No need for iTunes now on Windows

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

So if you think the i-Pod sounds like a pigeon's arse, the answer is to move house?

Sorry Laz - this is a continuance of an old argument about hi-fi quality. The point still stands because the same goes for what Asher calls "purely digital" matters - like comparing DACs.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You are clueless Asher. He never said the iPod was better. He said that you should not look solely at the SNR number, but rather listen for yourself to find subjective differences that are not revealed by virtue of the SNR alone.

Exactly.

If Asher ever stops being blinded by his irrational hate for Apple, he might come to understand this simple point.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This thread is funny.

Originally posted by Agathon

Throwing insults because you've lost.... classic.

So when you threw insults at Asher, was that because you'd won?

Why don't you two drop the subject matter and just have a fight? All the technical stuff is just window dressing for the insult slinging anyway.

We could start a thread for it. "Out of Agathon and Asher, who smells the most of wee?"

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You are clueless Asher. He never said the iPod was better. He said that you should not look solely at the SNR number, but rather listen for yourself to find subjective differences that are not revealed by virtue of the SNR alone.

I never said he said the iPod was better. And I've said that listening should be the final judgement.

But when listening is not an option (ie, right now -- and in most stores), what you can do is look at the measurements which are very indicative of sound quality, and then look at other peoples' subjective reviews. Not one subjective review I've found online says the iPod sounds better, the stats do not say the iPod sounds better, so I think it's fairly safe to say for most people the iPod will not sound better.

Of course, final judgement can be made if you're fortunate to find a store with demo units, but I know of none.

[Potassium]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp Why don't you two drop the subject matter and just have a fight? All the technical stuff is just window dressing for the insult slinging anyway.

We could start a thread for it. "Out of Agathon and Asher, who smells the most of wee?"

I would endorse this. All this debating gets boring after a page and a half, anyway.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No. That's a straw man. I never said that. My claim is that the science is either not yet sufficiently advanced, or perhaps never will be (I'll leave that as an open question), to determine heard audio quality.

Which is absurd when what we're talking about is a stream of 1s and 0s and how much those 1s and 0s actually match what's being outputted. Pattern matching and differentiating between the original signal and outputted signal is very much a science.

At the point where the headphone gets it is where things start to get subjective, as it's analog. But any headphones can be used on any player.

It makes no difference. You will please note that the excerpts are from a comparison of DACs (and DACs alone), which both the Zen and the ipod have. Your claim was that, when it comes to specifically digital devices, that heard audio quality either can be trumped by stats or that stats take the dominant role. As you can see from this review, that is most definitely not the case, because that's not how people test hi-fi equipment.

Actually that is patently NOT my claim. If you had taken the time to read the content of the posts, you might be able to see that.

When you have no access to both units, you have access to scientific measurements and other people's subjective reviews. None of the above favor the iPod in any way. Of course, you can continue this useless tirade about how "REAL AUDIOPHILES" review things, but it's a moot point because you're missing the entire argument for the sake of your wimpering strawman.

Would you buy hi-fi equipment based on what someone else had heard? Jesus, I would [i]never[/i[ buy audio equipment online without having heard it first - nor would any sensible person.

No sensible person would buy an iPod, period. Crap battery life, high price, poor on-the-go interface for pocket use...

Notice that nowhere in this thread have I discounted the possibility that the Zen may indeed sound better than the ipod. I've just said that buyers should test them for themselves.

That's a ridiculous argument, because it's a "safe" and "common sense" argument that usually doesn't work in the real world. All the stores around here that sell iPods -- Future Shop, Compusmart, Memory Express, etc. -- NONE of these have sample units out so you can compare each one. Further, if stores DO have sample units, they're usually with crap and inconsistent headphones so you really can't tell what the audio quality would be with good Seinheisers.

Either admit that throwing around SNR ratios is next to useless in determining which player to buy, or stop making a fool of yourself.

SNR are NOT useless, they're factually consistent with quality ratings, they're scientifically measured in a purely digital environment, and they're absolutely indicative of the resultant audio clarity. The fact that you have no frickin' clue how digital audio works and the insistence on arguing to the death on a position that is common sense -- yet infeasable in the real world -- is nothing but more fodder for me in my proclaimation of modern Philosophy students being so far out of the real world that they're rather useless...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Moderators!

Can we set up an Agathon v Asher "fight like a pair of girls" thread as an air-clearing exercise that'll also be really funny?

[Fake Boris]

So Asher, different audio devices with the sane SNR would sound exactly the same?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Which is absurd when what we're talking about is a stream of 1s and 0s and how much those 1s and 0s actually match what's being outputted. Pattern matching and differentiating between the original signal and outputted signal is very much a science.

Nope. The performance of DACs is compared by heard audio quality. I just showed you that it is. Accept it.

At the point where the headphone gets it is where things start to get subjective, as it's analog. But any headphones can be used on any player.

Nope. See above. Headphones, speakers, etc. just add more complication.

Actually that is patently NOT my claim. If you had taken the time to read the content of the posts, you might be able to see that.

Trying to weasel out of your patently ridiculous position.

When you have no access to both units, you have access to scientific measurements and other people's subjective reviews. None of the above favor the iPod in any way. Of course, you can continue this useless tirade about how "REAL AUDIOPHILES" review things, but it's a moot point because you're missing the entire argument for the sake of your wimpering strawman.

When you have no access to both units, the rational thing to do is suspend judgement, as I have.

There is so much more to audio quality than SNR ratios that witholding judgement is the rational thing to do.

No sensible person would buy an iPod, period. Crap battery life, high price, poor on-the-go interface for pocket use...

Another cheap shot because you've lost the argument.

Why not use the ipod's remote?

That's a ridiculous argument, because it's a "safe" and "common sense" argument that usually doesn't work in the real world. All the stores around here that sell iPods -- Future Shop, Compusmart, Memory Express, etc. -- NONE of these have sample units out so you can compare each one.

The shops didn't have discmans out when I went to try them out. I made them let me test various ones because I was the customer and I made it plain that a sale was dependent on my being able to test the equipment properly. They were free to refuse, but they were more interested in making a sale.

Further, if stores DO have sample units, they're usually with crap and inconsistent headphones so you really can't tell what the audio quality would be with good Seinheisers.

It's "Sennheisers" and you take your own.

SNR are NOT useless, they're factually consistent with quality ratings, they're scientifically measured in a purely digital environment, and they're absolutely indicative of the resultant audio clarity.

They are ****ing well not - or at least not enough to be decisive on heard audio quality. If they were, hi-fi reviewers reviewing DACs would rely on them. But they don't - as I showed you. So you are either deluded or just being obtuse.

You said that DACs are part of your "purely digital environment" as you defined it. Hence it would make sense if what you said was generally accepted fact for reviewers to stop evaluating them on heard audio quality. But they don't.

The fact that you have no frickin' clue how digital audio works and the insistence on arguing to the death on a position that is common sense -- yet infeasable in the real world

The word is "unfeasible" IIRC. And it's perfectly feasible. My hi-fi loving friends and I have managed to do it every time we've gone to buy audio equipment. Stores that refuse to allow testing, do not get our custom - because they are bad stores.

-- is nothing but more fodder for me in my proclaimation of modern Philosophy students being so far out of the real world that they're rather useless...

Great. I win. You've resorted to cheap shots which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You must be out of real arguments.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So Asher, different audio devices with the sane SNR would sound exactly the same?

Exactly. Note that my reviewer has the same set up for both DACs and he doesn't think they sound the same.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

We could start a thread for it. "Out of Agathon and Asher, who smells the most of wee?"

Me. I keep pissing myself at what he considers an argument.

I'm done here anyway as I've made my point.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So Asher, different audio devices with the sane SNR would sound exactly the same?

What is with philosophers and an inherent ability to not understand a clear argument?

SNR is the predominant indicator of signal clarity on a purely digital device. I have said this is not the only one, and I've also said that it is always best to judge for themselves.

However, this is not really possible in the real world. Further, anecdotal evidence by every subjective review on the web that I've found further supports the claim that the higher SNR on the Zen is evident as it sounds better.

I'm not sure why Philosophers are such a pain in the ass. Maybe it's Agathon's inability to realize that he's got his ass handed to him, and your groupie attitude with him...

[Zero]

DONT GOTO THE STORE AND MAKE DECISIONS

What seems to look the best always has to do with whats not selling. They always rig **** so that the monitors they want to sell looks the best with contrast brightness jacked up and ****. Im guessing Audio ****s are no different.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

What is with philosophers and an inherent ability to not understand a clear argument?

SNR is the predominant indicator of signal clarity on a purely digital device. I have said this is not the only one, and I've also said that it is always best to judge for themselves.

However, this is not really possible in the real world. Further, anecdotal evidence by every subjective review on the web that I've found further supports the claim that the higher SNR on the Zen is evident as it sounds better.

I'm not sure why Philosophers are such a pain in the ass. Maybe it's Agathon's inability to realize that he's got his ass handed to him, and your groupie attitude with him...

Conclusion: Boris G., as a music connoisseur, should only buy what he can listen to beforehand.

BTW, I often disagree with Agathon. I have found, however, that it's hardly possible to disagree with someone debating against YOU anyway.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Nope. See above. Headphones, speakers, etc. just add more complication.

Trying to weasel out of your patently ridiculous position.

AGAIN. For the last time. We're talking about the device itself -- not the headphones. The iPod and Zen are CLOSED SYSTEMS, minus the headphones. Since the same headphones can be used on both, this is left out of the comparison.

So talking about how "speakers, etc." add complication to this debate is YOUR patently ridiculous position.

iPods and Zens are purely digital up to the point of the headphone jack, where it is then in the realm of headphone quality. Your comparisons about analog vs digital audio are absurd, as it clearly does not apply here.

When you have no access to both units, the rational thing to do is suspend judgement, as I have.

There is so much more to audio quality than SNR ratios that witholding judgement is the rational thing to do.

When you're shopping for a new player, like Boris is, you can't just "suspend judgement". When you're looking for a player with the best quality, the rational thing to do in absence of being able to compare the two side by side is to look at the sound clarity as measured by SNR, THD, and stereocross talk to name a view. Then you look at all the subjective reviews from other people online, who all conclude that the one with the theoretically clearer sound has -- get this -- clearer sound.

The rational thing to do at this point is to assume the one with the better specs and glowing reviews for audio quality in comparison to the iPod has higher audio quality.

Simple stuff to most people, incredibly confusing and convoluted to the esteemed Philosophical community at Apolyton...

Another cheap shot because you've lost the argument.

Why not use the ipod's remote?

Because the cable freezes in cold weather to the point of becoming stiff and, eventually, not working. At least that's what happened to my friend's iPod's remote...

They are ****ing well not - or at least not enough to be decisive on heard audio quality. If they were, hi-fi reviewers reviewing DACs would rely on them. But they don't - as I showed you. So you are either deluded or just being obtuse.

You said that DACs are part of your "purely digital environment" as you defined it. Hence it would make sense if what you said was generally accepted fact for reviewers to stop evaluating them on heard audio quality. But they don't.

Reviews of "hi-fi" equipment are fundamentally different from a closed system such as a portable music player. There are FAR more factors in an open system like a home theatre or complex system. Further, some audiophiles are simply condescending ******, not unlike most Philosophers I've met, who insist insane things like vinyl offers more fidelity than DVD-Audio or SACD.

I often ignore "audiophiles" and their opinions because seldom do what they say hold true in my experience.

Great. I win. You've resorted to cheap shots which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You must be out of real arguments.

They're not cheap shots, they're observations. After all, the only two people arguing against me are two Philosophy students, when other people like Imran can clearly see how you've been thrashed.

You completely dismiss the important of SNR and completely do not understand how it works, and in a valiant effort to save your ass and defend Apple from getting labeled as "bad quality", you say "you have to listen to it to know!". Which is something I've said is a good idea, but it's just not always possible.

It is rational that when someone asks online which has the best audio quality, the one with the superior specs AND with the unanimous consensus of reviewers saying it sounds better, probably sounds better.

Constructing an entire argument on "but but but, it may not sound any better to you!" is you being obtuse and weaseling out of the fact that Apple's overpriced fashion accessory is rather below average in terms of an audio player.