iPods

[Drake Tungsten]

While you've definitely demostrated your knowledge of hi-fi, Agathon, don't think for a second that Asher has gone away. He never goes away, never admits defeat. He's like a Terminator, only skinny and gay.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
While you've definitely demostrated your knowledge of hi-fi, Agathon, don't think for a second that Asher has gone away. He never goes away, never admits defeat. He's like a Terminator, only skinny and gay.

No, he's more like Herpes, he just keeps coming back.

[Kuciwalker]

Agathon - you've said nothing at all that supports your side. You've said "anyone who knows stuff about this would say this" in slightly different variations ad nauseum. Back it up with something. Asher has provided innumerable quotes and statistics. Plus, I notice you haven't even touched his arguments about battery life... Which would be a prime factor for me as well. What do I care about some slight difference in audio quality? It is probably so tiny a difference that you have to try to hear it. Also, in my experience, the ONLY non-gaming system that is good for gaming (computers notwithstanding) is the TI-83+. Well, Palms too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyone who buys audio equipment based on numbers is an idiot pure and simple.

How many strawmen can you pull a day?

I'm not buying solely on numbers. But just to make sure, do you know where the SNR figure comes from?

You're basing your argument on quality based on price alone. And then you called me a twit. You're the kind of people companies like Nuance make their money off of -- crap speakers set artificially high (hello, Apple) that tricks the not-so-bright consumers into thinking they're paying money for something of really high quality, when they're paying huge profit margins is all.

Blah blah blah. You are such a twit. This is the way that people who hate music buy their audio equipment.

You made your case for buying the iPod based on "originality" and the fact that it has a calendar, game, and contact list.

Do not talk to me about how "people who hate music" buy their audio equipment, you've answered that one by example.

And this marks you out as a total newbie. No real audio enthusiast would listen to his music on a home theatre system. They are good for movies and loud bangs and explosions but lousy for high quality reproduction of music.

When did I claim to be a "real audio enthusiast"? Secondly, the term is audiophile. Thirdly, you're way offbase...

Real hi fi requires two well grounded speakers, good cables, a good amplifier or pre-amp power amp setup [preferably with an "on" button; a volume knob; and nothing else] and a good CD player (or two piece transport DAC combo).

Get with the times...a real audiophile has at least a 5.1 system to make use of DVD-Audio.
I've got 5 well-grounded high-quality speakers, 1 high-quality sub, superb cables (hundreds of dollars), and the amplifier is built into the $1200 audio receiver & decoder...

Let me guess:

It's made by Sony or some other mass-market company - or (slightly better) by some reputable company stooping to home theatre.

The receiver is a Pioneer Elite.

It has piles of speakers.

2 large (front-left, front-right), 3 satellite, 1 sub. No other way to listen to DVD-Audio, my friend.

It has a graphic equalizer or tone control buttons.

It has some sort of "super sound" option.

It has a DSP mode for things such as "midnight mode" which can bring together the highs and lows if that's whast you're talking about?

The speakers aren't biwired.

They aren't biwired, and if you have biwired speakers on your system I'm apt to smack you for wasting sooooo much money. Should've bought a car or big-screen, man.

It has a multidisc CD changer.

Nope.

It has flashing lights.

Nope.

[all these would matter to a real hi-fi nut]

A real "hi-fi" nut would know the term is audiophile...so would anyone who's not the least bit ignorant.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
Agathon - you've said nothing at all that supports your side. You've said "anyone who knows stuff about this would say this" in slightly different variations ad nauseum. Back it up with something. Asher has provided innumerable quotes and statistics. Plus, I notice you haven't even touched his arguments about battery life... Which would be a prime factor for me as well. What do I care about some slight difference in audio quality? It is probably so tiny a difference that you have to try to hear it. Also, in my experience, the ONLY non-gaming system that is good for gaming (computers notwithstanding) is the TI-83+. Well, Palms too.

What are you talking about?

It's common knowledge that merely quoting numbers is not a sufficient test of an audio system. If it was, hi-fi magazines wouldn't publish endless articles on which components complement which others. It's also true that price is a reliable indicator of quality for audio equipment. That's pretty much all I've said other than that the ipod is smaller and cooler looking and has better software support and a better interface. The reason it costs more is the design. Apple spends a great deal of money on design. Whoever makes the Zen doesn't: it looks like a mid 80s walkman. Cheap knock offs of innovative products have existed since the invention of the trademark - what's new?

I haven't bothered with his arguments on battery life since they aren't arguments, half the time they are merely statistics quoted from anti-Apple articles written by desperate anti-Apple losers like Asher. The other half of the time, they are irrelevant or fail to establish the point at issue.

And he is nothing if not predictable. He'll find some anti-Apple troll and quote it as if it were established fact. Presumably a small percentage of ipods have problems, just like any other mass produced product. That doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands in despair. I had a wee look around and found a few complaints about the Zen. But I don't see any point in mindlessly copying them just to win an argument against an immature computer geek from Calgary.

Anyway, who on earth would take audio advice from someone who listens to his CDs on a home theatre system? And I bet he listens to Britney

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
While you've definitely demostrated your knowledge of hi-fi, Agathon, don't think for a second that Asher has gone away. He never goes away, never admits defeat. He's like a Terminator, only skinny and gay.

Drake is right, I never admit defeat when I'm right.

Plus I was too busy getting laid to answer your laughable posts devoid of any argument whatsoever.

What you've done is assumed I've said I'm an audiophile, said that price is a better indictator of quality over statistics like signal-to-noise ratio, and insisted that having a calendar, contact list, and games (which you yourself say is a silly way to go) somehow defeats longer battery life, more storage, more DSP options, and cheaper price.

And I'm not skinny -- I'm toned and smack-dab in the middle of the BMI.

Ask Zylka.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's common knowledge that merely quoting numbers is not a sufficient test of an audio system.

NO ONE SAID IT WAS.

But it's a helluva lot better than your assertion that price is a better way to determine audio quality.

The audio measurements and statistics show the Zen being superior in audio quality.

You've provided nothing but pointing to the price, implying this means it's on par or better.

That's not how it works in this real world, go back to arguing Plato or something infront of your brain-dead first-year philosophy students.

[Asher]

And Agathon, do you mind toning down the pretentious ******* bit?

You're the one that listens to 16-bit 1.4Mbps CDs...excuse me for listening to 24-bit 2Mbps WMAs on my Zen.

Clearly those numbers mean nothing, and in fact a 16-bit at a lower bitrate can indeed be of better quality!!!

That's another thing...the iPod only supports 16-bit audio.

The iPod is less of an audio player than the Zen. It lasts about half the time on a battery charge, holds less music, costs more, doesn't have as good audio clarity, and doesn't support 24-bit formats.

But oh oh oh, it can play solitaire.

This is perhaps your worst performance in a debate, ever. I'm enjoying it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You made your case for buying the iPod based on "originality" and the fact that it has a calendar, game, and contact list.

I didn't make a case for buying an ipod at all. You need to read more carefully. I just responded to some of your silly plagiarised claims.

Do not talk to me about how "people who hate music" buy their audio equipment, you've answered that one by example.

I can because you don't know what you are talking about. You're just a silly little techno-teenybopper. I've seen people like you at hi fi shops. Rabbiting on for hours about frequencies and buying expensive gadget laden rubbish which they proceed to play Rod Stewart on.

When did I claim to be a "real audio enthusiast"?

Then admit you don't know what you're talking about and go back and play with your "stereo".

Secondly, the term is audiophile.

That's one term. "hi-fi nut" is another. But who cares what word you use. You are no audiophile.

Get with the times...a real audiophile has at least a 5.1 system to make use of DVD-Audio.

A waste of money. If you have a proper dedicated stereo system you don't need all that crap. This stuff is just for tossers who listen to terrible music. And the whole DVD Audio/SACD thing has been ruined by home theatre losers - real music lovers have lost out to the gadget lovers with no taste.

There's no point to surround sound anyway. Get a pair of ESL 63s and a decent room and you'll see why.

Anyway, give me fresh vinyl and a Linn Sondek any day.

I've got 5 well-grounded high-quality speakers, 1 high-quality sub, superb cables (hundreds of dollars), and the amplifier is built into the $1200 audio receiver & decoder..

In other words, you have a home theatre system, not a music system. The kind of thing that people with lots of money but no real interest in music buy to watch Steven Seagal movies. The kind of overpriced crap that dopes get snookered into buying as a "home entertainment system".

The receiver is a Pioneer Elite.

Pioneer.

2 large (front-left, front-right), 3 satellite, 1 sub. No other way to listen to DVD-Audio, my friend.

I wouldn't want to. Hi fi has basically been wrecked by the home theatre crowd - the people who think more speakers = better sound.

At least some companies still produce proper stuff. When Quad stoop to this (they hadn't last time I looked) we will know that the barbarians have stormed the building.

It has a DSP mode for things such as "midnight mode" which can bring together the highs and lows if that's whast you're talking about?

So it's not hi-fi. The point of hi-fi is to recapture exactly what was recorded. Graphic equalizers DSPs and all the rest of that crap just get in the way of the signal. No real hi fi nut wants that trash. It's just for gadget lovers. And the whole thing is compromised as a music system by having to share duties as a movie sound system.

No real hi fi nut would be seen dead with a DSP. What a joke.

They aren't biwired, and if you have biwired speakers on your system I'm apt to smack you for wasting sooooo much money. Should've bought a car or big-screen, man.

It works and there is a definite improvement. Same goes for isolation pads, spikes, etc.

A real "hi-fi" nut would know the term is audiophile...so would anyone who's not the least bit ignorant.

Is that the best you can do? Argue about words. lollollol

Just admit you've been seduced by gadgetry into purchasing a system that butchers the music.

Well that's enough from me. Thanks for a good laugh.

[Kuciwalker]

Agathon... reduced to ad hominem fallacies?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I didn't make a case for buying an ipod at all. You need to read more carefully. I just responded to some of your silly plagiarised claims.

In Philosophy you've surely discovered what an "implication is", or is your field a bit behind on that concept?

I can because you don't know what you are talking about. You're just a silly little techno-teenybopper. I've seen people like you at hi fi shops. Rabbiting on for hours about frequencies and buying expensive gadget laden rubbish which they proceed to play Rod Stewart on.

Then admit you don't know what you're talking about and go back and play with your "stereo".

I know what I'm talking about, Agathon.
A higher SNR ratio is better.
End of story.

You can argue that it's not the only determinant of sound quality, and I agree -- it's best to compare the two. Unfortunately, we don't have that liberty online here.

And my sound measurements trump your "higher price is better" argument.

That's one term. "hi-fi nut" is another. But who cares what word you use. You are no audiophile.

Of course not, I'm too smart to be an audiophile.
Audiophiles are pretentious *******s too scared to do double-blind tests because they don't want to see their $5000 cables sound the same as $100 ones...

A waste of money. If you have a proper dedicated stereo system you don't need all that crap. This stuff is just for tossers who listen to terrible music. And the whole DVD Audio/SACD thing has been ruined by home theatre losers - real music lovers have lost out to the gadget lovers with no taste.

"Real music lovers listen only to vinyl"

Can everyone hear that? That's the sound of the quicksand underneath Agathon's scurrying little feat...

I'm going to explain something to you. Perhaps this will be overly complex for you, but it's something I'm well-versed in. CDs and DVDs are digital media. DVD-Audio is like CDs, except it records more information in 6 channels rather than two.

There is no way, whatsoever, one can argue that CD audio is better than DVD-audio. Those hard of hearing can successfully argue that they can't tell the difference, but they're entirely not the same thing.

In other words, you have a home theatre system, not a music system.

Didn't I say "home theatre" several times now? Darn, I think I did? Weird.

The kind of thing that people with lots of money but no real interest in music buy to watch Steven Seagal movies. The kind of overpriced crap that dopes get snookered into buying as a "home entertainment system".

I dunno, bigscreen HDTV with a thunderous, crystal clear sound system, progressive scan DVD player, and 400 channels of digital TV seems pretty damn cool to me.

I'm sorry if it doesn't interest you, but because the music quality is also simply stunning on it, I believe it's quite awesome.

But keep digging...

Pioneer.

Guess who makes most of the actual chips inside those expensive audiophile amps?
Yamaha and Pioneer are the main ones. Branding is so nifty, isn't it?? It's like buying a Dell printer, only finding out it's actually a Lexmark...

So it's not hi-fi. The point of hi-fi is to recapture exactly what was recorded.

Exactly -- which is why it's utterly retarded for you to reject a medium like DVD-Audio which is actually 24-bit and the same bitrate the music was recorded at, rather than downsampled like CDs.

Surely as a "hi-tech" nut you knew that, right?

Graphic equalizers DSPs and all the rest of that crap just get in the way of the signal. No real hi fi nut wants that trash. It's just for gadget lovers. And the whole thing is compromised as a music system by having to share duties as a movie sound system.

No real hi fi nut would be seen dead with a DSP. What a joke.

WHAT A JOKE!
HOW DARE THEY INCLUDE A DSP FUNCTIONALITY!!!!!!
THIS IS DISGUSTING!

DSPs SHOULD BE BANNED!

(Hint: Don't want DSP? Turn it off.)

Well that's enough from me. Thanks for a good laugh.

I assure you, everyone is laughing at you.

Your argument in this thread is pathetic, at best.

You've posted absolutely nothing of content, simply condescending rhetoric about what "real hi-fi nuts" use into a threadjack blasting me for listening to music on an expensive "home theatre' because clearly your 16-bit, 1.4Mbps CDs are of higher quality and therefore I am somehow shamed.

Whatever, I'm bookmarking this thread for future fodder against Philosophy departments in universities.

If a professor at a supposedly good university in the West argues like this, there is no hope for that faculty.

[Asher]

I'm going to make one final post on the subject of audio quality, because it warrants no more.

Signal-to-Noise ratio is the ratio of the signal intensity to noise. That is, if the SNR is 50dB, there is 50dB of signal for every 1 dB of noise.

Remember that the dB scale works that 100dB is twice as loud as 90dB.

With that in mind, Apple measured the iPod at 90dB signal-to-noise ratio.
The Zen measures at 98dB signal-to-noise ratio.

We're not talking about a "little" improvements, 98dB is nearly twice as loud as 90dB.

So Agathon, unless you have something to refute this with (ie, a comparison article), please stop embarassing yourself and spamming the thread.

Because the measurements clearly show the Zen as being better in terms of audio quality.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake is right, I never admit defeat when I'm right.

That's not what I said, silly. I said that you never admit defeat, regardless of whether you're right or not. If your endless rebutting was only limited to times when you were right, you would be an enjoyable poster. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That's not what I said, silly. I said that you never admit defeat, regardless of whether you're right or not.

I know what you said, Drake. Nevermind, I suppose I was too subtle.

If your endless rebutting was only limited to times when you were right, you would be an enjoyable poster. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

It certainly is every time I've debated you.

Whether it be about how much Nebraska sucks, how Apple rips people off, or why Nintendo is going to be the next Apple of the video game market.

I mean, take this thread: Even you can probably see how silly Agathon is being, no?

[Agathon]

Well I looked at what you wrote Asher, but it has very little merit. You obviously don't know very much about hi-fi. And your arguments about claimed signal to noise don't prove anything. As I said, that's the idiot's way to buy audio, and it's apparently yours, so you make the inference.

Hi fi is about accurately reproducing the original source. Digital signal processors and the like get in the way. The best hi fi is as minimalist as possible. Turning it off makes things better, but you still have the switch which is unnecessary interference. That's a particularly stupid remark, even from you.

Pioneer? Yamaha? Crap. Give me Quad or Audiolab (or whatever they're calling themselves these days)/

And you have me arguing that CDs are somehow superior to DVD Audio/SACD when that's not what I said. When it comes to sound quality, they aren't. However, that's not the whole story: the problem with DVD/SACD is the mass of channels. With a good system you only need two - this 5+1 business is pure overkill. It's good for playing movie soundtracks where you want to imagine yourself in the middle of a jungle, but lousy for recreating a decent sound picture of an orchestra. I'm saddened that DVD/SACD have been wrecked for audiophiles to pander to people who don't really like music or hi-fi. They're just the crowd who thinks that more speakers or higher wattage means better sound.

And as for your remarks about vinyl, it just shows how utterly ignorant of high end audio you are. A high quality turntable like a Linn LP12 produces a more pleasing sound than CD. That's why there are still vinyl junkies and why Linn and Rega still make turntables. Of course vinyl has its problems, but many people are prepared to put up with them. Similarly, high end audio companies like Quad still make valve amplication for the wonderful warm sound it produces.

Anyway, with comments like this it's obvious you are out of your depth on this one.