I'm playing MP3s on my iPod, which says enough... MP3 doesn't offer
that great quality. You need lower than 20Hz and higher than 20,000Hz
for really great sound. What the human ear "can hear" doesn't matter
because you can still feel it.
As an example, a tiger's roar goes lower than 20Hz but even beyond
"hearing range", you can still "feel" the roar, which will make your
hair stand up on end. There's more to sound than just "what you hear".
For 99% of what you need (BoRg obviously excepted as he does pro
audio), the sound quality in an iPod or MP3 is "good enough" though.
For the iPod vs. PSP thing - I wonder what the original content was and
how it was ripped to whatever format is was in. WMA is darn good audio
compression and easily beats MP3. If you're trying to compare a
128kbps/44.1kHz MP3 with a 128kbps/44.1kHz WMA, of course the WMA is
going to kick the b'jeezus out of the MP3 for sound quality. But
ripping a CD to a 96kHz WAV won't be any better than the CD, and if
anything will only be worse.
The quality of the encoder also matters. Xing or Blade certainly don't
give you the quality you'll get from the Fraunhofer encoder.
But I don't really see how it will make much of a difference which
player you get for sound quality as the major limitation is the audio
format. They all pretty much offer 20Hz to 20kHz frequency response
ranges, and for MP3 playback, I'm quite sure that they are all going to
use the Fraunhofer codec. So you're pretty much left with the hardware
to determine the sound quality. But I can't see the hardware in a
$300.00 MP3 player being comparable to a pair of professional studio
monitors that will deliver much more accurate sound, and run you a few
thousand dollars per monitor...
It doesn't make sense to compare a high-end Seinnheiser mic to an MP3
recorder (like Cowon's) or McIntosh playback to a Creative Labs MP3
player or an iPod. Why not start comparing your camera phone to a
Hasselblad or the new Phase One P45?
In terms closer to home here, it's like comparing MS Access to MS SQL
Server. Well, duh? They aren't really comparable. Try moving an MS SQL
Server database or emailing one... They serve different purposes and
all things considered, Access is far better than MS SQL Server for 99%
of what most people need (whether or not they use Access is another
matter - most people aren't that smart and will use Excel instead...).
Using an iPod for professional use is just silly. What do promoters
know about sound quality anyways? Those kinds of decisions need to be
made by someone who knows what they are doing.
But for sound quality, I'm not going to strap a G5 running Pro Tools to
my back with a couple DynAudio monitors around my head just to get
"good sound". It wouldn't make any difference anyways running around
busy streets with traffic noise or riding a noisy subway.
But if I were to just go out and buy an MP3 player irrespective of my
customers, I'd probably go for a Creative one - after all, if it's good
enough for Bill Gates, it's good enough for me
--- Just as an aside, check out why
Bill is the best!
Does anyone have a Cowon player? I do a fair bit of work for them from time to time.
Anyways... The iPod may not be the cat's meow, but it isn't that bad.
And you all already know that I'm pretty quick to add stuff to my
digital hate list
~!
Did I mention that
Panasonic sucks?
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Gullanian wrote:
