ipods and earbuds

[Gordon Gray]

I was visiting a friend who happens to be an architect and he showed me his match book size ipod. It has a clip so you can attach to your clothing.

He said it can hold 800 songs and indicated he purchased "higher quality" earbuds for $100. He was absolutely thrilled with the size and I assume the sound quality.

I asked him if I could have a quick listen. I have generally stayed away from these devices given the MP3 technology. But I said to myself, what the heck, let's have a listen.

I was shocked. The sound was so terrible I asked myself how anyone can listen to this. Highs resembling bacon on the grill, absolutely no midrange body, and no bass whatsoever.

The reason for sharing this with you all is my very real fear that this technology will become the defacto audio standard for the "masses", read current and future generations.

Some of you have likely had similar thoughts but it is a very frightening possibility.

GG

 

[FISH_MAN]

he had crappy ear buds dude! I use an ipod almost everyday with a $500 pair of shure ear buds "AND STILL THEY COULD BE BETTER"and have never heard my breakfast cooking:ROFL: I also hook it into my spires often it is not as good as my sacd but it is fun and enjoyably.

also that model sounds like the shuffle I would think it has the same sound processor made by Harmon Kardon I believe as the ipod nano and others but I could be wrong

 

[amey01]

I must say, "no, not at all".

It MUST be said that the sound quality you derive is very dependant on the the file format and level of compression used. iPods ARE NOT "dependant on MP3" at all - Apple Lossless provides intrinsically NO quality loss!!

Of course, the ear buds will also dictate sound quality to a large extent and these may not have been to your liking. I certainly know that the Shure ones (that a lot of people like) are not to my liking and I firmly believe that a complete headset / larger driver is essential to obtaining decent sound. To this end, I use a $500 pair of Audio Technica ANC 'phones for the train and here at work sometimes. Again though - choice of 'phone is largely dependant on factors other than sound quality such as:- are you moving or are you still, are you listening in a quiet environment or are you listening in a noisy one, do you need portability/lightness or can you take a whole headset, etc.

Also, with the iPod particularly, the electrical load is important - high impedance headphones generally sound way better than ones less than 50 ohms. No idea what your friend had.

I use a pair of Audio Technica ANC headphones on the train, rated at 260 Ohms with Apple Lossless files, and the sound is great. No - not in the same league as MLs - no way - not even close, but certainly way better than the next guy's Apple earbuds and 128k MP3 files.

I derive approximately similar enjoyment from that setup as I would from an entry level integrated amp and CD player (NAD for instance) and a entry level pair of floorstanders (KEF, B&W, et al) if that puts it into perspective. The beauty is that I can take it (and enjoy music) in places where I would not dream of taking a NAD amp and a pair of floorstanders!

With a dedicated headphone amplifier and better 'phones (maybe the new Senn HD800?) I'm sure you could push this performance level much further.

May I suggest this - try again.......don't give up yet. See if you can listen to an audiophile's iPod/headphone setup and you might just change your mind. Just please don't expect ML level sound - that's not what it's about.

 

[MiTT]

I'm with Amey and FishMan on this one. I bought an iPod shuffle for both my stepdaughter and my father and I'm actually shocked at how GOOD they sound. The thing that's interesting is that they are all solid state - no hard drive = no moving components.

Now, to Amey's point, I rip all of my CD's to Apple Lossless. Upside, really darn amazing sound. Downside, you won't get anywhere near 800 songs on the shuffle, you'll be lucky to get 130-180 depending how long they are to begin with.

I also use some upgraded Sony earbuds in the $100.00 range.

I don't workout, work in the yard or travel without mine!

 

[MickeyVee]

The secret is ripping in Apple lossless (even 16GB can seem small) as some have said and great buds.. iPods can sound great
At home, I love using my Senn HD 590's and on the road, I like the Etymotic line.. I have the ER 6i's but would love the 4P's or new HF5's.

 

[Dreamer]

Expecting "earbuds"--ANY earbuds, even the "high dollar" ones to perform to audiophile critical listening standards is sort of unrealistic. Its like expecting a bookshelf speaker to perform to that standard, or a car stereo. It is nearly impossible to engineer those products to work in those environments and expect it to ALSO perform to audiophile standards.

Earbuds are what you wear when you can't wear real headphones, like while riding the subway, or jogging, or when you're painting your living room. Earbuds are the MP3's of transponders--they put convenience and smallness WAY ahead of any other performance specs, and sacrifice a LOT of sonic "truth" for the convenience and comfort of being tiny, unobtrusive, and easy to carry around in public.

And besides, the headphone amp in the iPod is crap. And so is the DAC. Crap crap crap, at least from "audiophile" standards...

If you want good sound from an iPod through headphones, you need to do three things. First, rip all your music in Apple Lossless format. This gives you a bit-for-bit copy of the original bitstream from the CD. Second, get soem decent cans--Stax, Grados, AKGs, something, ANYTHING that isn't an earbud. Third, get a decent outboard DAC, a digital-passing dock, and headphone amp.

If you want to listen to Podcasts and pop music while you're working out at the gym as "background music", the 'buds are perfect. Expecting more performance than that from a "stock" iPod is just delusionally unrealistic. As audiophiles, it's perfectly acceptable that we acknowledge that. It is also perfectly acceptable to take our misinformed non-audiophile friends into our listening rooms and hook their iPod into a decent pair of cans and let them hear what they are missing. And if they don't then they will save a LOT of money in their lives. We, however, are cursed with aural discernment, and therein lies the rub...

To some people a bottle of Veuve Clicquot is just another bottle of bubbly. More for us, I say...

--Richard

 

[cstory]

Agreed with what everyone has said about the file format used, but I would also add that I never liked the sound of iPods because I don't think their headphone outputs are very good, regardless of how the file is stored. That's why my first player was a Rio Karma, and my second one is a Zune 80. I think the analog outputs of these two players are better than any of the iPods, and the sound with FLAC or WMA lossless with my Etymotic earspeakers is quite good. They even work well with Senheiser 580's with an external amp like the little Headroom portable one.

Chuck

 

[TomDac]

just bought a pair of Klipsch Image X10 earbuds and they sound really nice for earbuds.. My Shure's e2c's were nice too, but they bit the dust recently.

iPods and earbuds serve a purpose.

 

[jtwrace]

I use an ipod with Shure E3c's. Of course they are not like my Stax or big stats but they are great for traveling. I had custom ear molds made so the Shure fits directly into them and you can't hear the jet engine from the plane. Also, I went with a ear bud so I could attempt to fall asleep on those late flights around the country without the big headphones in the way. Personally, I like them a lot and find the sound very good.

Also, Shure has been a great company. When my right bud snapped in half, I called Shure to get them repaired and they sent me a new pair for $50. Can't beat that as they were over three years old.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Thank you all for the input. It's good to know that what I heard is not necessarily representative of the technology.

I'm just not up on this stuff so my sincere apologies to everyone for my "generalizations".

GG

 

[Gordon Gray]

One final thought

Hi all,

I wanted to add one more thought to this thread.

First off, my thanks to Fish, Justin, Tim, Mickey, Richard, Chuck, Tom, and my amigo Justin for their insight into MP3.

Upon retrospect and given my ignorance of MP3, I clearly didn't phrase my thoughts correctly when I started this thread. So let me try one more time.

Clearly, those in this Club and others who have an interest (and know how) to optimize the performance of any particular medium and all comments posted are certainly relevant within that perspective.

My concern is about those (non audiophile types / general public) who choose to ignore and / or don't have the insight to know how to take advantage of MP3 technology.

And they buy these devices, upload music, and due to ignorance or whatever, think the sound is acceptable or, in the most egregous case, just fine.

That's what concerns me regarding acceptance of this medium, for those who are ignorant of the potential shortcomings or who simply don't care, and the fact that it could become a defacto standard for music reproduction quality.

Thanks again for all of your insights.

GG

 

[amey01]

Hi all,

I wanted to add one more thought to this thread.

First off, my thanks to Fish, Justin, Tim, Mickey, Richard, Chuck, Tom, and my amigo Justin for their insight into MP3.

Upon retrospect and given my ignorance of MP3, I clearly didn't phrase my thoughts correctly when I started this thread. So let me try one more time.

Clearly, those in this Club and others who have an interest (and know how) to optimize the performance of any particular medium and all comments posted are certainly relevant within that perspective.

My concern is about those (non audiophile types / general public) who choose to ignore and / or don't have the insight to know how to take advantage of MP3 technology.

And they buy these devices, upload music, and due to ignorance or whatever, think the sound is acceptable or, in the most egregous case, just fine.

That's what concerns me regarding acceptance of this medium, for those who are ignorant of the potential shortcomings or who simply don't care, and the fact that it could become a defacto standard for music reproduction quality.

Thanks again for all of your insights.

GG

Yes, okay - those thoughts are a little more plausable, although I still don't think I'd lose any sleep over it.

Reason: I really don't think a stock (128kbps) iPod is generating significantly less sound quality than other mainstream systems which they have replaced - such as Sony cassette Walkmans, Sony Discmans, "FM Boys", MD players and the plethora of other mainstream stuff that "plebbo" people used to use every day.

Even with an iPod connected to their home stereo - even I don't think I could tell the difference between Apple Lossless and 128kbps AAC when the thing is connected to a Sony or LG "mini system" or HTIB. It becomes irrelevant. In turn, I don't think one of those terrible Bose or Logitech iPod docks is going to generate any poorer sound than a older style "mini" or "midi" system.

Reason 2: The vast majority of people don't give two hoots about sound quality - an iPod ain't going to change that. To paraphrase - nobody ever cared about sound quality in the past - why should they now? Case in point: A Sony MD (With that horrid ATRAC compression) and stock earbuds sounded worse than anything I've heard!

And as Richard said - if people don't care it's not your worry - good luck to 'em - they'll save a lot of money in their lives!

 

[FISH_MAN]

Hi all,

I wanted to add one more thought to this thread.

First off, my thanks to Fish, Justin, Tim, Mickey, Richard, Chuck, Tom, and my amigo Justin for their insight into MP3.

Upon retrospect and given my ignorance of MP3, I clearly didn't phrase my thoughts correctly when I started this thread. So let me try one more time.

Clearly, those in this Club and others who have an interest (and know how) to optimize the performance of any particular medium and all comments posted are certainly relevant within that perspective.

My concern is about those (non audiophile types / general public) who choose to ignore and / or don't have the insight to know how to take advantage of MP3 technology.

And they buy these devices, upload music, and due to ignorance or whatever, think the sound is acceptable or, in the most egregous case, just fine.

That's what concerns me regarding acceptance of this medium, for those who are ignorant of the potential shortcomings or who simply don't care, and the fact that it could become a defacto standard for music reproduction quality.

Thanks again for all of your insights.

GG

the people who accept this medium and only this would probably never buy a sound system as ours. the simple fact is that the ipod has generated interest in music listening again and that is way more important than the shortcomings of one medium

 

[Dreamer]

the people who accept this medium and only this would probably never buy a sound system as ours. the simple fact is that the ipod has generated interest in music listening again and that is way more important than the shortcomings of one medium

I also think this very fact is part of the reason why the industry has seen such a huge increase in demand for vinyl. As the younger generations have their interest in recorded music rekindled by music downloads, iPods, etc., a small percentage of them WILL be budding audiophiles, and will demand higher sound quality. It is these people who are the future of high-end audio.

We all started somewhere--most of us over-40-somethings had receivers tape decks when we were just getting into the hobby--which by our current standards were crap. But we were FERVENT about our music, our modest systems, and musical playback. Well, iPods are the same thing today, I think. ANY technology that generates interest in recorded musical playback and enjoyment is essentially a "gateway drug" to the world of the audiophile, and I think that we should do out best to support it, and show people how to squeeze the most out of these new technologies. Eventually they will want something better, and then we can show them the DACs, the CD transports, and the TNT turntables...

 

[Bernard]

To some people a bottle of Veuve Clicquot is just another bottle of bubbly. More for us, I say...

--Richard

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Veuve Clicquot. I prefer Pol Roger; it's cheaper too.

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I cannot not respond to anything about food or wine.

 

[amey01]

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Veuve Clicquot. I prefer Pol Roger; it's cheaper too.

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I cannot not respond to anything about food or wine.

Me too - I prefer Mumm or Charles Heidsieck. Dom ain't half bad though!

 

[amey01]

We all started somewhere--most of us over-40-somethings had receivers tape decks when we were just getting into the hobby

Back to topic now - exactly. I remember even before I got into the hobby - being mesmerised by boom boxes and the like, wondering how other kids could talk over the top of the music!!

I don't think you can "make" an audiophile - you either love music enough to become one or you don't. Aside from the few rich folk into it for the kit and not the music.

 

[FISH_MAN]

Back to topic now - exactly. I remember even before I got into the hobby - being mesmerised by boom boxes and the like, wondering how other kids could talk over the top of the music!!

I don't think you can "make" an audiophile - you either love music enough to become one or you don't. Aside from the few rich folk into it for the kit and not the music.

do not get confused there are many people who truly love music and not high end audio equipment like us.

 

[Dreamer]

do not get confused there are many people who truly love music and not high end audio equipment like us.

I know a few folks like that. My friend David is an ardent fant of music--all types--and every time I visit he has a new CD or record to play for me of something that is just AMAZING but I've never heard of.

However, he has absolutely NO interest in the high-end gear, at least no interest in owning any of it. I've tried to convince him to at least get some good speakers and a more powerful receiver, but he doesn't seem to be interested. I've had him over to listen to my rig, and even taken some of my gear over to play in his setup, and although he says he CAN hear the difference, and my rig DOES sound more "real" than his, he's just no interested in putting the time or money into a more musical sounding setup.

He also goes to a LOT of concerts, and takes in a lot of live music, and I think this may be why he feels the way he does. I know a LOT of musicians and live-music fans who have heard their favorite music performed in person time and time again, and many of them have systems that, by most of our standards, are frightful...

I believe that their memories make up for the deficiencies in their systems. People who hear live music all the time have amassed a tremendous memory bank of how their favorite music is SUPPOSED to sound, and when they hear it on systems that are not "audiophile" quality, the amazing power of the human brain can often "fill in the blanks" and smooth over the rough sonic edges. (I guess this explains Lou Lipnick's opinions, from when he used to write for Stereophile back in the '80's and 90's...:think: )

Such "filling in the blanks" when sensory data is missing or incorrect is a common phenomenon, and has been proven to occur for most of the senses--hearing, sight, reading, even smell. This is something, I think, that is an unfortunate side-effect of "civilization"--we become so trained to take in and process information quickly, and under such pressure, that our brains have learned that it's OK to make stuff up in order to furnish us with a "complete picture" of a given event, even if that internal impression of the "complete picture" is wrong. This "filling in the blanks" is not a phenomenon that is common among aboriginal peoples, or peoples who's very survival DEPENDS on accurate, truthful interpretation of their sensory surroundings. After all, if we read a headline with a typo and perceive it as being correctly spelled, it just makes us intellectually lazy. If an Inuit hunter perceived those three black dots in a snow bank as rocks (and not a hungry polar bear) he may end up as dinner rather than the diner...

I also believe that part of the "audiophile mentality" is training our brains to NOT do this--to return to a more "primative" way of processing sensory information so that we actually are perceiving EXACTLY what we hear. Some people can do this naturally. Some have to learn it. Some never can acquire this skill.

This, I believe, is one of the major differences between audiophiles and music lovers who are just perfectly happy with "consumer grade" gear. The majority of music consumers out there are essentially "sonically domesticated", whereas we, as audiophiles, somehow display some sort of retrogressive survival trait when it comes to processing sonic information, either through genetic inheritance, or intellectual training and cultivation of the skill.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it...

--Richard