Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: iPod and iTunes sound quality (Read 11714 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #1 –
Neat site.

A quick and interesting addition would be to add some frequency response graphs of the iPod. You could use e.g. Rightmark for that, since the iPod can play the wav-format directly.

Or you could take it to my place sometime and I'll happily do it (Leiden) .
[edit2]having had a look at your DAC-design pages, I humbly suggest you better do the measurements yourself. Deeply impressed am I by the simple beauty of the reclocking circuitry.[/edit2]

Then you could also hear the Sennheiser MX500s, which you write to be interested in (but those can be had for 15 euro or so at any Dixons). They're quite nice indeed, slightly too bright perhaps. Lowest octaves are totally absent though.

[edit]btw, there's a typo in the encoding observations - at 96kbps mp3 it says:
Quote
The 96 kbit/sec is a joke. ...This encoding is useful for music.
[/edit]

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #2 –
I've updated some of the pages, and I've added some measurement pages.

Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #3 –
Quote
As mentioned by somebody on 3ivxforum, it is very likely that iTunes uses the "Better" setting:

I've been having a very fruitful e-mail swap with Apple's head AAC developer,  Mr. Stanley Kuo. Here's his clarification on this specific subject:<...>


That somebody is me. I actually posted that here too


Just a remark: at this page, the link just before Ivan's quote is severely broken.

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #4 –
Wow, that's a pretty cool page.  That's the exact sort of thing I was looking for (and am still looking for) when I posted this.  I wish somebody out there would do something similar for some other players as well.
I am *expanding!*  It is so much *squishy* to *smell* you!  *Campers* are the best!  I have *anticipation* and then what?  Better parties in *the middle* for sure.
http://www.phong.org/

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #5 –
it is a little off topic though, but I always wondered why Windows User can't use the AAC format...I mean why can't I just encode a file to AAC and put it on the players hardrive?
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #6 –
It's because the IPod has some kind of database where all information about the tracks is stored. Just copying music files (no matter what format) doesn't work - you can't access them. They must be copied to the device via iTunes or (PC) Musicmatch Jukebox or (because nobody wants to use crappy MMJB) EphPod (www.ephpod.com). They all manage the database and copy the songs (while they change the filenames to numbers and store them in special folders).
Only iTunes is able to manage AAC files. There is a workaround for PC users: copy MP3s with the right filenames and tags via MMJB or EphPod to the IPod and then replace these with AAC files (using the explorer) (which must have the same names and the same extension (mp3)) IIRC. Read about that some days ago.
But perhaps EphPod will support AAC copying soon, or there will be another solution... until then I'll stick to LAME aps with my  IPod.

Regards, fileman.

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #7 –
Good stuff, Marc!  I'll be in the market for a portable player soon, and it's nice to see some detailed stats and comparisons.

Something you might want to think about if you haven't already, and if you're considering adding more comparisons between the iPod and other products.  PhatNoise makes a very popular digital player for car audio, and might be worth comparing with the iPod if you have access to a PhatBox or Music Keg.  Many people use iPods in their cars, so I'll bet a good comparison of features, specifications and audio quality between these products would garner a lot of interest.

The PhatBox/Keg is an integrated car audio component, so you probably wouldn't be able to plug it into a PC for stable environment comparisons (not in a way I can think of), but if you use an RTA in a car with both products you should be able to get some solid measurements.

The overlapping audio formats used by the iPod and the PhatBox will be MP3 and at least one lossless format (AIFF on the iPod and your choice of PCM WAV or FLAC on the PhatBox), so if you were interested in comparing them, you could use either or both format types.

Just a thought...

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #8 –
I have no access to the Phatbox, so a comparison will be difficult.

Car radio is quite a different topic anyway. I've only have heard a few car radios that sound pleasing, but rarely one that sounds accurate as well. Because I live in a flat country (the Netherlands), most of my travelling is by bike (healthy as well|), so I use the car radio once a month at maximum.

The basic question for me would be the quality of the iTrip of Griffin (http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/itrip/). Its sound quality is limited by FM broadcast / reception (which has less dynamic headroom and bandwidth compared to digital 44.1kHz 16 bit signals), but on the other hand the acoustic conditions in the average car are the limiting factor anyway.

The advantage of the iPod for me would be its portability everywhere, in the house, in the garden, in the car, on the bike, at work, in the train, during business trips, to take to my friends place for a party, etc.

Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #9 –
Quote
Only iTunes is able to manage AAC files.


A little out of date, both Sveta Portable Audio and Ephpod support AAC when in a mp4 container.

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #10 –
To be quite frank, I expected a comparison with the Nomad Jukebox 3.

Yeah, it's probably because I own one, but I keep hearing its output is better than the iPod's and I want to see if this is true or not.

Also, the NJB3 is probably the iPod's biggest(?) competitor along with the Zen, so a comparison is definitely needed.

Shall we expect one soon?

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #11 –
You can expect a review soon if you send me such a  Nomad. 

Marc 

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #12 –
Now, now.. Unless Nomads are banned in the Netherlands or something, you should be careful when joking about that because;

You're conducting a research to check whether the "various conflicting claims about the iPod sound quality" have a stand.

In the univerese I live in, these claims almost always talk about the iPod *in comparison* to another portable audio device -- whether that's the Zen, the NJB3, iRiver's iMP models, plain ol' CD players (discmans), you name it.

So, if you want to do your research right, you'll have to check where the iPod stands in relation to other portable audio devices (from hereon referred to as PADs, unless there's already an acronym out there that I can't recall right now).

I believe that very few care about the comparison to.... Dell's Latitude C400, the iBook or the Cube. It's like me comparing my dad's Audi A6 with a school bus. Where's the relevance? The comparison to the Philips CD 850 MKII (or the Tungsten T, OK) makes more sense; you can walk with these devices, bring the sound with you at all times, etc.

Question: doesn't it make much more sense to compare the iPod to another PAD rather than "the iBook or the Cube" (you mention you'll add these last two at the bottom of this page)?

So, don't tell me that your only chance to do a comparison with iPod's major competitor, is to have a guy from Greece send it to you. Sure, you're not "PC Magazine" to have all the PADs in the world handed to you, but you should have some adequate *relative* material around you (maybe from a friend or a friend's friend, etc.), before you set up a webpage stating as your purpose to "research those various conflicting claims". Or you can go on with comparisons that are not very useful.

EDIT: Fixed the URL.

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #13 –
My research and its context of the test are very clearly described on the website. The omission of a particular device doesn't make the test less relevant. Maybe it doesn't answer your specific question, just like about 99,999% of the web contents doesn't answer my current interests as well. If my tests don't meet your expectations or interest, it doesn't affect their general validity.

The conflicting claims where about the iPod itself (encoding quality, the sound is good/bad/too much bass/too little bass etc. etc.), not about comparisons. A comparison  with reference equipment can help to judge the quality. The Philips CD 850 is not a portable device, but its headphone output is very very high quality (about the best I know), so that makes it a valuable reference for sound quality in general. The other comparisons are added because of my curiousity, and for some people might answer a question. Whether other comparisons are more relevant, is a personal and temporal issue that has not a zero/one answer.

I didn't plan to conduct a comparison with other PADs, because I have no budget available to do so (which I expressed by a joke with a smiley - guess you understood it, but unfortunately you took it a bit personally, I didn't want to be offensive).

I'm open for suggestions, but remarks like "I expected a comparison", "a comparison is definitely needed", "Shall we expect one soon?", "you'll have to check", "you should have some adequate *relative* material around you" don't sound like suggestions or wishes, but sound like orders. Do you think you motivate people to address your question/problem? That's not how it works in my universe.

Nevertheless, if I encounter a Zen, I will report about it. No friends or friends-friends that own one, so it could take a while.

Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #14 –
Well said, Marc!!

One of the big drawbacks of the Net is that as soon as someone sets up a helpfull amateur site like yours, some ****** like "Konstantinos", comes along and tries to put it down, presumably out of simple jealousy, because they cannot think of anything positive or helpfull to contribute.

I found your site very usefull and informative. Since the idea is to assess the iPod's sound quality, the best comparison would be with live sound sources - in their absence, then using the best electronic replay system you can find makes perfect sense, as that allows you to detect and describe the iPods deficiencies.

Thank you for taking ther trouble to perform your evaluations, and set up your site.

Keep Up the Good Work!

JM

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #15 –
Marc,

Quote
(which I expressed by a joke with a smiley - guess you understood it, but unfortunately you took it a bit personally, I didn't want to be offensive)

I wasn't offensed by your smiley; in fact, the reason I sat down and wrote such a lengthy reply was because I liked your idea for the website, and I also liked your tone; it was evident to me, that there's an intelligent guy at the other end of the wire.

Quote
I'm open for suggestions, but remarks like "I expected a comparison", "a comparison is definitely needed", "Shall we expect one soon?", "you'll have to check", "you should have some adequate *relative* material around you" don't sound like suggestions or wishes, but sound like orders. Do you think you motivate people to address your question/problem? That's not how it works in my universe.

Now, if you thought of these phrases like orders, you're going a bit too far. Really, how can a "I expected one" comment sound like an order? What did you expect? Me to say "if I may politely interrupt you for a minute here, maybe you would consider to do something like this or that" instead of the more straight-forward "you should do this or that" or "I expected this or that". I think it's wrong to think of that as an order. After all, I'm in no position to give orders; my "should's",etc. were just a means for me to sound more direct and to focus right away on the issue (comparisons, etc.), and they don't carry any hint of "shut up and do that" attitude. Sorry, if you got it the wrong way, but this is clearly a misunderstanding (and maybe I carry a big part of the blame for that one).

Think of me as a stranger you meet down the street and who (somehow!) knows you set up that webpage. Before I approach you, I think that the "conflicting claims" you're mentioning were about the iPod vs other PAD's, not "about the iPod itself (encoding quality, the sound is good/bad/too much bass/too little bass etc. etc.)" (as you clarified in your latest reply). Doesn't it make sense for me to say to you: "don't you think that these comparisons would be more relevant? I believe you're kind of missing the point if that's what you want to do". That's what I wanted to say in my previous message.

Quote
Do you think you motivate people to address your question/problem?

It's not a "problem" of mine. Sure it's an interesting issue (especially to NJB3-owners like myself) and one I'd like to see answered, but it's not like I'm going to return my NJB3 and go buy an iPod if your comparison shows that Apple's product is best. Further proof, that my previous reply wasn't driven by my specific, personal interest for such a comparison - I thought your site had a different goal (geard towards comparisons, but you've just let me know that it's not that), and in that spirit, I wrote a post stating why I thought some parts of the website seemed less useful, and what I'd like to see in order for the site to look more relevant.

That's all. If there are still some issues where you think I may sound insulting, or I'm downgrading your work, please let me know. I didn't mean to sound bashful, and I think I've done my best to explain this, in this post (or at least, I gave it a shot).

Cheers and good luck with your work,
Konstantinos

--

Finally,

Quote
One of the big drawbacks of the Net is that as soon as someone sets up a helpfull amateur site like yours, some ****** like "Konstantinos", comes along and tries to put it down, presumably out of simple jealousy, because they cannot think of anything positive or helpfull to contribute.


James Muir, do you know me that well to go into such vulgar characterisations? Just by reading a single post of mine (and misinterpreting it, without giving me the chance to clarify the things you may have got wrong), you come in and say "some ****** like "Konstantinos"". "Konstantinos" shouldn't be put into quotes by the way, it's my real name, not a nickname.

And where the fuck does the "jealousy" part really comes, because I didn't quite got that. "Jealousy" for what? Do you feel "jealous" or something of webpages right before you go to bed? Great first post, by the way.

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #16 –
Maybe it's just a language thing, but the Webster says:
to expect --> to require (someone) to do something
In genreal, that can be considered to be an order. However, I see from your latest reply that this is not what you want to say, so that's clarified.

You don't need to spend many words to express what you want to say. Being efficient is OK, but your language is quite provocative and assertive. An alternative way could be "I would love to see a comparison, are you interested in extending your website with such a test?". That is to the point as well, but much more friendly and constructive, without judging the contents of my site. 

Language should be used with caution, because it might evoke emotional reactions, like you've encountered with my, but also with James' reaction (I appreciate his defense towards my web site, but I think he misunderstood you as well). I think it is better to constrain to questions/clarifications/opinions/suggestions instead of accusations/characterisations/ego-related topics.  Nobody will get any wiser from that.

Let's get back to the original topic. I'm planning to extend the site with a "show-off" list of music tracks that will make people mouth-watering if they listen to the iPod (probably valid for other devices as well). Just publishing such a list without argumentation might be not so informative, so I'm thinking to clarify this selection, and also why I didn't add particular tracks as well. Would that be of any general interest?

Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #17 –
Great info! Thanks for putting up such extensive measurements.
Quote
Maybe it's just a language thing...

Yeah, probably.
Quote
Let's get back to the original topic. I'm planning to extend the site with a "show-off" list of music tracks that will make people mouth-watering if they listen to the iPod (probably valid for other devices as well). Just publishing such a list without argumentation might be not so informative, so I'm thinking to clarify this selection, and also why I didn't add particular tracks as well. Would that be of any general interest?

Actually I don't understand what you mean here. Language thing?
Do you mean to put up some files that were played back over the iPod, then recorded? Or just to put up some filenames that are recommended for show-off?

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #18 –
Quote
Actually I don't understand what you mean here. Language thing?




Quote
o you mean to put up some files that were played back over the iPod, then recorded? Or just to put up some filenames that are recommended for show-off?


Just a list of track names recommended for showoffs, but argumented, and extended with tracks that are alike, but just a bit less of quality.

Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #19 –
Thanks for the excellent page Marc! It sure is appreciated by many, including my friends.

If you want, I can dig up some comments/measurements from German Hifi magazines (Stereoplay/Audio) about iPod's sound quality.

Just let me know if you want them.


Off-topic:

I must say that the conflicts and verbal attitude of some people in this forum leaves a lot to be desired. To me they represent themselves as arrogant, know-it-all bullies who always try to dig up something negative out of somebody's post and usually try to 'correct' others to their line of thinking, which is of course is the only correct one, all else be damned.

Instead of trying to build community and shared understanding, they usually just try to put down others and 'win arguments'. This is not very constructive to me personally nor is it such according to learning sciences

However, that is the nature of Internet forums and I've learned during the past 14 years not to take all of it personally. Sometimes it's hard, but usually it's just better to ignore such verbal antics.

If a person has a valid point, address that point and disregard the style. If they don't have a valid point, ask for a clarification and if they still don't have one, just ignore their argument. If the same behaviour continues, ignore the person too

More often than not, many forums are populated by people with less than perfect people skills and who have been schooled professionally in a 'stand and deliver' kind of environement, where courtesy has no room (I have many engineering friends who act just like this and even they acknowledge it themselves). This is not to say that they are trying to be nasty on purpose, they just are not able or do not want to put their writing in accordance with common courtesy.

And no, I'm not referring to Konstantinos now, although I feel the same way as Marc does about his written presentation. Just IMHO of course and YMMV.

best regards,
Halcyon

PS I've been personally guilty of the same things as I wrote about above. Try not to do it on purpose, but it takes practise and one has to learn how to apologise, pride be damned

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #20 –
Good to see this issue getting cleared up. A few closing comments, sorry for the derailing Marc.

Quote
Maybe it's just a language thing, but the Webster says: to expect --> to require (someone) to do something. In general, that can be considered to be an order.

Well, you didn't have to look it up in Webster. From the context of it, and heck, from the simple logic of it, it doesn't look like an order (to me, anyway). But if you still like references, the very first definition over at dictionary.com is much more soft than the one you quoted: "to look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of: expecting a telephone call; expects rain on Sunday.". OK, language madness stops right here

Quote
You don't need to spend many words to express what you want to say. Being efficient is OK, but your language is quite provocative and assertive. An alternative way could be "I would love to see a comparison, are you interested in extending your website with such a test?". That is to the point as well, but much more friendly and constructive, without judging the contents of my site.

Although, I slightly disagree with the "quite provocative and assertive" comment (I explained why in my last post), I can see your point here and it's a right one.

Quote
And no, I'm not referring to Konstantinos now

Thanks, that's good to know. Although I don't share your 14 years of experience, I've been lurking in a few forums for quite some time; I've stumbled upon posts full of endless bashing, trolling and stupidity. This attitude should either be condemned or ignored, I don't know. I do know though, that not every criticizing comment should be considered as bashing. And yeah, "pride be damned", I already apologized in case I sounded insulting. I didn't include such a comment in my first "criticizing" post (something like "please excuse me if this sounds harsh"), because I had hoped it wouldn't be needed (and no, I don't mean I'm a guy who hates apologies, read on); I followed a route with arguments, and straight words, I had a point set up in a solid (but as revealed later, wrong, so "solid" wasn't of much use) base; but I probably hadn't considered that the fine line between "accepted criticism" and "mean criticism" isn't drawn by me, but by the person to whom I'm addressing to. I'll keep that in mind; and I'll always be there to apologise, regardless of whether I'm right or not (generally speaking), should the other side feel insulted or hurt by my words.

--

Back to the topic (I promised that the derail of this thread would stop )
Quote
I'm planning to extend the site with a "show-off" list of music tracks that will make people mouth-watering if they listen to the iPod (probably valid for other devices as well). Just publishing such a list without argumentation might be not so informative, so I'm thinking to clarify this selection, and also why I didn't add particular tracks as well. Would that be of any general interest?

Yeah, that would be interesting even for non-iPod owners like yours truly. I'm interested to see whether these will have a similar mouth-watering effect in my Nomad. Just a question though; how do you select these tracks? I mean, is there some kind of logic behind the picking (e.g. "we go for tracks that have this and this frequency range" or something) or you stumble upon tracks in your library that sound great and you explain afterwards what's so great about'em (this is a more luck/random-driven approach)? Woud it possible for you to mention a track or two as an example, so we can have a first taste?

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #21 –
Hi Halcyon,

It would be great to see some of those measurements. You can send them to my mail address as mentioned on my web site. I'll check if my new measurements are coherent with those one. I'm setting up a measurement with shows the frequence response within a 0.1dB accuracy, but we're having discussions about how to set up such a measurement (mainly about frequence sweep speeds, bandwidths and measuring time).

Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #22 –
Quote
how do you select these tracks? I mean, is there some kind of logic behind the picking (e.g. "we go for tracks that have this and this frequency range" or something) or you stumble upon tracks in your library that sound great and you explain afterwards what's so great about'em (this is a more luck/random-driven approach)? Woud it possible for you to mention a track or two as an example, so we can have a first taste?


The tracks will be selected from my experience, so it's just a personal view. Nevertheless, I think that years of audio experience and audio contacts at least give me a good first shot. The list is open for suggestions (though I want to be able to check those suggestions first), so I can extend and maintain the list (with credits to the supplier for sure), hoping it will grow to a nice and useful list for all of us.

Three tracks:
- Moloko (band), Statues (album), 100% (track). Electronic pop with acoustic instruments, very rhytmic, should give you the feeling of a very strong drive.
- Jeanette Lindstrom, Walk, Closer Acoustic, lot of transients (guitars, sitar-like guitar(???), drums), and a voice which is very clearly recorded. Extreme positioning and of sources, clear timbre, good treble.
- Hildegard of Bingen, A feather on the breath of God, Columba Aspexit. Medieval singing, scary idea of the room acoustics of the performance, very clear voices, which are all separated extremely well. Treble and mids of the voices are very homogenic. on 2:56 you can hear they did something with the background instrument. The acoustic reverberations and positioning changes in the recording.

For the moment a very arbitrary selection of what I think are candidates for such a list, and not the most common music around, but that's not the goal of such a list. I also want to build up the list from "questions":
If you want to hear rhythm , listen to ...
If you want to hear singing cymbals, listen to ...
If you want to hear a good piano, listen to ...


Marc

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #23 –
Quote
Just a list of track names recommended for showoffs, but argumented, and extended with tracks that are alike, but just a bit less of quality.

To be honest (and since you were asking if we're interested), I'm not very interested in it. To me, great music sounds great even through my old Sony ghettoblaster (which probably has a freq response from 200Hz to 2000Hz). Thus, it hasn't much to do with playback quality.

But from other posts I see some are interested, so never mind me

iPod and iTunes sound quality

Reply #24 –
I've added a reference to comparisons with other MP3 devices, some words about copy protection, and an alfa/not-completed/under-construction version of the "show-off" list, together with some restructering and minor modifications.


  http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.heijligers/ipod/


Marc