Browse by topic

News

Apple has killed audio quality, says Neil Young

24 July 2008 1:19 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 80 comments

Rock star Neil Young made some interesting comments at the Fortune Brainstorm Tech Conference yesterday including his suggestion that music sound quality has been "dumbed down to Fisher-Price toy levels" since the inception of the iPod.

�Apple has taken a detour down the convenience highway,� Young said. �Quality has taken a complete backseat - if it even gets in the car at all.�

Young spoke out about the poor audio quality of the most popular audio codec, MP3, and also talked about his "long-term, multimedia archiving project of his entire career" which will be available as a series of Blu-ray discs. Young hopes his project will become the basis for an alternative digital platform with higher quality sound.

The artist spent most of his time expressing his feelings at the decline in audio standards and put the blame mainly on companies such as Apple who he feels have "an increasing focus on convenience versus quality."

�We have beautiful computers now but high-resolution music is one of the missing elements,� he said. �The ears are the windows to the soul.�

Permalink to this article | Topic: MP3 & Digital Audio

Overheating iPod Nano models cause fires in Japan (19 August 2008)

Blu-ray to outsell DVD by 2011, says Sony Pictures (2 August 2008)

Australian iPod 'pirates' to face sanctions (28 July 2008)

Samsung adds MediaLive to HDTVs (23 July 2008)

Despite 25 million App Store downloads Mac and iPod still Apple's cornerstones (22 July 2008)

New malware aims at music from P2P networks (20 July 2008)

Pwnage Tool 2.0 to jailbreak iPhone 3G released (20 July 2008)

New WinAmp update brings online music stores (17 July 2008)

Borders Books aiming for digital future (15 July 2008)

« Previous news article
Xbox Live starts offering original short films

Next news article »
UK ISPs join up for piracy crackdown

Post your comment

Discuss this article!	There are more user comments available, read them here
wanttono (Junior Member) 25 July 2008 12:08
Hi All I've been around for the 78's to the blue ray's and as far as Music quality goes, it has suffered, quality was at peak with LP's (with the mentioned drawbacks) then when i heard my first cda i could tell the difference between the lows and highs any modification of the instruments or vocals is not true music Frank [ + quote]
Pnub (Newbie) 25 July 2008 12:18
What I don't get is that a bunch of people are complaining that Apple is ruining music. Apple provides a convenient and easy way to get music onto your portable player. I haven't seen many joggers with vinyl for optimum quality. It's all about getting what you want for it's use. For your stereo get what you want vinyl, Cd, or whatever. Realistically most people don't care, and you can't blame apple for it's popularity, they cater to portable mp3/aac players. Thats what it really comes down to. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25 July 2008 12:20
varnull (AfterDawn Addict) 25 July 2008 13:17
Analog all the way.. ever heard a sheffield direct cut lp on a Linn deck with quad11's and a stacked pair of els speakers?.. I have and will never forget the experience. It cost a lot to have anything above average for analog amplification but in the digital age the hardware quality has dropped to match the poor input quality. I believe the peak for vinyl sound quality was around 79-85, after that the plastic became too thin.. the last few vinyl lp's I have sound pretty poor.. lightly cut, lacking modulation depth due to the thin plastic. You also have that direct link back to the performance.. what you are hearing is the actual sound made at the time, not some electronic interpretation of it, no matter how quickly sampled, it is still split up and recreated later. Free open source software = made by end users who want an application to work. Get off my beach before I burn down your village! [ + quote]
eatsushi (Senior Member) 25 July 2008 13:36
*Originally posted by varnull:* the last few vinyl lp's I have sound pretty poor.. lightly cut, lacking modulation depth due to the thin plastic.. I never buy anything that's less than 180 grams. Vinyl still sounds good as long as you get the 180 to 200 gram pressings: http://www.musicdirect.com/category/15 [ + quote]
Fiji5555 (Junior Member) 25 July 2008 17:29
*Quote:* *Originally posted by Ryu77:* once again, I will point out that the article had already mentioned Neil Youngs plan to use Blu-ray... 13thHouR ok, an artist that is old and obsolete jumps on the "new buzz word format" for some free advertising just as he used the 9/11 attack to get free press before. WTF? 13thHouR YOU sir are a complete blitering IDIOT so say that Neil Young is obsolete and to say he used 9/11 for free press is the most foul thing to come from your mouth or anyone elses. Neil Young is one of the FEW TRUE patriots we have left in this country that will stand up and sing about freedom and who stands up to the current absolutly horrid government officials we have that are ruining our lives. If you can't see that then you SIR are already a sheeple that does whatever Bush and Co say without a whimper. IDIOT.........oh and to keep this on topic, Neil's right in that today's music and how it's recorded and played back is FAR from being as good as it should be. I hear all sorts of distortion and over clipped music on my Sansa Clip and it's the way it was recorded........they try to make it LOUDER to compete with everyone else and or are too lazy or deaf to notice the end product. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25 July 2008 17:34
Sophocles (AfterDawn Addict) 25 July 2008 17:35
Fiji5555 Except for some of your adjectives I am with you all the way. I've been a Neil Young fan for longer than I care to reveal, and he has always been a socially conscious person who put his money where his mouth is. [ + quote]
xnonsuchx (Newbie) 25 July 2008 17:39
*Quote:* *Quote:* I don't recall Neil Young complaining that Sony Walkmans or even minicassette players in general were ruining music because it wasn't anywhere near the quality of reel-to-reel! :-) Mini cassettes were never used for music, just voice, and most cassettes were like what you do when you rip a CD for use on your portable player. I too prefer to buy CD's and make my own content for my portable player. I know every back system known for both CD and DVD but I still prefer to have originals. Ooops! Yeah, I meant to say "compact cassette"...I probably shoulda just said "cassette" to avoid any confusion. :-) [ + quote]
llongtheD (Member) 25 July 2008 19:49
@Ryu77 I know this is off topic, but are you in some way affiliated with Sony? I seems like everytime you make a post, you are pleading blu-rays case. As I said when I posted earlier, I don't really think its possible to get the sound quality out of solid state electronics that you can out of a quality turntable, and a tube amp. I could be wrong, and I just haven't heard anything that matches is yet. [ + quote]
Sophocles (AfterDawn Addict) 25 July 2008 19:55
*Quote:* I don't really think its possible to get the sound quality out of solid state electronics that you can out of a quality turntable, and a tube amp. I could be wrong, Certainly not with the warmth which used to be referred to as musicality. A class "A" discreet circuitry all Mosfet amplifier has no equal for sound quality. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25 July 2008 19:57
garmoon (AfterDawn Addict) 25 July 2008 22:40
@eatsushi great vinyl link. I have about 200 pristine LPs from 60'-80'. I could only hope they were worth 30-50 bucks apiece. I wonder what my "Little Black Sambo" double 78s with story book is worth? Alas the "Peter and The Wolf" set is missing a 78. [ + quote]
Ryu77 (Senior Member) 26 July 2008 9:10
*Originally posted by llongtheD:* @Ryu77 I know this is off topic, but are you in some way affiliated with Sony? I seems like everytime you make a post, you are pleading blu-rays case. No I'm not affiliated with Sony at all. I do work in A/V retail though. I just love HD and I rate quality as the most important factor for any form of home entertainment. I have said this many times before that if HD-DVD had ended up as the format of choice, I would have not hesitated in adopting this format. Actually, I bought a Blu-ray/HD-DVD combo PC drive so I could convert HD-DVD to Blu-ray. There are quite a few nice titles available on HD-DVD that are definitely worth the trouble of re-authoring. "Dream... Believe... Achieve" PS3 compatible video creation thread... mkv2vob, tsMuxeR etc.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/621809 The complete HD (Blu-ray/HD-DVD) back-up thread.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/639346 [ + quote]
DieMPAA (Newbie) 29 July 2008 0:12
While I'm sympathetic to Neil Young's complaint, he really should lay the blame with the music industry. They fought new technology instead of embracing and improving. In their scramble to catch up, they've had to accept the terms that the hardware manufacturer gave to them. In any case, I don't remember Neil Young complaining too hard about the audio quality of eight track and audio cassettes when he was making money off them when people were listening to his music in their crappy car stereos or jogging in their old Walkmans. Don't cry too hard Neil. HD music is the next wave. It would oost too much money for most people except rich audiophiles, but would allow them to appear reasonable on the issue of unprotected MP3s, but also open a revenue stream for high end users and attract first adopters and with memory getting cheaper will eventually push music HD disk/format prices back to the same relatively ridiculous levels of 1998. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29 July 2008 0:18
Akashic (Newbie) 29 July 2008 2:01
"instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the relatively cheap CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound" Errr.... HUH?! After reading through the entire thread, I'm under the assumption that some confusion via certain individuals is continually rehashed regarding quality related terminology. 192kHz has NO relation to 192kBit compression CD = 44.1kHz / 16bit / 2.0 DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0 Blu-ray allows for 192kHz / 24bit / 5.1 Yes, for the convenience folk, 192kHz is overkill. (thus, enjoy your i-tune purchases happily) For the HD folk who grew up experiencing a proper vinyl pressing through a warm sounding amp and audiophile quality speakers and cabling, well... hell yeah! I'm looking forward to contemporary releases from technology obsessed production room wizards that'll take advantage of the greater spectrum of sound that's available not just in the creation phase, but now conveyable at the end point via the music fans up-to-spec hardware. Ultra-micro-positional audio, boo-yah!! "too much money for most people except rich audiophiles" Umm... you can be a -poor- audiophile and still be able to enjoy semi-bleeding edge HD quality audio/video with a lack of not too many other $-sucking vices combined with smart discount hardware purchasing. (I fall into the under-poverty-line tax bracket, so I can say full-heartedly that it can be done) [addendum: living in a non-major city without skyhigh rent kinda helps too , though...] Though for the record, Neil Young is Canadian and a 'patriot' mostly only to those that never bothered to actually fully read the lyrics to certain key songs... [ + quote]
Ryu77 (Senior Member) 29 July 2008 6:53
*Originally posted by Akashic:* "instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the relatively cheap CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound" Errr.... HUH?! After reading through the entire thread, I'm under the assumption that some confusion via certain individuals is continually rehashed regarding quality related terminology. 192kHz has NO relation to 192kBit compression CD = 44.1kHz / 16bit / 2.0 DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0 Blu-ray allows for 192kHz / 24bit / 5.1 Yes, for the convenience folk, 192kHz is overkill. (thus, enjoy your i-tune purchases happily) For the HD folk who grew up experiencing a proper vinyl pressing through a warm sounding amp and audiophile quality speakers and cabling, well... hell yeah! I'm looking forward to contemporary releases from technology obsessed production room wizards that'll take advantage of the greater spectrum of sound that's available not just in the creation phase, but now conveyable at the end point via the music fans up-to-spec hardware. Ultra-micro-positional audio, boo-yah!! "too much money for most people except rich audiophiles" Umm... you can be a -poor- audiophile and still be able to enjoy semi-bleeding edge HD quality audio/video with a lack of not too many other $-sucking vices combined with smart discount hardware purchasing. (I fall into the under-poverty-line tax bracket, so I can say full-heartedly that it can be done) [addendum: living in a non-major city without skyhigh rent kinda helps too , though...] Though for the record, Neil Young is Canadian and a 'patriot' mostly only to those that never bothered to actually fully read the lyrics to certain key songs... You, my friend seem to be the only person that has understood my point on this thread. :-) "Dream... Believe... Achieve" PS3 compatible video creation thread... mkv2vob, tsMuxeR etc.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/621809 The complete HD (Blu-ray/HD-DVD) back-up thread.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/639346 [ + quote]
sheri1983 (Junior Member) 29 July 2008 8:58
"Well, I hope Neil Young will remember A Southern man don't need him around anyhow " Here is the problem, Mr. Young: 99.9% of the population are not elitist audiophiles and they think MP3s sound pretty darn good. They are also more than willing to "suffer" through low quality for cheap, convenient formats. For better or for worse, MP3 is here to stay for a good long time. Instead of trying to kill the MP3 format (and its ilk), the music industry could have tried sculpting it into a better format. They didn't, so we'll have to live with what we've got. iTunes is satisfactory for most of the general population. They feel it's quick, easy, relatively inexpensive, and acceptable in quality. Many also like the fact that they know for sure that it's totally legal. Sorry, Mr. Young. Apple didn't kill audio quality. They just profited from its death. If you and your industry cronies had played your cards right, you'd be in the driver's seat, but now the industry has "taken a complete backseat - if it even gets in the car at all." [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29 July 2008 9:00
Sophocles (AfterDawn Addict) 29 July 2008 16:09
Neil young was born in Canada but he's been an American citizen for quite a long time. One doesn't have to have been born here to be a patriot. Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton were both born in England and yet they were both patriots. I read Neil Young's statements and he wasn't outright trashing portable formats because they were portable, he was doing it because he believed that better sound could be achieved and he's right. This doesn't mean that he was advocating that individuals shouldn't continue to enjoy there portable players. I do every time I sit in a lobby somewhere waiting for an appointment *Quote:* DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0 Regarding the differences between 44.1 KHz/16 bit and196KHz/96KHz/24 bit quality. 196KHz/96KHz/24 bit quality are just as inexpensive and easy to record and reproduce as 44.1 KHz/16, and would cost no more to purchase. Both could be stored on a standard type 5 DVD, and since most people now use their DVD players as CD players those too are inexpensive and all too common. I was advocating DVD sound or 96 KHz/24 bit. You don't have to be rich to purchase decent sound equipment; it just has to be good enough to reproduce music to its fullest. This means with good signal to noise playback, good dynamic range, and reasonably low Transient intermodulation distortions. Listening to recorded music is about using technology to come as close as possible to reproducing the experiences of a live performances in ones living areas�. To create this illusion studio tech's use a combination of miking techniques, digital delays, wet rooms, and mix down over decent sound systems, Panning, time delay, and reverb are used to create the illusion of a sound field referred to as imaging. When music is overcompressed it is generally meant to make it playable where uncompressed music will choke. One it is often done to improve playback on AM radios so that one can hear both high and low frequencies at about the same volume, and to eliminate phase distortion. Small players have difficulties with high levels of dynamic range because low frequencies and high frequencies get buried by the middle range. To help eliminate this problem music is compressed so that there are fewer variances between the different frequencies which also allows it to be played louder or rather sound louder. Quality sound systems don't require compression because they can play the full dynamic range of music at a volume that creates a balance between HF,MF, and LF. The loss of music content in most portable storage formats is as high as 80% or greater. As someone stated earlier, I also prefer to own the actual CD and do my own ripping and compressing. I also stated earlier that I would like to see music move from the now dated CD to the superior 96 KHz/24 bit DVD sound which is not overkill for someone whose eardrums aren�t made of cardboard. There was a time when VHS was good enough for some, and then along came DVD and it changed. Now we have Blu-Ray, and �the beat goes on� Where itunes might not be good for the future of music is that it is killing what used to be called albums which are a collection of works on a single storage media. Can anyone here imagine what would happen to Pink Floyd�s �Dark Side of The Moon� if the songs were first individually released on itunes? It would be the end of concept albums. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30 July 2008 13:55
Mr-Movies (Member) 30 July 2008 9:43
*Originally posted by llongtheD:* Uh, not everyone can afford a "real tube amplifier" and an audiophile quality turntable to spin that vintage vinyl Neil. Like a couple of the other posters noted, be glad someone is keeping that dinosaur shit alive. For what you pay for that over priced iPod you should get a high quality system sorry but your wrong here. Neil hits the head square and this has been my biggest complaint with most of the flash/micro drive players. I prefer WMA lossless (variable bitrate) and the size isn't horrible but the problem is the audio player�s quality of reproduction which shouldn't be the problem since low amplifier design should have much better specs and sound quality, THD & frequency range. Its obvious that pretty and small is their ONLY concern and the average user thinks 128 is OK, what a joke, wake up please. If you could here my HiFi system you would never consider such cheap crap. [ + quote]
13thHouR (Inactive) 30 July 2008 13:31
*Originally posted by Akashic:* 192kHz has NO relation to 192kBit compression CD = 44.1kHz / 16bit / 2.0 DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0 Blu-ray allows for 192kHz / 24bit / 5.1 Yes, for the convenience folk, 192kHz is overkill. (thus, enjoy your i-tune purchases happily) For the HD folk who grew up experiencing a proper vinyl pressing through a warm sounding amp and audiophile quality speakers and cabling, well... hell yeah! I'm looking forward to contemporary releases from technology obsessed production room wizards that'll take advantage of the greater spectrum of sound that's available not just in the creation phase, but now conveyable at the end point via the music fans up-to-spec hardware. Ultra-micro-positional audio, boo-yah!! "too much money for most people except rich audiophiles" Umm... you can be a -poor- audiophile and still be able to enjoy semi-bleeding edge HD quality audio/video with a lack of not too many other $-sucking vices combined with smart discount hardware purchasing. (I fall into the under-poverty-line tax bracket, so I can say full-heartedly that it can be done) [addendum: living in a non-major city without skyhigh rent kinda helps too , though...] I know the difference between sample rate and compression, it appears that you have failed to understand that i was referring to the topic of using compression to enable devices to squeeze more music onto the portable players thus reducing quality. did you even read the topic or are you just replying to Ryu77 's posts to give his posts credit? All you need a the PC you already own, a source to rip from and the flac codec, and you can have whatever quality you want streamed to any device in your home or any where in the world via a slingbox. the problem is that manufacturers keep telling ppl that you need this or that but in reality all you need is the pc you own but the morons that corporations feed on keep getting suckered time and again by flashy marketing campaigns and the "my penis is bigger than yours" mentality of owning a certain thing. you do realise that for it to be of any good quality there still needs to be a relatively decent dac and output. [ + quote]
Ryu77 (Senior Member) 31 July 2008 9:32
*Originally posted by 13thHouR:* I know the difference between sample rate and compression, it appears that you have failed to understand that i was referring to the topic of using compression to enable devices to squeeze more music onto the portable players thus reducing quality. did you even read the topic or are you just replying to Ryu77 's posts to give his posts credit? 13thHouR, I'm pretty sure that Akashic was directing that at lynchGOP... *Originally posted by lynchGOP:* Ok..........now I'm getting tired of people saying, implying, doing stupid things. In this case............THE COMMENT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The title of this article is "Apple has killed audio quality" Of course 192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is 'good enough' but that is irrelevant of this article. SO PAY ATTENTION! Apple doensn't offer that. It's 128Khz, 16-bit, 2 channel and you pay extra for the higher quality only RECENTLY offered, without DRM, and few in number I'm sure. The only part of your hair-brained comment I agree with, and I'm sure every one else does too is the "quality is always of the highest importance." *Originally posted by 13thHouR:* All you need a the PC you already own, a source to rip from and the flac codec, and you can have whatever quality you want streamed to any device in your home or any where in the world via a slingbox. the problem is that manufacturers keep telling ppl that you need this or that but in reality all you need is the pc you own but the morons that corporations feed on keep getting suckered time and again by flashy marketing campaigns and the "my penis is bigger than yours" mentality of owning a certain thing. you do realise that for it to be of any good quality there still needs to be a relatively decent dac and output. Of course you can do that with a PC. I have a Home Theatre PC myself. I think they're great. I guess the point I was trying to make is that there are better alternatives available for digital audio now. The feeling I got from the article was that of forward movement. I was trying to convey my thoughts to the potential of Blu-ray. These being... 1) Higher resolution audio as a mandatory feature (as opposed to SACD/DVD-A being an optional feature on players) 2) Greater storage capacity per disc. What I don't get is all the hostility towards someone who mentions Blu-ray. It almost seems like there is a fascist movement towards an "optical disc format". Do you see how silly that sounds? Let's examine the facts pertaining only to audio as that is what the article is about... - Does Blu-ray offer lossless audio as a standard feature? - Does Blu-ray offer the highest capacity for an optical disc? Isn't anybody interested in evolution towards digital media?? Don't you want to see and take advantage of developments in quality for home entertainment? I seriously don't get it. As soon as you mention the word "Blu-ray", it's almost as if you are committing a crime and it's guaranteed that some silly person on these forums will attack you for doing so and try with all of their might to make you look like a fool for backing this format. Are we not allowed to take advantage of better quality when it's available? "Dream... Believe... Achieve" PS3 compatible video creation thread... mkv2vob, tsMuxeR etc.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/621809 The complete HD (Blu-ray/HD-DVD) back-up thread.: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/639346 [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31 July 2008 9:36
Sophocles (AfterDawn Addict) 31 July 2008 9:54
I haven't seen that much hostility toward Blu-Ray all that I've stated is that it is impractical since a standard Type 5 DVD could hold the same audio quality that would play on any DVD Player including Blu-Ray. In fact an entire musical Album could fit on a single Mini DVD with the highest quality sound. Now how's that for being portable? Sound of the highest quality alone takes up no where near the room that video does. A type 5 solution just seems to be a very sensible route that requires no extra expense by the industry or home users to take advantage of, but it will also provide the quality that those of us who will spend a little extra on equipment can also take advantage of. "And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche [ + quote]
FredBun (Senior Member) 2 August 2008 13:29
I am totally lost here, of course I do not understand more than half of the things you guys are talking about but thats ok thats how we learn, but to explain to someone like myself and yes most people are like myself, what is the advantage of putting or buying music on a dvd or bluray, I just dont get it, I tought that music cd's were top dog, and yes as somebody said earlier, I also own about 300 lp's from mostly 60's and some 70's, half of them I still haven't even opened yet, bought many at the local px shops at our military bases, there were 99 cents for a new album, lp's still sound good except for an occasional hiss or pop. I guess the bottom line is really whats convenient for most folks today, my nephew when he rides with me sometimes hookes up his mps player to my car radio, I like those little mp3's, except I dont even know how to turn one on let alone understand them, all those so called portables are nice with the on the go senerio, but when I really want to get into the nitty gritty and listen to some serious music, a lot of you gys are right, a good system, some great lp's and cd's, I like them both, cant be beat. [ + quote]
llongtheD (Member) 2 August 2008 22:21
*Quote:* *Originally posted by llongtheD:* Uh, not everyone can afford a "real tube amplifier" and an audiophile quality turntable to spin that vintage vinyl Neil. Like a couple of the other posters noted, be glad someone is keeping that dinosaur shit alive. For what you pay for that over priced iPod you should get a high quality system sorry but your wrong here. Neil hits the head square and this has been my biggest complaint with most of the flash/micro drive players. I prefer WMA lossless (variable bitrate) and the size isn't horrible but the problem is the audio player�s quality of reproduction which shouldn't be the problem since low amplifier design should have much better specs and sound quality, THD & frequency range. Its obvious that pretty and small is their ONLY concern and the average user thinks 128 is OK, what a joke, wake up please. If you could here my HiFi system you would never consider such cheap crap. @Mr movies, for the price you pay for an ipod, you can get a high quality system? For the price of a high quality turntable alone, you could get 3 ipods. Check your facts bud. [ + quote]
Sophocles (AfterDawn Addict) 2 August 2008 22:54
*Quote:* For the price of a high quality turntable alone, you could get 3 ipods. Check your facts bud. Actually he doesn't have to. A decent turntable, my favorite were the Duals, cost about half the price of an ipod. Great tables, but then of course you have to have a decent cartridge. The sound was phenomenal and they ran virtually forever. Who knows? I never saw one die. For the money is no cost Audiophile gone nuts the Oracle table was something of a connoisseurs delight. It wasn't just something that we played records on, it was a holy cradle rocking our musical world on a disc. So how does this relate to an iPod? There is no comparison!! An ipod has the sound quality of those digital talking dolls. You know the ones where you pull the little string on its back and it says "mama." [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2 August 2008 22:55
llongtheD (Member) 2 August 2008 23:23
@Sophocles I understand what your saying, but he was suggesting you could get an entire "system" for the price of an ipod. The turntable would just be a part. In the end its ridiculous to compare any high quality audio system with any portable music device, not just the ipod. As soon as Neil young invents a PORTABLE music system, bluray or what have you, that can stand up to even a mediocre home system, I'll buy one. Its also possible all those concerts have dulled Youngs hearing range as well. If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2 August 2008 23:36
Sophocles (AfterDawn Addict) 2 August 2008 23:37
*Quote:* I understand what your saying, but he was suggesting you could get an entire "system" for the price of an ipod. The turntable would just be a part. In the end its ridiculous to compare any high quality audio system with any portable music device, not just the ipod. As soon as Neil young invents a PORTABLE music system, bluray or what have you, that can stand up to even a mediocre home system, I'll buy one. I was just being funny and reminiscent. For $249 I purchased 5:1 surround Logitech Z-5500 powered speaker system, that has 505 watts RMS of power as well as built in surround sound decoders. Those are about the price of a lower version of iPod alone, but many times the quality. I agree that trying to compare an ipod to a full audio component set is a bit of a stretch, but not by as much as one might think. [ + quote]
Estuansis (Senior Member) 1 September 2008 20:28
I agree with this article. The iPod, while high quality and easy to use, has terrible audio quality. With a nice set of earbud headphones, I can hear a distinct difference between the iPod and the Realtek HD onboard sound on my motherboard. The Realtek HD being superior. The Soundblaster X-Fi is way ahead of both in audio quality, and I'm just using a 32W Logitech 2.1 setup. I get rich, full bass and amazing audio detail. It whacks the crap out of an iPod especially with Sennheiser HD212 headphones. What can I say though? The iPod is a sweet little piece of technology. I love mine and I use it every day. So that has to mean something. [ + quote]