|
Articles and Reviews
|
The Apple iPod - Part 2 Choice of Players
Before finally deciding to buy into Steve Job’s evil consumer empire (if Macheads can rail against the monopolistic Gates and Windows, I can rant against Job’s and Apple J), I looked at other products that compete against the iPod. During this process, I was given much guidance by a coworker, who was Yoda to my Luke Skywalker in matters concerning the proper methods to rip CDs to MP3s and which players would appeal to the audiophile in us – Luke use the FLAC to create LAME, don’t give in to the dark side of low bit rate MP3 conversion. Not that a “real” audiophile would really want anything to do with compressed music playback. Hell, it took almost a decade after the release of the CD format that audiophiles finally decided that it could be musically satisfying compared to vinyl playback. And this was only after companies like Arcam begat another component to lust for in the form of an outboard DAC, but most likely, CDs were finally accepted only after the mighty Mark Levinson (the company, not the man) produced their stratospherically priced Reference 30 and 31 transport and DAC combo (discontinued in 2003). But, but…real audiophiles have taken to the iPod. No less an authority than Stereophile magazine gave it a huge endorsement in a Wes Phillips review from 2003 and editor John Atkinson proclaimed it to be the Editor’s Choice in the 2003 Product of the Year sweepstakes. Whoa, dude, major audiophile approval factor! Another recent review by an e-zine connected to the Absolute Sound magazine (the other major audiophile publication in the US) only confirmed that the iPod was the king of the hard drive based players not only in ergonomics, but just as importantly, in sound quality. With such illustrious plaudits conferred onto the iPod, who am I to go against the grain. In researching hard drive based players, I found that the big players on the market all generally offer good sound quality, but what ultimately sets them apart is in terms of features, functionality, accessories, and third-party support. In terms of features, the players from iRiver offer the most. In terms of functionality and ergonomics, the iPod is the hands down winner. But, the Rio Karma also offers some features that audiophiles may find seductive that are not found on the iRiver or iPod. In terms of accessories and third-party support, the iPod has next to no competition for what is available for it. Yoda even mentioned how some car manufacturers and car stereo makers were offering iPod support and allowing easy connection to enjoy your iPod on the road, and yes Yoda owns an iPod too. I vacillated
back and forth between the iRiver and the
iPod and Yoda continued to mention the
Ultimately,
I had to ask myself what I wanted the player for and how I expect
to be using it. Would it be as a portable device only, or would it
have to be good enough to hook up to a stereo and become another source
component. If the former then the iPod would seem the better choice,
but if the latter than the
The Rio Karma is a serious dark horse contender because it supports lossless FLAC and OGG Vorbis formats, as well as gapless playback. In fact, knowing what I know now about file formats and player limitations, the Rio Karma is likely what I would have purchased. I should have listened to Yoda right from the start, who knew of what he spoke, but I fell for the seductive elegance of the iPod and the cheap close out price for the 40 GB model. In the lead up to buying an iPod, the 40 GB version that I desired was discontinued. While a 40 GB Photo version is available, I have no desire to use an iPod as a photo-viewing device. There are superior options for digital photographers wanting a photo viewer that can also be a backup device for the storage of image files from a digital camera, such as the highly regarded Epson 2000, or in my opinion, given the cost and size of the Epson 2000, a cheap notebook computer. Yes, I know, a notebook is getting away from the concept of ultra portable that the iPod offers, but after a certain cost is reached, it makes little sense to me to spend $700 on a 60 GB iPod Photo when a cheap notebook only costs another $200 more and offers a far superior way to view photos. The 20 GB version of the iPod is still available and the price dropped by a small amount since the time the 40 GB version disappeared off of the Apple website. Unfortunately, the 20 GB iPod does not come with a docking station, which is a handy accessory for those wanting a beefier signal into a hi-fi. The docking station is another $50 bought on its own. I went into a local shop ostensibly to look for some recordable DVDs, but happen to peruse by the iPod section to see if any discontinued 40 GB models might still be available. No display models were seen, but I noticed the price tag of CAN $420 for the 40 GB model, which is a nice discount from the original CAN $530 price from just a couple of weeks before purchase. At $420, it was a no-brainer decision to buy this closeout sale on a discontinued model than to buy a 20 GB iPod and a docking station for $430. I get the docking station with the 40 GB model and I double my capacity. Done deal and I now own my very first piece of Apple hardware – no, it does not mean I’m on the slippery slope towards Mac ownership J After buying the iPod, that weekend, I got an advertisement flyer for the same store listing the 40 GB iPod I had just bought for an even cheaper amount of $400. I went back the next week and got the difference refunded thanks to the price protection policy. Apparently, all remaining stock of the 40 GB iPod flew out the store at the $400 price, as the clerk mentioned that many people had come in wanting the $400 iPod. However, finally buying an iPod opened a can of worms for which file format I should use. The iPod supports Apple’s own AAC, AIFF, and Apple Lossless, as well as MP3 and WAV, which is not bad, but misses out on Microsoft’s WMA (for obvious reasons), OGG Vorbis, and FLAC. For music at home, I’m inclined to archive my CD’s to a lossless file type and use those files for serious playback. But then again, at home, why wouldn’t I just use the original CD anyway? Thus, the need or desire to use a hard drive MP3 player as a high quality source component is not a big factor. I’m also looking into up-sampling CDs via software to 24-bit, 96 KHz files on DVD discs that are apparently superior to playing back CDs on an up-sampling CD player. Of course, one must use a DVD player to play these up-sampled discs. Where the iPod can see some time as a source component at home is to act as a large jukebox for background listening, when one is not listening for absolute musical satisfaction and fulfillment. Personally, I think there are too many file formats on the market and my approach to things is always simplicity. What’s the most convenient method to obtain the best sounding music for on the go and at home via the hi-fi, or the computer? Some music lovers will not sacrifice any quality in their music playback and will live with inconveniences in ergonomics and usability. Consider how many still love buying and listening to vinyl records via tube amplification, designs of which have not changed dramatically in half a century. They put up with floating biases in the tubes, burn outs, flatulent bass, scratches and pops, not to mention space heater like warmth in the summers to get that “magic” sound. For others, quality matters, but so does ease of use and convenience and knowing that if I don’t turn on my amp for a week, I don’t have to be down on all fours with my ass in the air having to re-bias the tubes. I write this all in good jest as a formerly neurotic audiophile myself who ensured that his signal cables crossed at 90-degree angles to power cords whenever they converged. Who has heard firsthand the magic that certain Shun Mook products (not the Mpingo discs) can instill upon the music. And, who once took to washing his CDs in a $25 magic elixir that looked a lot like 25 cents worth of diluted Palmolive dish soap and buffing them dry with a chamois because the CD manufacturing process leaves a residual layer of gunk on the playing surface (actually true). Believe it or not, I once read with seriousness, a discussion on whether or not audio quality is degraded when cables are tidy and orderly, or heaped in a tangled mess. Now that I’m older, I just don’t have time for all that neurotic crap and I’m not certain my ears are so good anymore that they could tell any difference between all the different compression applications on the market. Going with a proprietary format doesn’t make much sense because what if in a year or two down the road a superior player than the iPod comes to market? As far as I know, AAC and AIFF files are only supported by the iPod. If you purchase music files via Apple’s iTunes, you purchase AAC files instead of regular old MP3s. Other online music download services sell WMA files, which are at least more compatible with a wider number of players, but the file protection policy really blows for wanting to playback your paid for music files on different devices. Part 3 Ripping Methods & Workflow |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
