iPods

[Asher]

Hi fi is about accurately reproducing the original source.

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.

Quick -- who can spot the contradiction??

Agathon, apparently you don't understand how modern digital system works. With electronics, interference is a given. The better shielded, designed, and constructed it is, the less noise will be generated.

That's what the SNR measurement is. The iPod isn't shielded very well so the electronics interfere with eachother, producing noise -- hence its 90dB SNR rating. The Zen is slightly larger, and can therefore position certain parts farther away from the chips that can produce the noise, which allows it to have a 98dB SNR.

If any audiophile doesn't understand how digital systems work and how SNR works with them (indeed calling them "useless" is like saying a 48x CD-ROM isn't necessarily faster than a 4x CD-ROM...it's about accurately reproducing the data, afterall!!), then they're the stereotypical audiophile who shuns the science of sound reproduction to the "art" of it.

And the moment you talk about the "art" of it, you completely contradict yourself if you talk about "accurately reproducing the sound".

Vinyl, after all, had a SNR of 40-50dB, 60dB if you were anal about dust constantly.

Vinyl has a "more pleasing" and "softer" sound to some, but this doesn't mean it's of higher quality.

Figure out the difference, Agathon.

Once audio entered the digital age, it became more of a science than an art. Electronic components and how they work together determines the audio quality of the output, and electronic components and how they work together can easily be measured.

The fact remains, however, you've yet to provide anything to back up your claims. SNR is certainly one of the valid metrics for sound quality, and even video quality (digital cameras, for instance). I agree it should be one of many, but you can't do a double blind test on a forum.

So either come up with a double-blind test between the two, or just drop it. SNR is an accepted and scientific measurement of audio clarity and how well it's reproduced, you can't ignore it just because it's easier to believe Apple's overpriced iPod is better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm... statistic facts vs 'trust me, I know what sounds better'?

Agathon, you are sounding a bit foolish here.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hmmm... statistic facts vs 'trust me, I know what sounds better'?

Agathon, you are sounding a bit foolish here.

Yeah right. Which hi fi would you buy, the one that the statistics favour, or the one that sounds better to you? The two diverge. A system that is better on paper can be beat by a supposedly "inferior" system. Audio reproduction is in the end an art and not a science - just like recording is.

Asher can post all the stats he likes, it simplt doesn't follow that quality follows statistics. You really need real people with real ears, rather than measuring devices.

In fact I can't believe I'm even having this debate. What nutbar would think that statistics can tell you anything meaningful about artistic quality?

All the statistics in the world do not a good piece of equipment make. That's just common sense; and that's the point I've been trying to make. It's not my fault Asher doesn't understand this elementary point. That's all this "debate" comes down to. My advice to the initial poster is to listen to the two devices and make up his own mind (not that mp3 players produce awesome sound quality). That's what I do when I buy audio equipment. I tried every discman in the store before I bought my last one.


Anyway, there is no contradiction in saying that vinyl often produces a better sound: it's a matter of fact that CD often sounds unnaturally "bright". Of course, vinyl has its limitations and you need very expensive equipment (like a Sondek) to get the best out of it, but it does tend to produce a warmer, more involving sound. Don't take my word for it, try it out yourself.

The same goes for listening to music on a dedicated audio hi fi as opposed to a home theatre system which compromised because it is designed to be used to play movie soundtracks.

[Asher]

Yeah right. Which hi fi would you buy, the one that the statistics favour, or the one that sounds better to you?

What's wrong with you, man?

The one that sounds better is the one that you buy.

Which is why it's best to listen to both, of course. How many times have I said this now?

But it's not possible to do that online. And the measurements of the sound clarity is a good indication of sound quality, especially with digital devices, because it is not an art and it is a science.

Sound reproduction for digital means isn't an art. Stop pretending it is.

Anyway, there is no contradiction in saying that vinyl often produces a better sound: it's a matter of fact that CD often sounds unnaturally "bright".

That's because, if you look at the waveforms, it's not as "smooth" as analog sound. This is remedied with 24-bit formats, such as DVD-Audio and WMA9.

That's another feature where the Zen one-ups the iPod. The iPod only supports 16-bit or lower, the Zen does 24-bit or lower. Not to mention the Zen also supports WMA-lossless, which doesn't affect any quality whatsoever but is 1/4th of the original size. And when you have 20, 30, or 60 gigs -- it's very practical.

Let's face it, Agathon: You're trying desperately to know what you're talking about. You obviously haven't the faintest idea how digital media works, otherwise you'd understand the significance and accuracy of the SNR ratio and importance of 24-bit audio.

And another thing: The contradiction wasn't in saying vinyl sounded better. The contradiction was you said hi-fi nuts are all about reproducing the sound as accurately as possible, and CDs are far more accurate than vinyl is. You just think Vinyl sounds better.

See the contradiction?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon

Yeah right. Which hi fi would you buy, the one that the statistics favour, or the one that sounds better to you? The two diverge. A system that is better on paper can be beat by a supposedly "inferior" system. Audio reproduction is in the end an art and not a science - just like recording is.

Reproducing the sound is science. How your brain interprets the sound waves might be "artistic", but like all art that interpretation is a matter of personal preference. So you're right to test every walkman in the place to find one that sounds good to you, but you're sounding very much like an art snob.

Anyway, there is no contradiction in saying that vinyl often produces a better sound: it's a matter of fact that CD often sounds unnaturally "bright". Of course, vinyl has its limitations and you need very expensive equipment (like a Sondek) to get the best out of it, but it does tend to produce a warmer, more involving sound. Don't take my word for it, try it out yourself.

That's only because the sound is compressed to well within the dynamic range of human hearing (20-20KHz)on most CD's while on LP's the sound was not compressed at all (and therefore included sounds outside of that range). The best sounding 'CDs' I have are vinyl recordings that I digitized, cleaned-up (plug for wave corrector), and burned. They are crystal clear and sound better than the vinyl.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hi fi is about accurately reproducing the original source.

I hope you don't mean "the sound at the original recording environment" here, 'cause that's just plain wrong- recording is an illusion, created through skilful mixing, overlays, electric and electronic doodads, mastering, whatever. However accurate two speakers are at reproducing the sounds of "an orchestra", thinking of music like that completely bypasses the point of a recording, the fact that it brings additional things to the sound that can never be done live. To that end, the perfect setup for any particular recording may be everything from mono to full-on surround, depending on the creative intentions of the producer in question.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
However accurate two speakers are at reproducing the sounds of "an orchestra", thinking of music like that completely bypasses the point of a recording, the fact that it brings additional things to the sound that can never be done live. To that end, the perfect setup for any particular recording may be everything from mono to full-on surround, depending on the creative intentions of the producer in question.

I agree completely

Indeed, for example look at The Flaming Lips' album Zaireeka which requires 4 cd stereos to be played properly. In other words, a bit more than 2 speakers. (which reminds me, in my new setup I could pull that off without having to move anything around...)

Nowadays artists and producers know that they can do more things, be more creative using the different channels, and they take full advantage of it, sometimes. This isn't the 70's anymore Agathon.

[Asher]

Surely Agathon is huddled in a corner somewhere out of embarassment.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

What's wrong with you, man?

The one that sounds better is the one that you buy.

Which is why it's best to listen to both, of course. How many times have I said this now?

How many times have I said that.

But it's not possible to do that online. And the measurements of the sound clarity is a good indication of sound quality, especially with digital devices, because it is not an art and it is a science.

Yeah, OK - go buy your audio equipment based on numbers.

Sound reproduction for digital means isn't an art. Stop pretending it is.

All sound reproduction is an art. That's why British made hi fi equipment tends to sound "different" from US made equipment. It's an art in the same way that graphic design is an art: sure we might use technology to get better results, but the end result is an aesthetic judgement by the human ear. There's no escaping that.

That's because, if you look at the waveforms, it's not as "smooth" as analog sound. This is remedied with 24-bit formats, such as DVD-Audio and WMA9.

It's made it better, but it still isn't the same.

Let's face it, Agathon: You're trying desperately to know what you're talking about. You obviously haven't the faintest idea how digital media works, otherwise you'd understand the significance and accuracy of the SNR ratio and importance of 24-bit audio.

And you obviously have no idea what makes good hi fi.

And another thing: The contradiction wasn't in saying vinyl sounded better. The contradiction was you said hi-fi nuts are all about reproducing the sound as accurately as possible, and CDs are far more accurate than vinyl is. You just think Vinyl sounds better.

See the contradiction?

Nope. A vinyl recording of an orchestra simply sounds more like a real orchestra than many CDs. I know, I go to concerts.

CDs tend to suffer from what audiophiles call "brightness" - an unnatural hardness and edge to the sound. Vinyl doesn't. The advantage of CDs is that they last longer and don't suffer interference from scratches. It also is a lot less expensive to get good sound out of CD than it is out of vinyl.

It's as simple as that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed

I hope you don't mean "the sound at the original recording environment" here, 'cause that's just plain wrong- recording is an illusion, created through skilful mixing, overlays, electric and electronic doodads, mastering, whatever. However accurate two speakers are at reproducing the sounds of "an orchestra", thinking of music like that completely bypasses the point of a recording, the fact that it brings additional things to the sound that can never be done live. To that end, the perfect setup for any particular recording may be everything from mono to full-on surround, depending on the creative intentions of the producer in question.

I'm not really interested in electronic music. I prefer the sound of real instruments played in real spaces - having bongos playing behind your head may be an interesting technical feat, but I fail to see the point of it. All music other than classical and some jazz is basically kids' stuff anyway. Whoever said I was an art snob is right.

In fact recording need not be an illusion created by all that crap. The best orchestral recordings I have were made with very few microphones. The later practice of extreme multimiking tended to produce an unrealistic sound picture.

I'd rather have a pair of ESL 63s because they simply have no peer at creating a 3 dimensional sound picture of an orchestra. They aren't shabby at reproducing electric instruments either.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hmmm... statistic facts vs 'trust me, I know what sounds better'?

Agathon, you are sounding a bit foolish here.

Welcome to debating Agathon. Look at our Iowa vs. Bismarck argument. He wouldn't consider any of the statistics, but just went with his "gut feeling" that the supposed superiority of a German gunnery crew would enable Bismarck to beat a battleship that was technologically superior in every way.

Originally posted by AgathonNope. A vinyl recording of an orchestra simply sounds more like a real orchestra than many CDs. I know, I go to concerts.

I go to rather a lot of concerts. Hell, I perform in them. I also have a pretty good sound system at home, with a turntable. I can say, unequivocably, that CD sound is superior in terms of generating a "realistic" quality than vinyl. There is a big difference in quality between analog and digital recordings, yes--but if you take an analog on vinyl and an analog transferred to CD, the CD sound will be superior (assuming equal skill in making the media). I have the same performance of Mahler's 5th on both vinyl and CD, and the CD is better all-round.

Many people don't know how to treat audio CDs to get the maximum sound benefit. Some recordings suffer from "digititis," where the lower voices are murky and muddles. Using a simple black permanent marker on the bottom of the CD around the edge, and then making spokes to the center will improve the sound incredibly.

I suggest you check out Decca's new releases of classical music (the "Legends" series). They are 96kHz 24-bit super digital transfers, and they blow away any vinyl I've heard of the same recordings.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SpencerH

Reproducing the sound is science. How your brain interprets the sound waves might be "artistic", but like all art that interpretation is a matter of personal preference. So you're right to test every walkman in the place to find one that sounds good to you, but you're sounding very much like an art snob.

Whether or not a recording accurately reproduces the original sound is not a matter of personal preference, nor is it something that can be exhausted by measurement. That's why hi fi makers spend so much time trying to get the sound "right".

That's only because the sound is compressed to well within the dynamic range of human hearing (20-20KHz)on most CD's while on LP's the sound was not compressed at all (and therefore included sounds outside of that range). The best sounding 'CDs' I have are vinyl recordings that I digitized, cleaned-up (plug for wave corrector), and burned. They are crystal clear and sound better than the vinyl.

What turntable were you using?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Welcome to debating Agathon. Look at our Iowa vs. Bismarck argument. He wouldn't consider any of the statistics, but just went with his "gut feeling" that the supposed superiority of a German gunnery crew would enable Bismarck to beat a battleship that was technologically superior in every way.

And was taking advantage of technology that may or may not have been installed on the Bismarck had it survived to the end of the war. In any case I posted plenty of material showing that the Iowa class' performance at long ranges was plagued with problems.

I go to rather a lot of concerts. Hell, I perform in them. I also have a pretty good sound system at home, with a turntable.

What do you have?

I can say, unequivocably, that CD sound is superior in terms of generating a "realistic" quality than vinyl. There is a big difference in quality between analog and digital recordings, yes--but if you take an analog on vinyl and an analog transferred to CD, the CD sound will be superior (assuming equal skill in making the media). I have the same performance of Mahler's 5th on both vinyl and CD, and the CD is better all-round.

Well, I've had the opposite experience - albeit on a pretty expensive turntable (not mine BTW - as a poor student I can't afford one).

Many people don't know how to treat audio CDs to get the maximum sound benefit. Some recordings suffer from "digititis," where the lower voices are murky and muddles. Using a simple black permanent marker on the bottom of the CD around the edge, and then making spokes to the center will improve the sound incredibly.

That's not what bothers me. It's the "brightness" that many CDs seem prone to (this is mainly a problem with digital recordings though).

I suggest you check out Decca's new releases of classical music (the "Legends" series). They are 96kHz 24-bit super digital transfers, and they blow away any vinyl I've heard of the same recordings.

Check out the represses of the old "Living Stereo" stuff (particularly the Reiner - Bartok disc). Those sound pretty damn good (stellar actually) IMHO better than the CD transfers.

I have a couple of the "Legends" series, the Kertesz "Bluebeard's Castle", which is very good and the Walter/Ferrier "Das Lied von der Erde" which is not too bad, even for mono.

Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to try these out on a good system since I left my hi fi back in NZ and sold my speakers. My current apartment is an acoustic nightmare so I haven't bothered bringing over my CD player and amplifier.

[Buck Birdseed]

So then Agathon, if you want the sound of an orchestra, why not go see a live concert? Why waste money on expensive stereo equipment if you're not getting any additional pleasure out of it?

Now, I know, I don't personally consider classical music to be art since it just involves meaningless and shallow reproduction of some original creative act hundreds of years ago, but even if you do surely there's no additional meaning added on by the record? Whereas in living music, of course, the very act of recording brings out qualities in the material- the record in the Rock idiom is intensely meaningful, in many ways the very essence of the musical form whatever live enthusiasts may say. Why sell yourself short? If you're not going to listen to music where the recording matters as part of the art, why do you need to listen to recordings at all?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Now, I know, I don't personally consider classical music to be art since it just involves meaningless and shallow reproduction of some original creative act hundreds of years ago, but even if you do surely there's no additional meaning added on by the record? Whereas in living music, of course, the very act of recording brings out qualities in the material- the record in the Rock idiom is intensely meaningful, in many ways the very essence of the musical form whatever live enthusiasts may say. Why sell yourself short? If you're not going to listen to music where the recording matters as part of the art, why do you need to listen to recordings at all?

How many times do I have to point out how wrong you are in this? You claim rock music finds the record idiom so meaningful, but how can you say the same isn't true for classical music? The great classical recordings feature performances that are intensely meaningful and deep to the performers at the time, and it is, consequently, magnificent art. Coupling this with your comments in the Basque thread, I sincerely have to wonder if you make it a habit to spout out on things of which you're intensely ignorant.