Larger memory MP3's [other than Apple]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
And which is basically worthless in determining heard audio fidelity.

I'd imagine having less noise in your music would improve the quality.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I'd imagine having less noise in your music would improve the quality.

Yes, but as has been hashed over in this forum many times, SNR does not equal heard audio quality. Only a complete idiot would base his assessment of audio quality on that. There's not point having a lower SNR ratio if the resulting colouration makes the music unlistenable. Making good stereo equipment is as much an art as a science.

Oerdin himself must believe this since he claims to be a vinyl junkie.

But this has been done to death. Oerdin would rather die than buy an Apple player, even though Apple's current offerings are unquestionably best of breed (which is not something that could be said about past models, particularly the iPd mini).

There simply isn't a player on the market that has the combination of form factor, usability and audio quality of the iPod nano for example. Only an idiot would buy anything else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except for the fact that the Nano is TOO small. I'd always be afraid of losing it... something I've never felt with my 4G iPod.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but as has been hashed over in this forum many times, SNR does not equal heard audio quality. Only a complete idiot would base his assessment of audio quality on that. There's not point having a lower SNR ratio if the resulting colouration makes the music unlistenable. Making good stereo equipment is as much an art as a science.

You are confusing two different issues. One is the quality of the sound coming from the player and the second is how speakers reproduce that sound. We are not dealing with speakers since either player can use the same speaker. Instead we are dealing solely with the quality of sound produced by the player. Using industry accepted standards we can conclusively show that the Ipod produces inferior sound with a lower signal to noise ratio then the creative. Ergo it is completely correct to say the Creative player producers higher quality sound.

BTW I don't hate Apple but I most certainly do hate Apple's tactics. I could buy either player but I choice to buy a Creative because Creative's player was in every way a better player and it cost less money. Simple as that.

[Verto]

I doubt the audio quality difference between the two is that significant. Not that it matters to most people, since they plan on using it on a subway, or wherever they might be at, instead of in a perfectly silent room.

[Dinner]

The difference isn't huge but I want to see Aggie admit that it is better then the Ipod since he's said it isn't. Especially since he's spent past years claiming the Ipod didn't have problems like an easily scratched screen and a weak bass response.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin

You just keep coming up with excuses but the inescapable fact is that the Creative has superior sound quality comapred to the Ipod. Just accept it.

Because you said it?

Jesus Christ....

The new iPods have better sound quality than anything else I have heard. One could quibble about the older ones, but you just don't seem to have read anything I have said.

The latest generation of iPods make everything else look like something from the Jurassic period. They are smaller, easier to use, more reliable and better sounding than anything else out there. I've heard Creative's players... they are too whizz bang for me, and as usual they are a generation behind Apple's stuff.

BTW I listen to a lot more then just rock and roll and if you took part in the many music threads I have started then you'd know that. I seriously have to wonder how you can suddenly pop out of the wood work and announce yourself a serious audiophile when you've consistantly failed to show any interest in music (except as related to your Apple fetish), can't seriously talk about standards,

You're a noob compared to me. I have one of the largest collections of classical music on Apolyton. I even have more than Boris does (unless he's bought about 500 CDs in the last 18 months or so). I should really count them again. My collection is well into the thousands, and I feel like splurging again soon. I'm the kind of guy who has five complete sets of the Beethoven symphonies along with many other versions of single symphonies.

I just don't bother with music discussions for the most part. I don't take rock music particularly seriously as an art form, even though I enjoy it, and there aren't many people on here who like the classical stuff I do. Besides, it is pretty hard to write meaningfully about music, since so much of what it conveys is inexpressible in the crude medium of language.

and fail so miserably to accept easily measurable and completely reproducable industry accepted tests of sound quality. The only conclusion is you don't know what you're talking about.

Because what you said is horse****. Go read a respectable audio reviewer (say, the ones in Gramophone). They don't bother with comparing graphs or numbers, because it's a hopeless way of assessing audio quality from the point of view of a human listener.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You are confusing two different issues. One is the quality of the sound coming from the player and the second is how speakers reproduce that sound. We are not dealing with speakers since either player can use the same speaker. Instead we are dealing solely with the quality of sound produced by the player. Using industry accepted standards we can conclusively show that the Ipod produces inferior sound with a lower signal to noise ratio then the creative. Ergo it is completely correct to say the Creative player producers higher quality sound.

This is risible.

You know what? I could review a CD player, or a CD/Amplifier combo using your method. These components also have their own "character" so to speak. I'm sure being the audiophile you claim to be that you have heard of what is called the sound of "British amplification". Effects like that matter much more than the simple mechanism of SNR.

If I sent it to a respectable audio magazine, I reckon they would frame it and laugh at it every time they felt down.

From Wikipedia

The designer of a system for sound reproduction needs to be able to measure the system's performance in a number of areas. While this is not a measure of quality but of quantity, it is a fact that certain quantifiable measurements must be of a certain order to assure quality. That said, it is possible to design systems that sound terrible nevertheless — in other words, a quality system will attain certain measurements, but the existence of those measurements does not guarantee quality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_system_measurements

Now can you please stop with this stupidity....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Except for the fact that the Nano is TOO small. I'd always be afraid of losing it... something I've never felt with my 4G iPod.

It's an awesome player. It's the best one Apple has ever offered. I'm getting one for my wife.

The capacity is a bit small for me though.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The difference isn't huge but I want to see Aggie admit that it is better then the Ipod since he's said it isn't. Especially since he's spent past years claiming the Ipod didn't have problems like an easily scratched screen and a weak bass response.

The iPods don't have an easily scratched screen

[Agathon]

Especially since he's spent past years claiming the Ipod didn't have problems like an easily scratched screen and a weak bass response.

The first iPod minis were like that. The rest of them were pretty much OK IIRC. But I guess it must suck to have spent your money on Creative's waste of time player when you could have had the good one. For Christ's sake... if you don't want Apple, at least buy an iRiver. They are probably the next best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't get this Creative hate.... ranked highly in various publications, including CNet. Have video screens that have more pixels, have FM radio. It's almost like jealousy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't get this Creative hate.... ranked highly in various publications, including CNet. Have video screens that have more pixels, have FM radio. It's almost like jealousy.

I don't hate them. I just think there are better alternatives if you don't want to go Apple. The iRiver players are superb by all accounts, and at least they aren't cheap knockoffs of what Apple is doing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't hate them.

Suuuuuuuure.

I just think there are better alternatives if you don't want to go Apple.

Not according to publications with people that test all of them.

CNet has the latest iPod ranked 8/10 and the Creative Zen Vision M ranked.... wait for it... 8/10!

I think I'll trust CNet over you. Especially since it seems like you are trying to downgrade a player which is the iPod's equal (at least).

[Agathon]

You believe what you read on CNet... OK... I hear the Weekly World News is a good read as well...