# Is Apple Killing Off High End Audio and Video?



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

See what you think about this opinion. I agree with many of the points raised in the article.

When I listen to music, or watch a movie on a good (not necessarily the same as expensive) system, I just wonder why more people don't own good systems. Are we just satisfied with poor to mediocre?


----------



## zarquon (May 24, 2005)

Well, it's a long standing point.
at the consumer level, quality is never the primary factor. Price, convenience, "fashion" are all higher priorities than quality. This is across the board in most manufacturing for retail.

Z.


----------



## Jeepdude (Mar 3, 2005)

I've owned high end systems in the past, but like many folks I know, I didn't end up using (or even figuring out) the higher end features. So, it didn't make much sense to buy those sorts of systems.

The iPod (which to my "untrained ear" as per the article sounds pretty damn good) offers convenience and simplicity.

I think when the manufacturers of higher end equipment can merge their (albeit excellent) technology, with the simplicity of Apple equipment, that the higher end stuff will appeal to more of the masses.


----------



## Oakbridge (Mar 8, 2005)

The article complains that "the music from iTunes is recorded in stereo and not in any of the popular surround sound formats that tried to gain a foothold on the failed audio disc formats of DVD-Audio and SACD."

Hmmm, now unlike the movie industry where the majority of the products I buy are current releases, most of the music I buy are older releases with one or two new releases a year thrown in. Why do I care about surround sound when the music I am listening to was recorded in stereo, or perhaps even in mono?

It would be like rushing out to buy all 11 seasons of M*A*S*H on Blu-ray or HD-DVD. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone, just like you can't produce lines of resolution when the original source was videotape. You've got to have the right content to match the equipment. 

One of the first things you'd need to do, aside from bringing down the price, is to have the manufacturers stop bringing out competing formats. Perhaps the reason why the 'poor' audio format of the iTunes music store is accepted is that people are telling the industry to get on the same page and bring out a single format before we'll be ready to listen.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

High end stuff is simply to expensive and too complex for the average user to care. To me, my MP3s sound nearly as good as CD. "Good enough" sums it up well, and I consider myself to be something of a (very minor) audio fanatic.

The iPod offers simplicity and portability. Just try hauling your iPod around with a set of studio headphones. Not to say it can't be done, but it pretty much moots that whole "portability" idea.

The AppleTV is something I would not use for DVD movies, but for TV? Sure. I watch TV for entertainment, and if it can be made more convenient, super. 

That said: for DVD movies, I agree with the idea that better technology is a must. A good TV with a good sound system is a blessing... I'm lucky enough to have a home theater at home, and the experience of watching Lord of the Rings there, as opposed to a TV set, is brilliant. And to make the most of new formats like Blue-ray and HD-DVD, you need good equipment.

However: again I must remind everyone that said equipment costs money, and for many people there are more important things to spend that money on that their TV sets...


----------



## applebook (Aug 4, 2004)

Consumer level audio has always been unacceptable to audiophiles. SACD and DVD-A offer some really good performance, but there just aren't enough of them produced. Anyone who listens to compressed audio as his/her main audio system isn't an audiophile anyway. Even CDs are horribly compressed already, and many vinyl lovers with the means still won't touch them with a ten foot pole despite how good (IMO) $1,000 level DACs are these days.


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

I have a 300W Sony system that I bought in the early 90's. Lot's of power and some big poly speakers. When I put in a CD and crank it up, the floor starts to rumble and you can really feel the music.
If I hook up my iPod, even 256 kbps music starts to distort. The range just isn't there. If I play a loss-less file from the iPod, it sounds great. When you use earbuds or even headphones, you can't really tell, but when you amp it, it really shows. Same in my car. I have gone back to CD's for some stuff, or make some lossless playlists.
Of course, this isn't a problem most of the time, just sometimes when the urge to crank it up comes. Now that I am in my 40's and can afford the kind of power I wish I had had in my teens, it is disappointing that the popular medium is low grade digital. I could never see myself paying a buck for a 128 kbps tune, I don't rip at that rate and don't really have much use for it. 320 VBR seems to be a sweet spot for some of the metal of the 80's and 90's and all of the other music I classify as volume worthy.
I should also note, that I think classical pretty much sucks on my iPod, but then, I don't think the buds are really meant for that dynamic range anyway. Like applebook says, many CD's are recorded badly, but some of the digital masters series stuff is top notch. You really feel the music. I'm don't consider myself an audiophile at all, I just like to be immersed in the music. iTunes to me is the equivalent of a cassette tape copy we used to trade in high school. (chromium dioxide of course)


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Carl said:


> If I hook up my iPod, even 256 kbps music starts to distort. The range just isn't there. If I play a loss-less file from the iPod, it sounds great. When you use earbuds or even headphones, you can't really tell, but when you amp it, it really shows.


Are you connecting via the headphone plug or thru a true line out connector at the dock plug?


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

High end audio died with the demise of analog.


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

Mississauga said:


> High end audio died with the demise of analog.




so true!:clap:


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Is Apple Killing Off High End Audio?

Yup. Just like Philips did with the Compact Cassette, and Sony did with the Walkman.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Demosthenes X said:


> High end stuff is simply to expensive and too complex for the average user to care. To me, my MP3s sound nearly as good as CD. "Good enough" sums it up well, and I consider myself to be something of a (very minor) audio fanatic.


My "audifile" amplifier has a volume control and a selector - I don't understand where this audiofile stuff is too complicated comes from...
http://stanalog.stores.yahoo.net/sumainam.html

One thing that you will notice is that MP3s don't even sound close to a CD - even Apple seems to be admitting this with the upcoming "premium" downloads...

Yes a decent sound system can be expensive but you'd be surprised what 2000$ can buy you (fancy buttons and lights not included).


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

$2000 falls into the realm of expensive, imho. Granted it's very inexpensive compared to a lot of what's out there, but for many families, $2000 is not worth the money for a stereo system. They're happier to get a "home theater in a box", which can produce good sound, for $500.

And for the record, my Yamaha amp at home is ridiculously complex, and I've only discovered probably 1% of its capabilities. It's best to have it set up by a professional, at additional cost.

The irony here is that I will happily spend lots of money on my car audio - but that's where I listen to the most music.


----------



## applebook (Aug 4, 2004)

$2K for an entire sound system? Try just a pre-amp!


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

Getting good sound is a journey, not a destination. I started off with a Sony mini-system ($300 - all I could afford at the time). I bought a pair of Energy speakers for $300 to replace the included Sony's - a huge, huge improvement. I subsequently added a used Energy subwoofer ($200). Again a huge improvement.

Over the years I've slowly added or changed components. What I'm trying to say is that $2000 will get you great sound, _but you do not have to have $2000 to start your quest!_

High end audio died with the demise of analog? Likely true. SACD and DVD-Audio could have come close, but poor marketing and competing formats just made consumers yawn.

The market for used audio equipment is a buyers paradise.

I suspect that the cassette was invented for portability. High end audio manufacturers subsequently produced incredible cassette decks and cassettes, with quality that approached the original LP.

The iPod is an incredibly convenient device. How many rip their music at high bit rates? How many buy a great sounding replacement earphone? $100 (cost of 5-7 CD's) can get you a superb sounding earphone. Yet most use the included earphones with their iPod.

Saying that good sound is not affordable is simply not true. We just don't care. We are happy with mediocrity. The manufacturers know this, and this is all they produce.


----------



## cdnbacon (Feb 26, 2001)

Professional Audio is my vocation and passion, and in some ways I agree with the article that the popularization of mediocrity by way of iPods and compressed audio formats certainly has pushed high-end audio to the sidelines, even to the point that newer surround formats have had difficulty in gaining acceptance in a wider market. However I'm not sure that Apple or the MP3 player are solely to blame here, record companies sealed their fate long ago with inflexible distribution methods and increasingly expensive CD's of slop passed off as "music." You compare albums of today with what we had 15+ years ago, and you'll be amazed at the difference in quality of the music, production, etc. You could listen to an entire album then and appreciate the musician's art, now you either buy an album to listen to the one or two "decent" songs on it, or buy those individual songs at iTunes. Obviously the wallet wins, who in their right mind would buy a CD for $18, when they can buy one or two "listenable" tunes for a dollar a piece?

Quality? What quality? People don't hear much difference with the included cheap Apple earphones or the miniature speakers that iPods typically dock to, so why should iTunes sell any higher quality downloads for little perceived difference on the typical output device? It should be interesting to see what becomes of Apple's premium tunes! Hopefully it's a trend that continues to grow considering that we have more storage space available now at a cheaper price.

I'm one of those audio geeks that refuses to buy mp3's no matter what. ALL my music on my iPod 30 GB is in uncompressed wav format, ripped directly from my CD collection. According to some recent tests, the iPod performs quite admirably with a decent pair of earphones, in fact it specs out as a CD quality player that is very flat and lvery ow in distortion, provided it plays back uncompressed wav files, and is considered top in the list of MP3 players in terms of audio quality. I use mine as a test generator for tuning high end sound systems!

High end audio is here to stay, and while the "following" is a lot smaller than what it used to be, one can only hope that with increased bandwidth and storage space for less $, the trend towards poorer quality compressed music will reverse itself as more people become aware of the difference and demand higher quality.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> One thing that you will notice is that MP3s don't even sound close to a CD - even Apple seems to be admitting this with the upcoming "premium" downloads...


You know, going back three years now, iTunes' music format (AAC - the much more "superior" than MP3 alternative) was described by Apple as "pristine". Picture of a musical note on a shiny CD always perceives to the buyer that they are receiving CD quality music. I see today, music downloads are labeled as "high quality" by Apple.

I don't know, for years the description really bothered me. Much like H264, Apple is pushing a newer format that consumers can believe is of a higher quality or further advanced than the traditional alternative. Perceived value for your dollar I'd think.

The higher quality music available from EMI really bothers me... I'm still not buying a CD quality album, and I think for 99.5% of consumers, no perceived difference will be heard between 128kbps and 256. Earphones and lousy computer speakers will guarantee the cheaper format will likely win out, because no one can hear the difference anyway.

I could argue keeping DRM on the 99cent version doesn't seem right, but the big concern for me is the $1.29 price point. If no one can hear the difference, it could be argued that Apple is essentially selling the same song that will consume twice as much space on your iPod for a 30% price increase. We've effectively broken the 99cent barrier that Mr. Jobs wanted to keep during negotiation with labels. I won't be surprised if we start seeing price differences for singles in the near future.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

TheBat said:


> Saying that good sound is not affordable is simply not true. We just don't care. We are happy with mediocrity. The manufacturers know this, and this is all they produce.


I respectfully disagree. If we're talking about a pair of $100 headphones, the market is tragically small. My studio headphones were about that price, and a I know a small number of people that an justify that cost. But the majority? They figure, why the hell bother? They listen to music to kill time, entertain themselves on trips, etc. Not to enjoy the subtle nuances of the music they could hear if they bought more costly headphones.

Add to this that most studio headphones are large and cumbersome, which defeats to a large degree the portability of the iPod, and you see the problem.

If you want good sound, you do have to pay for it, whether all at once or in stages.

Affordability is defined by what the market will bear. Good sound is not seen as "necessary" by a large part of the market, and as such it IS expensive. Whether or not you consider $100 expensive for a pair of good headphones doesn't really matter, in the eyes of many, it is simply not worthwhile. And when it comes right down to it, it is the perception of the majority that matters.


----------



## applebook (Aug 4, 2004)

Don't forget that it's not just the earphones: you have to consider adding a portable amp as well. 

I don't mind my portable set-up. The rig is cheap and ultra-portable, plus offers decent sound as far as mobile SQ goes. 

$140 - used Etymotic ER-4P 
$25 - 512Mb iPod Shuffle 

My home headphone rig is close to $4k but very satisfying


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

i can swear by a set of these

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/IE10-main.html

a little steep for the average user, but the sound and durability is next to none


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

Yes and no... a lot of people listen to music just to fill the silence, so a decent stereo is enough. Some listen to music for the lyrical content, so again you're right. But there are those that listen to the music, and to really appreciate the music you do need good equipment. I think the true test of any stereo system is classical music - if it sounds good on your system, you know you have a good setup. 

djstp: I've seen the "in ear" style buds before, and they always interested me. I could just never justify the cost as I already have a pair of awesome studio headphones. Still, if they're as good as you say, with that form factor, they might be worth investing in for me... thanks for the link.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> The audiophile conversation fascinates me. I have a couple of high end (but old) stereos, plus some iPod-specific audio solutions. And a very average car stereo. I've always been of the camp that if a song doesn't sound good on the old equipment and a crappy car stereo, it's not worth listening to.
> 
> And it is all about the music, the content, right?


Yes the music comes first but better equipment can help you enjoy the music.

To some, an iPod is expensive, yet many would argue that it's the MP3 player to have. A mac is more expensive than most computers, yet most here argue that it's "the" computer to have. 
Until you have experience higher end audio, you don't know what you are missing. 

Old stereos often sound better than modern equipment but I don't think I'd enjoy a Nielsen symphony in any car...
The goal, or at least my goal, is to reproduce sound as the artist/producer intended. If you goal is background noise, the amount of songs you have or even better reproduction than a dual cassette deck or even a bookshelf stereo, the iPod is ideal.


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

Demosthenes X said:


> djstp: I've seen the "in ear" style buds before, and they always interested me. I could just never justify the cost as I already have a pair of awesome studio headphones. Still, if they're as good as you say, with that form factor, they might be worth investing in for me... thanks for the link.


no problem!

but dont be fooled by the 'in ear' associated with some headphones... the link i pointed out are true studio/ live performance monitors.


----------



## cdnbacon (Feb 26, 2001)

djstp said:


> no problem!
> 
> but dont be fooled by the 'in ear' associated with some headphones... the link i pointed out are true studio/ live performance monitors.


So how do you classify something as "true studio/live performance monitors"??? Looking at the specs, the low impedance rating of the M-Audio IE series tells me that low frequency response will suffer if plugged into current generation iPods (you need at least 40 or 50 ohm earphone impedance in order to get a flat output from the iPod)! The published frequency response specs of these devices is suspect as well, anyone can say their earphone will do 20 Hz to 16 KHz, but with how much dB variance? You're better off with something from Etymotic, at least their published specifications are more descriptive and meaningful, geez they even publish a frequency response curve! Shure and Westone offer excellent alternatives as well, though their published specs suffer from the same marketing "vagueness" as M-Audio does!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

"High End" Audio is as alive as it ever was, the market is as vibrant as it ever has been, there are as many buyers as at any other time since the birth of the industry, and those buyers can choose from more qualifying products than at any other time in the history of the industry.

There has been a dramatic upheaval in the way audio is bought and sold; and that has caused some people to mistake that for a a decline in the hobby, which is quite simply what it is. They would be sorely mistaken.

The internet has forced the audio reseller (and I was once one myself) to change his way of doing business. You cannot expect to audition a huge sample of the available gear, nor can you expect to compare similar rare, expensive and no-compromise gear endlessly, but to think you ever could is a nostalgic fairly tale.

You may have to travel to visit a reseller that has the product you are interested in, but truth be told, you always had to. In the old days, you had basically two kinds of audio reseller; one was the large reseller with a huge array of product ranging from the heavily advertised mass-market manufacturers to the exotic, low volume quirky lunatic-fringe products that were more properly prototypes, the product of a dedicated few. I actually owned that type of store (our systems started at $600, which was in our opinion the lowest price you could pursue good sound without glaring compromise. Still, you could spend $6,000, then and now, and get less).

Or, you had a single-minded reseller who catered only to the converted, whose products reflected a careful choice of what was available and presented them to the customer as a personal endorsement of the reseller's vision and just as often, prejudices. Those guys are out of business today, but they always were going broke before as well. They cannot rely on the customer to buy from them and not chase that last $100 or $1000 discount online.

If you lived in a moderately large market, you probably had a choice of one of the former and a small gaggle of the latter. Today, you may find that you have no serious audio resellers in your town at all, or if you do, they seem somewhat thinner than those you remember from days past.

But, in days past, that was the only way to sell serious audio gear. You saw the entire market, in it's most expansive moment, when you perused the Yellow Pages. What you had in your town was all there was anywhere (in that each town had similar resellers with a similarly limited number of "lines", even though the actual products varied), and I guarantee there was still much gear you could not hear without buying a plane ticket or driving for hours at a time.

There was a lot of gear you had to cross an ocean to listen to; the North American dealer network consisted of Air Canada; to Heathrow or Tokyo or Hong Kong, and connecting flights to follow.

I had gear in my store where, by default, I was the North American distributor. What they really meant was I imported the gear and I was the only dealer, so if you wanted one, whether you were a dealer or a buyer, you had to come to see me. I was by no means alone; a few dozen brands were sold the same way by dealers all across the US and Canada.

Their business model is over, and even if that is not a good thing, it is a perfectly normal thing. Good things go by the wayside all the time; the butcher and the baker and the local garage are gone from your neighborhood as well, replaced by health food stores that bake no bread, supermarkets that don't make their own cuts, and by chain stores that change your oil but won't fix your flat or install your trailer brakes and class 5 hitch.

The internet has also spawned an almost endless array of boutique audio manufacturers, and they are in most cases worthy of the small following they can manage to support with small-scale, low volume, hand made manufacturing. This business is thriving in a way not seen since the dawn of the audio hobby 40 years ago. It is, as it was in 1965, very much a factory direct business model.

The world of High End has always been narrow, small, and nearly incestuous. There is a huge, middle area that consists of gear that has high end pretensions but is really Wall-Mart at heart (they would drop every dealer they had in a heartbeat if Wall Mart came a-calling and demanded as much), and if you too are fooled, then you may agree that the hobby is in an ireversable, downward death spiral. But, these companies and their products are not high end at all; they are just slick pretenders who know the right words to use to seduce the easily seduced.

The mass market is almost immune to failure; they simply make what people buy, and change with the agility of a pro athlete. They will always thrive. If "high end" is popular they will mimic the high end's products; if the iPod is popular they will jump on that bandwagon with the swiftness and cunning of a fox. Fear not about them; they are the survivors and just say what you want to hear.

Nor is the high end for everyone; there is no shame in not being a party to the hobby, which is clearly what it is. In fact, it's probably a solid sign of having your priorities straight, your ducks in a row; living a simple, carefree existence. I won't go into the implications for our sanity, seeing as to do so inevitably would lead to the conclusion I myself belong in the asylum.

Hobbies can not be killed by market forces, by the popularity of this or that change in the landscape, only the hobbyist himself can kill his sport. As far as I can see, and I do pay careful attention to this particular hobby, those who love it are not going anywhere.

Not only that, but they are part of a demographic that no longer has children at home (almost a minimum requirement; the high end consists of gear not particularly tolerant of abuse) and increasingly has more money to spend on life's little pleasures. And that is really all it is.

High End is not expensive; it is not exotic, it is not even no-compromise. What makes a product or a playback system High End is about the approach to the reproduction of music; a High End home stereo can cost less than a Future Shop special or it can cost as much as an imported car, but regardless of cost it's about what, and where, you compromise.

Is (as one manufacturer's motto states) "the closest approach to the original sound" the most important thing about your music system? Do you make an emotional investment in the realism of reproduced sound? You probably are into high end audio, whether you know it or not. And, you can achieve that with a few hundred dollars if you want; it's not about the money.

Here's one litmus test: if all you had was $1000, would you insist on room filling sound or would you buy a headphone based system that outperformed home stereos that cost 3x as much? The answer reveals all.

I have always had a high end system. Some of them cost less than a new MacBook, some cost more. I buy what I can afford, but I always buy what does justice to the music. If all I had was a hundred dollars I would still have a system that made those hundred bucks proud, and one that, put simply, "sounded good" in all the right ways.

And I am not alone.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

Thanks for a brilliant synopsis.



gordguide said:


> High End is not expensive; it is not exotic, it is not even no-compromise.


This, for me, is the crux. 

But it does require one to make the effort to improve the sound one hears. If only it were as easy as taking a trip down to Wal Mart or Future Shop! If you are lucky enough to have a friend or family member who has an interest in high end audio, it's much easier to become interested.

I have visited many audio stores with uninterested friends, and they were all amazed at how good music sounds when played through a good system, so much so, that the vast majority bought great sounding systems whenever finances allowed them to.

I recently took my significant other to one such store. She was totally blown away by an extremely expensive system. I could have put my money down right there, and she would not have complained!!

The light is there for all to see. They just need to look, or be coaxed, in the right direction


----------



## applebook (Aug 4, 2004)

gordguide said:


> Here's one litmus test: if all you had was $1000, would you insist on room filling sound or would you buy a headphone based system that outperformed home stereos that cost 3x as much? The answer reveals all.


I think that my AKG K1000, SimAudio Celeste 4070SE, and Benchmark DAC1 set-up is as dynamic, detailed, and resolving as any speaker set-up thrice its price


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> High end audio died with the demise of analog.


 Yep...

For quality, iPods do suck indeed as do all portable players. Great for running or stuff like that, but if you're looking for true audio quality it's just not there - IMO of course. 

I edit video all day so I guess I shouldn't be too hard on 'digital'.


----------



## cdnbacon (Feb 26, 2001)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> Yep...
> 
> For quality, iPods do suck indeed as do all portable players. Great for running or stuff like that, but if you're looking for true audio quality it's just not there - IMO of course.
> 
> I edit video all day so I guess I shouldn't be too hard on 'digital'.


Hardware-wise, the iPod itself is a fine quality device, tests have proven that it can output uncompressed CD quality audio, and do it better than other portable music players, however it's the cheesy compressed formats of the music being played back that is the issue! GIGO is the governing principle here!


----------



## Grazer5 (Jul 19, 2005)

Great thread! I agree with the GIGO statement, being a former retailer years ago and a musician my whole life. I'm always amazed by the sound quality of certain recordings as opposed to others. You know, stuff from the 60's or 70's of any genre that were recorded so well to begin with that it doesn't really matter what you play them on they sound fantastic! A 256 AAC file is going to sound much better than a 128 MP3 no matter what you playback system is. The idea is to keep it simple, a straight wire with gain.


----------



## djstp (Mar 10, 2006)

cdnbacon said:


> So how do you classify something as "true studio/live performance monitors"


while in a studio( home or pro ), your reference monitors will have a big impact on how your project turns out. these headphones mimic the flat true sound you receive from nearfield monitors such as a set of KRK's. i have used these with my ipod, with my keyboard, with my imac, and have found that they have the best sound


----------



## cdnbacon (Feb 26, 2001)

djstp said:


> while in a studio( home or pro ), your reference monitors will have a big impact on how your project turns out. these headphones mimic the flat true sound you receive from nearfield monitors such as a set of KRK's. i have used these with my ipod, with my keyboard, with my imac, and have found that they have the best sound


If you're saying that nearfield monitors have a flat true sound, I have a bridge to sell you!  The typical compact nearfied monitor (including KRK, JBL, Tannoy, Yamaha, M-Audio, Genelec among many) has a shaped response to mimic the typical bookshelf type stereo system found in the average home. Add to this the typical reflection of the speaker's direct field off the tabletop or mixing console that causes an acoustical cancellation in the mid frequency response. I'm not to saying that nearfields are completely out of whack in terms of a smooth response, but they certainly are not perfect! The amount of money spent on a nearfield gets you closer or farther from perfection. Heck, when I first started working in recording studios, taping a single ply piece of toilet paper on the front of a Yamaha NS-10's tweeter was the "in" thing to do...and the Auratone (ick!) was the defacto standard for television reference mixing!  We have come a long way since then, but we still haven't arrived! 

All this to say that there is no in-ear monitor that will produce a flat frequency response curve, hence the reason why manufacturers are hesitant to publish these specifications. They realize that with present state of the art development in this area, it is next to impossible to produce a transducer (beit one, two, or three driver) that will output a smooth curve. Even Etymotic admits this with their published specs. I'm sure in coming years, this will eventually improve.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... They realize that with present state of the art development in this area, it is next to impossible to produce a transducer (beit [sic] one, two, or three driver) that will output a smooth curve. ..."

Nor is there any way to measure such a device in a way that accurately (or even kinda-closely) represents our ear's response to what amounts to a super-nearfield closed chamber and how that relates to the open air soundfield it's supposed to represent.

We don't even know what the ideal in-ear transducer curve would look like, except to say that either it won't be anywhere near flat, or it only gets flat once we throw a radical looking filter at it (which is what they would do, if they knew what the filter curve should look like. They used to think they did; now all they know is they were wrong). Oh, and it changes with sound level (volume).

Smoothness of the curve, which is not confined to in-ear drivers but is an issue with any transducer measurement, is more or less just the result of what FFT parameters are used; you also need some averaging to make any meaningful (not to mention repeatable) response curve, period.

Bass response (below 200 Hz) borders on the unmeasurable at the best of times. Although it's an exaggeration, it's not much of one to say you can have any bass curve you want, just tell the engineer what you want and he can place the speaker under test and choose a boundary condition and mic position to get it.

Choose some measurement settings and the graph can have more spikes than a bed of nails with any speaker; add the maximum averaging and you can print a graph that looks like the kind of snow-covered hill your granny could slide over bare-assed without a scratch. Same speaker, same mic, mic position, room (or lack of room), same measuring devices, same cables, everything.

They use the bumpy ones in-house and publish the ski hills to consumers.

Still, that doesn't mean it's a waste of time or effort to look at curves and graphs; it just means it's not the whole story.

ehMac'ers who are interested in loudspeaker measurement, speaker design, room interactions, building or designing loudspeakers, and frequency response as it relates to home studios and music production should check out Fuzzmeasure. Bonus Feature: the Apple Design Award winning developer hails from the Known Center Of The Universe, which I know will warm many an ehMac'er's heart, even if it doesn't have the same effect on mine.

The HD-equipped iPods are very well designed devices and incorporate design and manufacturing concepts that represent the best thinking of some of the high end industry's most respected audio designers; eg very short signal paths.

They also reveal careful component choice with a view to maximizing sonic attributes rather than manufacturing convenience or minimal part cost; there are certain parts found in the line level signal path on iPods that could only be there as a result of listening tests; much cheaper "equivalents" are readily available that would reveal nothing amiss on the test bench. (The headphone output is less exotic but as a practical matter, there is little you can do there while still having battery life that extends into hours rather than minutes).

As a playback device in comparison to other digital sources, the iPod has lower jitter, for example, than most sub-$1000 CD players; in fact there are few CD players that measure as good in any parameter. Partly that is due to it being Hard Disk Drive based; there are some advantages in getting rid of the optical disk playback system. But, none the less, the end result is what matters. If the iPod has a flaw (as a budget high end digital source for home use) it's the lack of a digital audio output.

applebook: clearly, you get it.

One more thing: What in the world is "... high end video"? The simple addition of a video cue makes our brains totally ignore most aspects of sound quality; it's well known that you can get away with rather ordinary sound in a home theatre setup provided the bass is loud and the video keeps playing.

I know that TV images do not look anything like what my eyes see, so "accuracy" seems somehow inappropriate. I think they meant "Home Theatre", which is a different beast than high end audio altogether. Perhaps the idea that Apple is killing one or the other depends on confusing the two to mean similar things. Most, if not all of the time if your "high end" audio consists of a home theatre sound system, you don't have a "high end" audio system in the first place. _Trust me on this. ®McNutt_


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

gordguide said:


> If the iPod has a flaw (as a budget high end digital source for home use) it's the lack of a digital audio output.


I agree, the iPod is an excellent digital source. Even Stereophile magazine reiewed the iPod a few years ago, and concluded likewise.

I have circumvented the lack of optical output on my iPod, by using Airport Express and playing music from my computer. I am very impressed with the sound, particularly with the uncompressed WAV files. I am not using the wireless capability of the Express.



gordguide said:


> One more thing: What in the world is "... high end video"?


I presume high end video refers to BluRay or HD-DVD. Standard DVD should be the minimum for home theatre applications. The movies from the iTunes store should only be for viewing on your iPod, or small computer screen. Hence, at this time, I cannot understand the reason for the existence of AppleTV.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

*Another article..*

More on this topic.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

I dont think Apple is killing off high end audio. Mp3 and computers in general is doing it but part of the problem is also that people are not exposed to high end anymore. They dont even know what it means. They just assume its expensive. Some think high end audio is expensive stuff with tons of lights and things...or cutting edge.

I can guarantee that 1/2 the people who THINK they are happy with what they listen to will look like this :yikes: if they were made to sit down in front of a properly set up modest system consisting of a pair of stereo speakers and a receiver and a source thats not a huge pile. My sister had no idea until recently. She's listened to music all her life on the computer or some little boom box or mp3 player. I forced her to part with $300 for some used audio stuff. She litterally cried the first time I set it up for her and she listened to it. Said it sounds so good that all her music was new to her.

Pair of used PSB bookshelf speakers from like 15 years ago $100
Used 30wpc Marantz receiver from like 30 years ago $80
Used Yamaha CD player from 8 years ago $30
Used speaker stands $40
Cables $30

It cost less than a high end MP3 player and wiped the floor with most new systems that people THINK is high end at bestbuy or futureshop... I mean people just dont know they can buy old stuff and have it sound great.

I've seen her and her friends sit together in the 'sweet spot' and listen to music for hours. I'm sure the friend will come talk to me soon for help with finding stuff. I think more people just need to be exposed to a properly set up modest new or used stereo, thats all.


----------



## applebook (Aug 4, 2004)

A receiver to power speakers in hi-fi?  Do you know how much truly hi-fi receivers cost? More than I'd like to state. To power speakers, use amps, not receivers, which are meant for low-fi audio or high-quality cinema. 

The cheapest way into true hi-fi is DIY: 

Check out diyAudio.com - audio projects by fanatics, for fanatics and specifically, Nelson Pass' section on how to build a very high-quality class A amp for as low as $300. 

I've never looked into building speakers, but these can be done for under $500 as well, though personally, I'd just buy a used pair for less than half of its original retail price.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

TheBat said:


> More on this topic.






> Now with downloads being dominated by iTunes and being played back on horrible, stock headphones for an iPod – why should people care about audio quality in stereo let alone music in high-resolution surround?


Do people care anyway? Most people are buying CDs, which on any consumer headphones are little better than iPod-quality tunes anyway. There are a few people that notice the difference, and those people ripp their music from CDs.

But 9.9/10 consumers will be using the cheap headphones that came with their CD player/iPod/whatever, and it hardly matters. People are not automatically going to invest in higher quality components because iTunes is selling higher-quality music.



> Why does an iPod carrying music lover need new speakers, a new amp or new preamp when the best audio they can hope for is less-than-CD quality music?


Again, I don't see the majority of consumers doing this anyway. I doubt the majority of consumers know what a pre-amp *is*. And the ones who do, and who will be buying such equipment, are probably getting higher quality songs elsewhere, and using high quality headphones to begin with.



> From there, Apple should be selling music by the genre on hard drives. Can you imagine having the top 500 classic rock albums on a plug and play hard drive that slides right into a bay? You might pay $750 for the drive but would get not just the cream of the crop of singles, special music not found elsewhere, but you would have the ability to download another few hundred songs from iTunes as a credit that comes with the drive.


Er... and this guy expects this to be a feasible, mass market business model?

What people like this do not seem to grasp is that Apple is not catering to audiophiles. They are catering to consumers who want music and convenience. Is it going to be as good as if you spend $1000 on your stereo equipment and rip songs from CD in lossless format?

Of course not. But the majority of consumers want it cheap, easy, and decent to listen to. Apple is a business that wants to be successful, not a business that wants to cater to the tiny percentage of the market that want the best of the best in audio performance.

And trying to claim that everyone "should" want the best audio is simply ludicrous: different people have different desires for music. For some, it is not about hearing every note from the best possible speaker. It's just about taking your mind off the everyday.

And in that, iTunes and iPod serve admirably.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

Holy snobbery. You do know that we're talking about the word "hi-fi" in relation to MP3 and ipods right. That pretty much means any half decent stereo and speakers.

Also... I own a Threshold SA3 class A amp which is one of Nelson Pass's works and infact I have conversed with him via email and he stated that the SA3 is one of his favorite desgines to date. Also my current speakers are ones I have built so please spare me. A modest clean receiver and a pair of modest bookshelf speakers from a reputable maker can sound very good when properly set up. You dont need ultra high end stuff to get good sound. Hi-Fi does not have to mean esoteric stuff. 





applebook said:


> A receiver to power speakers in hi-fi?  Do you know how much truly hi-fi receivers cost? More than I'd like to state. To power speakers, use amps, not receivers, which are meant for low-fi audio or high-quality cinema.
> 
> The cheapest way into true hi-fi is DIY:
> 
> ...


----------



## jay_eh (Jan 6, 2006)

*What are better options for computer-based listening?*

I would agree whole heartedly with the article. With a cell phone contract I bought a few years ago, I got a free $50 iTunes card. Was the first and last time I'll buy anything off iTunes. At the least, I was expecting much better sound quality, though this being compressed audio, what else is there to expect. I did find a couple of interesting artists featured on iTunes that I downloaded the albums for (since they were technically "free"). I liked them enough to turn around and buy the full CD. I suppose there might be a lot of duplicate sales of the same albums/songs because iTunes isn't high fidelity enough. 

Steve Jobs said in an interview a while back he sees Apple trying (or taking over) the consumer audio market as computers get better quality audio - he says he was an Audiophile until he started using his Mac. For a person with an unlimited budget, I don't think this is true. And from my iTunes experience, quality will need to go up before I stop buying CDs. 

I love music. It brigtens up my day, helps me relax, and brings me lots of joy. It kind of ruins the experience to have low quality music. On this end I'd like to go higher end on music but have a budget. 

Currently have an iMac G5 with some crappy Logitech 2.1 speakers. Speakers are small and can't reproduce sound well. I have a Yamaha bookshelf stereo system but I've noticed lately the sound doesn't seem as good anymore or I'm more discerning. Rather than buy a new stereo system for which I might not have the money (or only be able to afford another mini-system) would getting some studio monitors hooked up to my iMac G5 be a good option? Or, if I go this option, would getting a PC with a "good" audio card and a studio monitor be a good option. Would be playing audio-CDs through my computer. 

My first priority is to get good quality music while balancing a bit with my budget. Thanks!


----------



## applebook (Aug 4, 2004)

Show me one "hi-fi" receiver that is affordable. Please.


----------



## contoursvt (May 1, 2005)

applebook said:


> Show me one "hi-fi" receiver that is affordable. Please.


Well if you mean "hi-fi" just because its expensive and some retarded people think it sounds better or do you mean "hi-fi" meaning an honest to goodness well designed piece of equipment that sounds good regardless of its cost?

If its the latter, the Cambridge Audio has integrated amps and receivers for very reasonable prices that perform great. Also entry stuff from NAD and Rotel sound great. While they are not "Pass Labs" or "Krell" or some other mega $$ item, it does not mean they are not capable of "Hi-Fi". 

Infact, spending huge $$ on an amp is a little stupid in my opinion. Spending more $$ on the source and more on speakers makes more sense. Get a modest but nice sounding receiver or integrated amp and put what you saved towards a better source unit and speakers.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

honestly, the best amps are the yorkville ones available at long and mcquade music stores. They power speakers, are transparent and are cheap. You can find them used as well. 

If we're talking integrated Amp/Reciever/Tuner, then I dunno. I like the simple things in life. Lineout computer to power amp to speakers (this is where the $ should be spent)

High bit rates for music files help too. Mp3's are still Mp3's, though.


----------



## jay_eh (Jan 6, 2006)

I think what I'll do though is go around to a few dealers with the brands mentionned and sample the speakers in-store with my music as well as some other speakers for stereos. Honestly, I have no idea what I'm getting into with monitors. Its just that I'm probably looking at either a 2.1 or 2.0 system (bookshelf) or towers. I'm moving into an appartment so space, money etc are considerations. Playing on the computer is convinient (though I love having a 5-Disc CD changer on my stereo). I'm sure I can come up with some interesting combination to keep all the features I want and can afford. And most computer speakers (mass market ones anyways) suck save for the Klipsch 5.1 but I don't want 5.1 (and I believe is now discontinued) and there's a need of adapters to hook to iMac. 

Only thing I use the iTunes store for now is to sample tracks I'm interested in purchasing or for CDs and then I buy them on Amazon. Sampling on Amazon is hardly the best for Macs. Frankly though, if there's a DVD concert or such from the same artist, I usually buy that instead. I notice the DVDs have better quality and live performances are usually more fun to listen to then a CD recording.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... But 9.9/10 consumers will be using the cheap headphones that came with their CD player/iPod/whatever, and it hardly matters. People are not automatically going to invest in higher quality components because iTunes is selling higher-quality music. ..."

I think your argument is addressed to the existence (or not) of a High End industry in the first place. It most certainly exists, and it most certainly does not cater to the 9.9/10 [of] consumers. They are irrelevant to the argument; we know they don't care and they never have.

No matter what Apple does or does not do to the High End Audio industry, it can't make the majority care about sound quality, and that will never change. We all know that.

Few people build Hot Rods; far fewer than 9.9/10, but they are most certainly neat. Something's inherent "goodness" has nothing to do with it's place in a free market and something's popularity is not a measure of inherent quality or lack of same.

It's ironic that we are debating the relative merits of market share when, as Canadians, we are the definition of an irrelevant Consumer. Yet, people still start businesses to cater to us. Why bother? Why not sell cellphones in China, where every two months, the number of cellphones that ever existed in Canada is sold?

You could (and many do) dismiss Canada as not being worth the effort. As a car market, we are ignored by many makers, some models never are sold here, and government feels tremendous pressure backed by real economic threats make by people who have the ability to harm Canada's economy to homogenize our law with a larger market (emissions, etc). Yet we bough 55 Billion Dollars worth of new cars alone last year. It's easy to see it either way; it depends entirely on your perspective.

The fact is people do bother with a market like Canada, and they do bother with High End audio enthusiasts, and that's all that matters. Anything else is just a variation of the old joke that starts "would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" To paraphrase: We've already established that there is a High End Audio industry.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Show me one "hi-fi" receiver that is affordable. Please. ..."

First, you have to tell us what you mean by "affordable". But, I'll start first: if you don't care about sound quality, then they're all affordable.

Why not do what everyone else does: look in the wallet and buy the first thing that has the same price as the number of bills in it? That would be guaranteed to be "affordable".

Nobody wants to empty your wallet amongst audio nuts. It's all about "affordable"; we just like to maximize the one thing we feel is worth paying for. If we had infinite cash that wouldn't be a problem and we could go back to making Steve Balmer jokes. So, it's always about saving money and maximizing value. Always.

I don't have problem with a $200 blaster, or a table radio, or cheap computer speakers, but I happen to know that they all sound different so I'm going to listen to them and pick the one I like the sound of. You could do the same thing; its easy. Bring a CD and shop where they're plugged in.

So, I'm not going to say "buy this" or "buy that". I could give you a short list of what I would want to listen to in a certain price category, but I can also tell you that I would listen to other stuff as well and certainly don't enter the store knowing what I will end up buying; it might be less than I had planned to spend; I've done that many times.

So, to answer your question, you should buy whatever you like (and I mean that as in "you like it" not "who cares") and if you do end up buying it, then by definition it's affordable.


----------



## TheBat (Feb 11, 2005)

jay_eh said:


> My first priority is to get good quality music while balancing a bit with my budget. Thanks!


Have you considered a good pair of headphones and a headphone amp? Like others have said in this thread, this route will give you the best bang for your buck.

However, if you need music through speakers, the options are infinite, and the cost ranges from low to extreme. For the best quality I would get a used 2 channel power amp, and speakers that fit the space you have.


----------

