No need for iTunes now on Windows

[Asher]

By the way, another blatant, undeniable flaw with the iPod is the pathetic power of low-frequency response. The flaw seems to be with the headphone jack, of all places.

Notice how the headphones at the low frequencies fall off substantially:


These are on the 3rd generation iPod, by the way. You'd think such basic things would be fixed by now.

[BustaMike]

Oh my ****! This is the most pompous and stupid argument I think I've seen you two get into.

Only 2 things matter in digital music. How does it sound? How does it run (system resources, convenience, etc.)? I choose winamp because it sounds great on my 5.1 system, it uses next to no system resources when compared with iTunes or WMP, and it's freakin simple and doesn't take up space.

Then we get to this portable player argument. WTF are all these stupid number for? Who cares? Once again only 2 things matter. Does it sound good and is it easy to use? Asher, numbers and charts mean jack **** to me as long as I think it sounds good, and Agathon you're just as bad trying to argue numbers about sound quality. Jesus.

You two probably couldn't care less about what any of this stuff sounds like. You're just arguing because you can.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you can't accept that the only audio quality that matters is heard quality, then you aren't interested in it.

And heard quality is determined by two things: the headphones and the player. Since we're arguing about the player, the headphones are irrelevent. Since the player is digital and deterministic, we can measure the audio quality without actually listening to the music.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by BustaMike

Agathon you're just as bad trying to argue numbers about sound quality. Jesus.

You obviously didn't read any of my posts. They agree with you.

Sky - it's funny that people like you seem to think that there is a sense in which sound quality can exist, yet never be heard.

Imagine that - this player has the best sound quality in the world, you just can't ever hear it.

[Kuciwalker]

You can measure the sound quality without "hearing" it, though. The system is digital and deterministic, and thus you can simulate it. Thus, you can figure out what the result would be without actually using the device.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
You can measure the sound quality without "hearing" it, though. The system is digital and deterministic, and thus you can simulate it. Thus, you can figure out what the result would be without actually using the device.

Unfortunately you can't with enough precision to make tests worthwhile. That's why hi-fi magazines conduct listening tests of things like DACs and amplifiers, rather than relying on stats which miss the subtleties. Perhaps at some time in the future, we will have better measurements, but not now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Unfortunately you can't with enough precision to make tests worthwhile. That's why hi-fi magazines conduct listening tests of things like DACs and amplifiers, rather than relying on stats which miss the subtleties.

Hi-Fi magazines do this because it's important in a system with a lot of variables. And, most importantly, to cater to the pompous asses such as yourself who don't trust dem new teknolagies.

Of course "listening" tests are most ideal. However, one thing that completely baffles me is you dismiss the actual measurements and analysis completely, as if they serve no purpose. THAT is the flaw with your argument.

Numbers such as SNR, THD, and crosstalk are very helpful in guaging audio fidelty when you have no access to a suitable sample environment.

The very fact remains that both the measurements (SNR, THD, crosstalk, etc) favor the Zen, as do any listening tests I've found online.

I therefore think it's a safe assumption to say that the Zen does sound better. End of story.

You pay more for an iPod, and get a less capable audio player that lasts a fraction of the time. Why? Because it's a fad.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon


Unfortunately you can't with enough precision to make tests worthwhile. That's why hi-fi magazines conduct listening tests of things like DACs and amplifiers, rather than relying on stats which miss the subtleties. Perhaps at some time in the future, we will have better measurements, but not now.

You can do it with COMPLETE precision because this is a digital (ie the values are discrete, and thus have a finite number of digits, and thus can be represented perfectly within a computer) and it is deterministic. You know exactly what is being fed to the earphones.

[Asher]

Originally posted by skywalker
You can do it with COMPLETE precision because this is a digital (ie the values are discrete, and thus have a finite number of digits, and thus can be represented perfectly within a computer) and it is deterministic. You know exactly what is being fed to the earphones.

Agathon's rather uncultured when it comes to technology. If he understood how exactly digital audio works, and then how digital audio players work, he'd understand why the measurements are accurate and relevant.

It reminds me of the same people who insist the LCD reviews that use measurements are "bull****", when they're absolutely accurate.

For example, color curves and response rates...



Measurements like this are not only possible, but extraordinarily accurate. It's through these kinds of measurements that it was determined that the iPod's headphone jack was flawed in low-frequency response (or bass).

This would lend lots of credance to the people who complained that the iPod sounded rather "tinny" or "shallow" compared to the Zen.

But then again, in Agathon's world none of this means anything. After all, it's bull**** that's apparently not based on anything.

[mrmitchell]

Agathon is a philosophical dude, and cannot accept that sound quality can be discussed without the sound.

[Asher]

When the question is what sounds "better", it's impossible to do without sound.

When the question is what is the most accurate sound reproduction for digital audio, it can absolutely and scientifically be answered without hearing any sound by a human. In fact, scientific analysis is considerably more accurate in this sense.

And if you don't like how it sounds, at least on the Zens you have access to a powerful equalizer and DSP as well.

[Agathon]

The loony still can't accept that he's beat.

Well it's not my problem any more...

[Asher]

Oh Aggie.

I would imagine it is your problem, as you're the one who has to live with your stupidity.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
When the question is what sounds "better", it's impossible to do without sound.

When the question is what is the most accurate sound reproduction for digital audio, it can absolutely and scientifically be answered without hearing any sound by a human. In fact, scientific analysis is considerably more accurate in this sense.

You really are a hopeless cretin. When it comes to hi fidelity audio reproduction, listening tests are essential. If they weren't, people could just report the graphs and be done with it. But they don't - as I showed you with an example of a professional hi-fi journalist comparing what you consider to be the fidelity of digital audio products - in this case DACs (crucial components in the players at issue). He's talking about how realistic the sound is with respect to the reproduced soundstage, and other such things that audiophiles care about.

I have read hundreds of similar reviews in respected hi-fi magazines - all written by people seeking to judge the fidelity of reproduced sound. Why do they bother? Why don't they just report the statistics? Are they collectively mad? No, they just know what they're doing because they know that statistics aren't enough.

If you want to place yourself at odds with the entire audio review industry and its accepted practices, that's fine by me. If you want to pretend you are talking about something else, that's fine by me too. I'm talking about what real people in the real industry use to guide their decision making.

It's just laughable that you have to go to such absurd lengths to win an internet argument.

I'm not wasting my time responding to your pointless repetition.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You really are a hopeless cretin. When it comes to hi fidelity audio reproduction, listening tests are essential. If they weren't, people could just report the graphs and be done with it.

The difference is, of course, in these tests and in this discussion we're not concerned with the headphones at all -- simply the digital device and how it processes music.

And as a Philosopher, I'm sure you're aware that it is not an argument to say "the magazines I read always do listening tests, ergo SNR mean nothing"...

I want you to do something for me, Agathon.
Tell me what SNR is and what it measures.
Then tell me how it is measured.
Then, taking into account the former two tasks, tell me how it's not related to audio fidelity, and why.

But, as an aside, I am most truly amazed at how you consistently use strawmen, even after being corrected. I've said about a dozen times now that it is ideal to listen and compare the devices under identical circumstances.

I've ALSO said -- about a dozen times now -- that this is not realistic for most consumers. The vast majority of stores do not have sample units, and even then they'll likely have different music and sound on each, with different headphones.

So telling people to ignore EVERYTHING (internet testamonials, scientific measurements) regarding audio quality and instead only rely on the said unrealistic conditions is obtuse and ridiculous.

Your entire argument is built upon strawmen and idiocy, and nothing more.