No need for iTunes now on Windows

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually, you'll find I said:

MP3 Players are purely digital device, up to the headphone jack.

"Up To" != "Up Through".

By the way, DACs are digital circuits, Einstein. I've programmed a driver for one and designed a rudimentary DAC last year, so I think I'm at least somewhat qualified to talk about how it works...

Nice try doofus. We were talking about sound quality and you know it. You either really are a pathetic **** or you live in an alternate reality. Perhaps both.

The fact that you persist with the SNR crap shows how much you know about high end audio. Only a moron would care about that stuff in preference to actually listening to it. And with some of the stuff you've posted lately I doubt you're qualified to fix a toaster.

The analogue part is fed to the headphone jack, which I've already said is not digital. But apparently, your reading comprehension skills are not up to snuff.

They're just fine because you were full of **** as usual. Now you are trying to crawl out of it. Sorry, you were wrong - end of story.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why is in these debates Aggie gets so badly smoked? Maybe it is just relative level of expertise, because he manages to beat Asher down in philosophy threads.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why is in these debates Aggie gets so badly smoked? Maybe it is just relative level of expertise, because he manages to beat Asher down in philosophy threads.

I'm not the one that got smoked in this thread. Asher is talking ****, and he knows it.

SNR ratios are not sufficient to determine heard audio quality. Only a moron would buy audio equipment based on it. That's the truth.

It's not even worth looking at. You determine fidelity of sound by listening. You can have all the graphs you like, but it doesn't automatically mean that it's going to sound good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dude you are getting so badly thrashed it isn't even funny.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nice try doofus. We were talking about sound quality and you know it. You either really are a pathetic **** or you live in an alternate reality. Perhaps both.

The fact that you persist with the SNR crap shows how much you know about high end audio. Only a moron would care about that stuff in preference to actually listening to it. And with some of the stuff you've posted lately I doubt you're qualified to fix a toaster.

Do you understand what SNR actually means and how it is measured? How, then, could you deny how important it is with digital audio? SNR is a scientific, repeatable, consistent metric for determining audio clarity -- which is why it exists. It's the ratio of the original sound intended (or the signal) to the noise (caused by interference mostly).

This means that, by definition, something with a higher SNR is more accurate than something with a lower SNR.

Further, since this is measured in dB, which is a logarithmic scale, 92 dB is substantially and noticably worse than 98 dB.

It's not that hard to understand. Creative's bread and butter is sound, and they have extremely close partnership with Yamaha. They know their **** when it comes to digital audio. Apple, on the other hand, doesn't have much experience with digital audio hardware at all. Their bread and butter is styling and appearance.

It's style over substance all over again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed Asher. It seems Aggie has found some facts he can't get away from so wants to explain away the stats altogether. It doesn't work.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

In short, that's why I have sex occasionally, and buy vinyl (not only to wear).

Save the vinyl! Down with the MP3!

[Agathon]

The stats aren't what really matters. It's what you hear.

If someone records your voice, the aim of audio equipment at the recording and reproduction end is to produce that with as much fidelity as possible.

The only sure fire way to determine that is to actually listen to your recording through the device you want to test and see how it measures up. That's how sensible people buy audio equipment. Only a sure fire nutcase would not do that. Fidelity to the original source can only be measured by the human ear - which is the only thing that can hear both. Any other measure of audio quality is besides the point.

For example, CDs were supposed to produce a much better sound than analogue equipment, but when they came out they sounded unnaturally bright to listeners - not at all like a live performance, and not a very pleasing sound. Audio reproduction is science in the service of art, and it is the art that matters. In fact a good CD does still not produce as pleasing a sound as fresh vinyl with a high end turntable. I've listened myself and there is a difference. I am a concert goer, so I've heard plenty of the real thing too.

That's why my advice to anyone who wants to purchase an audio device is to peform their own comparative listening tests. That's just common sense - everything else is irrelevant. No one should ever buy audio equipment without listening to it first. If you think that something on a piece of paper is more indicative of audio quality than what you can actually hear, then I'm wondering what you are talking about. Audio quality in the only relevant sense is heard quality.

What's wrong with that? It seems to be common sense. You can define audio quality as something else if you like, but people who care about music only care about heard quality.

It's simply a fact that you can put together lots of really impressive equipment into a hi-fi system and it still won't sound right. You need equipment that produces what audiophiles call "synergy". Some components match each other well, others do not - even though there is nothing on paper to distinguish them.

So are you both trying to tell me that heard quality is not the sole consideration when buying audio equipment? If not, then do you not really care about the sound?

[Q Classic]

there's a vinyl lp player that i know thas a nice, mellow sound, but i think that's because of the vacuum tubes that the player has.

[Asher]

Heard quality is undeniably related to SNR.

Your example of analog->digital is worthless. We're talking about playing DIGITAL music on DIGITAL players. It's a level playing field. There is no substantial difference in architecture. This isn't taking a smooth, analog signal into a "choppy" digital signal. It's digital to digital.

The SNR rating is the best way, by far, to accurately predict and scientifically analyze the fidelity of digital audio. Whether it "sounds better" or not is a different question -- some people may think lower fidelity sound is better. I would disagree.

SNR, when dealing with digital systems, is the primary indication of audio fidelity. Anyone with a pair of ears and unbiased judgement would be able to agree with the SNR rating. After all, less noise and more signal is better, is it not?

Your example about home theatre and "syngery" is equally worthless. We're talking about a sole audio device -- not its headphones. It's a single device, not an amalgamation of a bunch like a home theatre...

[Asher]

If you'd like we could also discuss THD and stereo crosstalk stats, which also favor the Zen substantially.

The fact is, when dealing with facts and measurements, the Zen kicks the iPod's ass. It has higher sound quality.

One thing you seem to have problem with comprehending is that digital audio reproduction is purely a science. Unlike past methods of audio, there is no room for art. It's all mathematics and circuit design.

As a philosopher, I'm not surprised you have problems dealing with emperical fact and instead, hopelessly, try to base this on judgement of mind. It is, but only because your mind is so hopelessly in love with Apple, you'd say it would sound better no matter what.

We won't even get started on how much more powerful the DSP is in the Zen than the iPod, with an incredibly powerful equalizer compared to the pathetic one on the iPod.

What you're doing is saying a 500MHz G3 may seem the same speed as an 800MHz G3 for things like MS Word, but that doesn't mean they are the same speed. Trying stuff out in the store doesn't do you much good when you're dealing with emperical facts and statistics. It's always a good thing to do, though.

[Fake Boris]

Can you really trust the SNR numbers given by the manufacturer?

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by Agathon
Something funny is going on in Cupertino. Apple's share price just spiked for no apparent reason.

Takeover?

iPod mini

[Q Classic]

probably not, which is why you get the SNR numbers from other sources.

[Q Classic]

except the ipod mini sucks.

just spring for the extra fifty, please. that pos is way too expensive for what it is.