ipod v. ZEN

The simplest wave form are the most pleasing to the ear aren't they? OF course here at PA we are concerned with what's pleasing to the mind as well. 

Edited by Deathrabbit - March 22 2007 at 17:21

Creative have too long a history of making crap soundcards for me to give them a chance (Ok, that's probably more my failing than theirs these days..!) and iPods are just overpriced for what they do. I've not seen anything to rival Cowon, although iRiver and Archos aren't bad. And Neuros, if you don't mind something a bit bulky.

All that said, I might end up working for a subsidiary of Creative next year so


Re bitrates/lossless compression, another interesting point is that noisier recordings are much harder to compress - that's not surprising from a technical point of view because of Fourier Transform and all that malarky, but it's counterintuitive because many people expect to be able to use low bitrates on poor quality originals, wheras it's actually probably likely to make more of a difference than on a quality modern recording...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it depends on the music too. There are complex audio signals which are hard to compress, and simple signals which are easy to compress. Basically the more is going on in the music the more difficult it is to reduce the information without any audible change. Here are some albums which are very difficult to compress ... try any of them (Lossless/CD vs. 160kbps mp3) and you'll most definitely hear a difference. I picked those because I rip the CDs using variable bitrates, which means that the encoder chooses higher bitrates for complex signals and lower bitrates for simpler signals, and those albums were the ones with the highest resulting bitrates. Anata - Under a Stone with No Inscription Into Eternity - The Scattering of Ashes Disillusion - Back to Times of Splendor Devin Townsend - Synchestra Converge - You Fail Me

I would also add The Human Equation, sounds terrible but acceptable.

^ no. The complexity of a signal is essentially determined by how many frequencies are active simultaneously ... the least complex signal is silence (obviously), the second least complex signal is one perfect sine wave (one frequency). All other signals can be thought as a combination of different sine waves layered on top of each other.  The more independent waves there are, the more difficult it is to remove information without affecting the quality. mp3 uses some tricks - some parts of the signal cannot be heard anyway for various reasons and can be left out without any problems. But when the desired bitrate is too low, the algorithm also removes parts which are audible ... particularly in high frequency sounds. Cymbals are a good benchmark.

^ it depends on the music too. There are complex audio signals which are hard to compress, and simple signals which are easy to compress. Basically the more is going on in the music the more difficult it is to reduce the information without any audible change.

Here are some albums which are very difficult to compress ... try any of them (Lossless/CD vs. 160kbps mp3) and you'll most definitely hear a difference. I picked those because I rip the CDs using variable bitrates, which means that the encoder chooses higher bitrates for complex signals and lower bitrates for simpler signals, and those albums were the ones with the highest resulting bitrates.

Anata - Under a Stone with No Inscription
Into Eternity - The Scattering of Ashes
Disillusion - Back to Times of Splendor
Devin Townsend - Synchestra
Converge - You Fail Me






Edited by MikeEnRegalia - March 21 2007 at 02:40

I have an 80 GB Ipod.  I love it because I've got many many albums in ALAC format on it, and the sound quality on them is amazing.  right now I have about 2800 songs  equalling around 20-21 GB (because of the file size that comes with the lossless albums) and It's just great.  I also have about 7 GB of video files.  I dunno if I'll ever completely fill it up, but I'm gonna try my best to 

bhikkhu wrote: It's funny, but you would think 20GB would be more than enough. I still have a hard time when reloading music. I go to delete things, and I hesitate. I use my ipod all of the time, and I like having a lot of options. I can't predict what I will be in the mood to listen to when I get out of work, or when I am traveling.

Believe it or not, I cant even fill up a 4 gig nano. I had a 30 gb video ipod but never even came close to using all the space so when some men of low moral fiber made off with it and my car stereo, I just replaced it with a nano. Maybe I'm just too picky about what I listen to.

To be quite honest I don't like listening to music with headphones. They make my ears hurt and/or give me a headache. I plan to only use MP3 players for use in my car (when I've invested in a new iPod, stereo and speakers for my automobile). All very expensive but I spend a lot of time in my car so it's worth it I feel.

Edited by Paradox - March 04 2007 at 19:07

No, I use an iPod, so I am forced to convert.  I would do it anyway, though.  My headphones are quite nice, Etymotic Research 6i Isolaters.  Top-of-the-line in-ear headphones.  And I STILL don't hear lossyness.  I guess that's good for me, though; more music in less space!

FLAC is WAYYYYY too bulky for me.  I use it primarily to trade bootlegs electronically (most traders will not accept lossy sources), then convert to 128 kb/s mp3's for listening.  I find that a 128 sounds the same to me as a lossless source, so I don't bother taking up any more space than that.