IPOD's

[brushro]

this may be on the outskirts of this audioholics forum but i would like to ask about the IPOD type products...my wife & son enjoy the books on CD & i'm wondering where i could start researching to become more familiar with application & functions...i'm not a real savvy tech type guy so the more layman's approach the better.Thank You

 

[jaxvon]

Portable hard drive players are great. While obviously the MP3 format isn't the highest of fidelity, they're great for casual listening, and for books on tape/CD they're perfect. The iPod actually has very good specs for sound quality, so it will sound awesome when using a lossless format (like FLAC, or whatever Apple's proprietary one is). If you have a bunch of books on CD, you can easily rip them as MP3s on your computer and stick them on an iPod or something similar. And a 40GB iPod can hold a LOT of books, even at a 192kbps bitrate. As far as players go, iPod is still generally though of as the best. Great specs, functionality, etc.

 

[smiler_jerg]

I realise this thread was abandoned a while ago, but I thought I should point out a few things.

Firstly, FLAC is a wonderful format, but you won't get it on an iPod. iPods will only play MP3 files and Apple's propriety formats. There is, as you say however, the Apple Lossless Format. There's a catch here as well though - you can only produce Apple Lossless files with a Mac. If you have a PC, forget it - it's either AAC or MP3 for you!

Also, the iPod is technically rather inferior. As brilliant as it is for design, functionality, etc. it's been frequently stated that its sound quality isn't as good as other MP3 players. I'd suggest you look at makes such as iRiver (some of their players support FLAC and OGG), Rio and Creative.

 

[gellor]

Firstly, FLAC is a wonderful format, but you won't get it on an iPod. iPods will only play MP3 files and Apple's propriety formats. There is, as you say however, the Apple Lossless Format. There's a catch here as well though - you can only produce Apple Lossless files with a Mac. If you have a PC, forget it - it's either AAC or MP3 for you!

Also, the iPod is technically rather inferior. As brilliant as it is for design, functionality, etc. it's been frequently stated that its sound quality isn't as good as other MP3 players. I'd suggest you look at makes such as iRiver (some of their players support FLAC and OGG), Rio and Creative.

Actually, you can rip apple lossless on a PC. From iTunes, you navigate to the Importing tab and select Apple Lossless. (At least that's been an option since version 4.6 when I started using iTunes)

I can't attest to others opinions, but without doing a side-by-side comparison, I will say that the iPod playing apple lossless files through a stereo minijack to RCA cable on my stereo at home actually sounds quite good. I'm sure ymmv with lossy formats, however, depending on your codecs.

 

[brushro]

Thanks to all !!!

 

[gellor]

Thanks to all !!!

If its an actual iPod you're interested in, brushro, check out http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/books/

You can buy audiobooks directly through iTunes to listen on your iPod. I'm not sure the actual filesize from there, so I can't tell you how many books you could fit, but I'm sure at least a couple. (It would also depend on the size of ipod you got)

For more information, you can also look at the following links on apple's website: http://www.apple.com/itunes/jukebox.html
http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/
as well as any of the pages there on the different ipods.

Just note that any songs or books you buy from apple will only be available on the ipod/itunes.

Another option is to buy any of the windows media compatible mp3 players, and get a subscription to http://www.audible.com/adbl/entry/premBonusOffer.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&hwtab=1 for your audiobooks.

 

[WmAx]

While obviously the MP3 format isn't the highest of fidelity, they're great for casual listening, and for books on tape/CD they're perfect. The iPod actually has very good specs for sound quality, so it will sound awesome when using a lossless format (like FLAC, or whatever Apple's proprietary one is).

Will sound awesome with a lossless format? Why won't it sound awesome with MP3[done with a modern encoder and preset of course]? I don't pretend to know what you really meant, but it sounded as if you implied that MP3 is not sufficient for hi-fidelity use[despite evidence that is contray to this notion, as can be found on the hydrogenaudio.org codec research forums].

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

this may be on the outskirts of this audioholics forum but i would like to ask about the IPOD type products...my wife & son enjoy the books on CD & i'm wondering where i could start researching to become more familiar with application & functions...i'm not a real savvy tech type guy so the more layman's approach the better.Thank You

If you plan on using/keeping the product for more than 2 years[after which point failure becomes probable], I suggest you avoid the IPOD and all other MP3 players that do not have user replaceable batteries. Unless you want to pay about $100 and wait 2-4 weeks for a 'factory service' replacement, of course. You can find devices that have replaceable batteries if you look around. Creative makes some, and I think that Iriver also makes such units[but you will need to confirm].

-Chris

 

[jaxvon]

Yes, I was implying the higher fidelity of the lossless. MP3 has fine fidelity for most stuff, especially purely vocal (books) or newer, lower fidelity recordings (the pop recordings). It's just that a good quality source recording will sound noticably better with a lossless format, in my experiences at least. It's not night and day, but the treble noticably better and clearer.

 

[WmAx]

It's just that a good quality source recording will sound noticably better with a lossless format, in my experiences at least. It's not night and day, but the treble noticably better and clearer.

And this is not supported by the properly performed blind tests, which find that in fact, with a high quality encoder using the correct presets, that it is not possible to tell any difference excepting very rare sound samples that have an extremely low occurence on real music. And even those are usually detectable by only trained/experienced[in codec blind testing] listeners with very good hearing ability.

I used to think the same as you until I researched the issue(s) and did some select ABX testing of my own.

-Chris

 

[MDS]

The mp3 argument is a divisive one for sure. I'm with WmAx on this though. I currently have more than 5,000 mp3s that were made by ripping my cds with SoundForge and then encoding to mp3. While there are a few that don't sound quite 'right', the overwhelming majority are indistinguishable from the wave.

 

[jaxvon]

And this is not supported by the properly performed blind tests, which find that in fact, with a high quality encoder using the correct presets, that it is not possible to tell any difference excepting very rare sound samples that have an extremely low occurence on real music. And even those are usually detectable by only trained/experienced[in codec blind testing] listeners with very good hearing ability.

I used to think the same as you until I researched the issue(s) and did some select ABX testing of my own.

-Chris

I stated this merely as a matter of opinion and personal experience. Of course there were biases and preconceived notions involved.

 

[Steve1000]

You know, it's not like pop tarts. Now I bought a box of what was supposed to be cherry-frosted pop tarts. But some of them weren't frosted. Okay, maybe my wife put some old non-frosted ones in with the frosted pop tarts. But maybe not. Who knows. But I can sure tell the difference between a non-frosted pop-tart and a frosted pop-tart. I don't need any fricking double-blind test to tell me that. Hold on, I have to get a non-frosted cherry poptart out of the fricking toaster oven. Okay, I'm back, but the pop tart needs to cool off. You can spell it pop-tart, pop tart, or poptart. By the way the Giant stupid imitation poptarts are not nearly as good. I don't need any fricking double blind test to tell me that. And I'm talking frosted versus frosted, or non-frosted versus non-frosted. Anyway, even allowing that I don't need any double blind test to tell a Giant pop tart from a real pop tart, or a frosted pop tart from a non frosted pop tart, cherry or otherwise, I will say this. I'll be darned if I can tell a 192 kbps vbr mp3 from an original cd, using any decent encoder. That's all I'm saying. Okay, time to eat my non-frosted pop tart from the frosted pop-tart box. I'm going to have to talk to my wife about this. Or maybe my 5-year-old son. That is all I'm saying.

And this is not supported by the properly performed blind tests, which find that in fact, with a high quality encoder using the correct presets, that it is not possible to tell any difference excepting very rare sound samples that have an extremely low occurence on real music. And even those are usually detectable by only trained/experienced[in codec blind testing] listeners with very good hearing ability.

I used to think the same as you until I researched the issue(s) and did some select ABX testing of my own.

-Chris