be one
or more of those hopelessly cheap Crosley retro-devices. Ceramic cartridges
anybody? Groove-busters all. At least one of them was no doubt less than
$99.

And you'd be wrong. These are the wages of not keeping up. Best Buy (Magnolia
Audio, actually. Those are the audio stores that are part of Best Buy and are
located inside them) sells two brands of turntable: Pro-Ject and McIntosh.
The McIntosh MT-10 costs close to $10,000 while the cheapest table sold by
Magnolia/ Best Buy is the Austrian-made Pro-Ject table Debut III at $399.
Even the latter is a very decent performer with a 12" platter, belt drive, a
decent arm and an OK Sumiko MM cartridge. Project sells tables all the way to
the $5000 Xtension with a 12" arm and servo-controlled motor.

So tell us Harry would you actually recommend that an audiophile buy *any*
of them? Would you replace your current vinyl playback system with any of
them?

I'll bet he would. I wouldn't mind having a Project RM9.2 ($2500) or a
RM-10.1 ($3499), or the aforementioned $5000 Xtension. Not to mention the
McIntosh MT-10. Yes, I'd be OK giving up my J.A. Michelle Orb S.E. for one of
these.

Probably not so much.

Yeah, pretty much

Probably just another example of a false impression created by not telling
the relevant facts.

Just like the false impression you are creating here by apparently not
knowing the relevant facts.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Nov 1, 4:33=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
LP? It's still flourishing

By whatever criteria one might use to come to
that conclusion, one could also say that Latin
is a flourishing language and the Eutruscans
are a flourishing people.

That's not to deny that there are peaople selling
and buying LPs, but it continuously amazes me how
one can take a product whose current sales are but
a small fraction of what they once were and call
that "flourishing."

--
+--------------------------------+
+ =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Dick Pierce =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

Flourish
http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...rish?view=3Duk

[no object] (of a living organism) grow or develop in a healthy or
vigorous way, especially as the result of a particularly congenial
environment:

The market for new LPs has grown in a healthy and vigorous way for the
past decade or so. Particularly in the last three years. that would be
the criteria by which one can accurately and reasonably say that the
market is flourishing

Now can the same be said of your examples? Have the number of people
speaking Latin grown at a rate that one could describe as healthy or
vigorous? has the Eutruscan population grown in the past decade in a
way that could be described as vigorous? I'm thinking not.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , bob
wrote:

On Nov 2, 7:22*pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Forty years ago, vinyl was THE source of listener-owned music media. Today
it
has to compete with a myriad of other viable music sources. That's a sign
of
musical source diversity.

Let's not oversell this. The moment vinyl faced serious competition it
started losing market share.

(Devil's advocate mode on...) The same can be said about CDs.

In the 80s, it was losing out not only to
CD, but also to cassettes, for heaven's sake.

CDs are losing out to lossy mp3s.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com