In an earlier post I explored the charge that the iPod suffers a significant compromise in fidelity and got reader responses that convinced me that the charge is true. However, for the last several months, I forgot about the iPod's sound challenges as I've listened blissfully to my playlists with great content.
But then this morning, around 4 A.M., I woke up with my JBuds in my ears and grew sick of the playlist that had been droning in my brain all night. I put the JBuds in my $80 Sangean PR-D5, tuned to 103.1 FM, and was amazed at how warm, bright, and detailed the sound was. The PR-D5's dual speakers are just so-so, but stick the JBuds in the mini jack and the sound is amazing. The compromise of the iPod, while intellectually clear to me all these months, now became emotionally true.
What's sad is that everything is going to MP3 and that my beloved playlists must be heard through the muffle of the iPod sound.
You can record music on your ipod at a higher bit rate, which can sound like a CD. But then you can't have 1000 songs on it.
Posted by: Ed S. | July 27, 2008 at 06:34 PM
My 40 gig iPod has about 4,000 songs on it now, many of which I paid for on iTunes, In fact, over $2,000 are from iTunes, so I'll keep the bit rate as it is and balance my listening with CD and radio playing.
Perhaps WiFi will have a library in which one can "buy" music from a bank that has high fidelity. At that time I would buy a WiFi radio.
Jeff
Posted by: Carrie | July 27, 2008 at 06:50 PM
The law of diminishing marginal returns sets in long before 1,000 songs.
Are there 12 Step groups for mp3 addiction?
Posted by: Terry (The Analog Dinosaur) | July 27, 2008 at 09:59 PM
I assume amassing songs has to be a sort of addiction and one that compromises sound quality.
Posted by: Carrie | July 27, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Not sure the comparison is entirely fair, as your iPod probably doesn't play radio any more than the PR-D5 plays (and stores) MP3s!
If the Sangean has an aux input, it may be interesting to see how it plays music coming from the AUX, eg MP3s streamed from a computer (or the iPod itself) or some music coming from a CD player (or encoded losslessly)...
Of course the bitrate will play some role in how your iPod sounds, but if you bought a lot from the iTunes Music Store, you're stuck with 128kbps anyway. ;-( That's one of the reasons I'd rather buy a CD and encode myself. (And yes, I know iTMS also started offering higher bitrate).
Posted by: Cyril | July 28, 2008 at 08:06 AM
I'm comparing fidelity from radio sound, which is not compressed, to iPod sound, which is. I'm not saying that the devices promise comparable performance; I'm comparing the two to highlight the compression, and sound compromise, of the iPod format.
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | July 28, 2008 at 09:19 AM
Understood.
My point is that he comparison may be confounding two effects: the effect of the (lossy) compression of the original signal, and whatever each device is doing to the (decompressed) signal. Plus obviously the fact that you can't listen to the same source with both setups.
Basically, is it the iPod that compromises the fidelity, or the inadequate bitrate of the iTunes Music Store?
(Probably a bit of both.)
Some people seem to enjoy their MP3 players with the proper headphone/amp combination (http://www.slate.com/id/2113059/) -- maybe an upgrade in that direction (+ higher bitrate) would help address the compromise you point out.
Posted by: Cyril | July 28, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Okay, Cyril, I get your question. I'm talking about the bitrate of iTunes. I can modify it for better sound but then I lose the original intent, to store thousands of songs.
Posted by: jeffrey McMahon | July 28, 2008 at 02:35 PM