Ipods really suck!!

yes but out of that there are other people to pay as well.....

what?

I'm not denying that I said something off-color to you, but I didn't do that over and over, and in different threads.

Most people here are just trying to talk to you normally, you just seem to be taking it badly.

what?

My Ipod doesn't suck, is there an accessory I need to make it suck?

i still use a sony walkman with a cassette player.

do i need to get with the millenium?

lol. thats good that you have not been drawn into the ipod trend, or the mp3 player trend for that matter. You are possiably the only person that i have heard of that still uses a traditional walkman and casset player. Which is a good thing and you should feel proud.

so is that what you are saying that we should not move forward into technology???

I use a Walkman cassette player because it's infinitely more convenient.

I did not say anything like that. So why would you make that assumption?

it was a 'question'

Tar-baby.

Never been much for trading quality for convenience. Don't have a conventional mp3 player, don't have any mp3 music on any of my machines ... I happen to enjoy music very much, happen to have a collection amounting to many, many thousands of vinyl LPs, reel-to-reel and cassette tapes, and CDs, along with equipment capable of actual high fidelity reproduction of same. I can only pity those who are of the impression mp3, or any of its kin, "sound good"; the best of it resembles music, most of it more approaches tinny AM radio as compared to crisp, clean FM stereo over a decent system - which itself, though infinitely better than mp3 or the like, is miles behind listening quality as compared to well-recorded, well-reproduced tape, vinyl, or CD over a decent system.

I do have a Hi-MD Minidisc Walkman - a technologic step beyond Regis Philbin's conventional cassette Walkman. Though it is capable of handling various compressed music codecs, including mp3, I employ only lossless Linear PCM. Over good headphones, the quality is all but indistinguishable from the original, though a difference is noticeable when payed back over excellent headphones or the seakers of a competent A/V rig.

Hey Timber,

The quality is all in how you import/convert the MP3. itunes offers conversions of MP3s and AACs as high as 320 kbps. Although I have never used it they also offer a lossless conversion. Music aficionados could probably still tell a difference however most people import at lower bitrates in order to save space and that is why they don't sound all that great. A high bitrate and a decent pair of headphones might get you close to what you are looking for.

Although, I'm still convinced that nothing sounds better than a vinyl album played on a good record player with a good needle. That option isn't to good for traveling with though :wink:

I use my Walkman for books; I doubt it would sound too good with music, though maybe with the enhanced bass setting it mightn't be too bad?

It goes to convenience over quality, jp - a trade-off I don't care to make. As I said, the best of mp3 - 320kbps - resembles music. Linear PCM is full 16 Bit, 44.1Khz/1.4Mbps. Even at that, even given full Redbook compliance, a discerning listener will notice digital artifacts, attack and decay abberations, diminished harmonics, and loss of ambience and soundstage as compared to competently recorded, competently reproduced full-spectrum analog audio. The newer premium digital formats, such as SACD, HDCD, and DVD-A have gone a long way to remedy that shortcoming, though. On suitable equipment, a well-mastered, well-stamped DVD-A, SACD, or HDCD can be truly breathtaking - damned near "You are there" live quality.

I agree with jp - nothing beats good vinyl.

Hold on there bigbird... you're starting to talk over my head here. Where do normal CDs fit into this equation? From the link above it looks like they are at: 2-channel 16-bit PCM clocked at 44100 Hz.

Is this what you consider ample quality? Where do you get/what is "full-spectrum analog audio"?

Rerdbook is the standard CD Audio protocol, in place since 1980. It is "Normal CD", as you put it. I class it as generally reasonably acceptable, not exactly fully adequate. Typical Redbook-compliant audio CDs leave much to be desired. "Full spectrum analog audio" is represented by high quality analog tape mastering, and now essentially equalled by the newer professional digital mastering protocols. Premium consumer audio media, such as HDCD, SACD, and DVD-A do a quite decent job of reproducing full-spectrum audio - incorporating full harmonics, frequency response from sub-audible to trans-audible, spatial clues, ambience, phase steering, and other components of soundstage. Most folks who are content with standard CD sound, to say nothing of mp3 or other compressed, lossy codecs, either simply never have experienced real quality music reproduction or are incapable of recognizing it when they hear it ... usually both.

I see. Redbook cds are AIFF files, correct? Are HDCDs the same but produced better or are they a different file type?