how many ILMers have an ipod? is it worth it?

i have no i-pod :(

i prefer low-quality recording: i have low-quality ears so expensive speakers are wasted

if you're an audiophile, you're never going to be satisfied (but apple lossless AAC is damn cool, all the same).

as for the death of the industry: well, that's a different argument. at the moment it's in an enormous state of flux, and the sooner everybody cottons on to this, the better. the majority of the music i listen to is still bought on CD (or, hey, vinyl!) and then converted to AAC for iPod listening. the iTunes music store is a good start, but its selection is pretty bloody weak (it's great if - like me - you suddenly decide you want to hear "brick" by the ben folds five at 2am, or buy some classic old album, but rubbish for new music) and i have enormous ethical problems with file-sharing. (that doesn't mean i haven't indulged. it just means i have enormous ethical problems with it.)

iPods are about convenience. and my god, they're wonderful for it.

(almost everything wd be better shorter)

I've had one since August 2002 and lurv it -- however, I very consciously use it for trips and vacations and the like, when I'm away from either my home stereo or from work. I don't use it as a day-to-day Walkman and have no wish to.

this is what i fear. maybe its my albumist way of thinking, but it seems to make it too easy to just skip listening to tracks that dont hit you on first listen.

i also worry about the benefits of being able to take SO much music with you wherever you go. it seems a bit too convenient. im not sure its healthy, being able to take 3459 songs with you all the time and having that much choice, even if is good for listening to songs on a whim, without having to worry about whether you have it or not (as you most likely WILL have it!).

Will we never tire with coming up with such terms? Albums, if I'm not mistaken, are designed to be listened to in their entirety, no?

I love it: where once I would never listen to *singles* or rarely make a mixtape, I now edit records and make my own mixes. Junior boys or Luomo sound so much better on an ipod than on speakers at low volume. Now I can listen to music while Thom puts the xbox on and play games.

i also worry about the benefits of being able to take SO much music with you wherever you go. it seems a bit too convenient.

oh yes, those mp3s weigh a ton. ;-)

The length of the CD is supposedly determined by the president of Sony Japan wanting to hear Beethoven's 9th without having to change discs.

I believe the LP length was determined via technological limitations, i.e. the minimum groove width they were able to cut at the time. At first (upon the LP's invention in 1948) they were only able to fit 18 minutes onto each side. Of course, this changed later on.

probably. i just ordered one for 260 on amazon. bit pricey but im sure ill love it when it arrives.

And indeed they are. I find it amazing that so few people seem to notice or care that 128 kbps MP3s sound so brittle and two-dimensional. (128 kbps AAC files are better, but that's not saying much.) Even when listening through the middling-quality earbuds bundled with the iPod, I can't abide anything that's been ripped at a rate lower than 224 kbps.
However, I rip all my CDs at the highest quality VBR (variable bit rate) setting offered by the iTunes software, and I will say that I can discern very little difference between the resulting MP3s and the CD originals. The trade-off is that I'm able to fit only half as many tracks onto my iPod's drive, but it's a price I'm willing to pay.

anyway, im getting my ipod this week now so woo-hoo!

well, obviously a compressed sound format is going to sound inferior to the original. but then a recording on CD is going to sound inferior to sitting in a soundproofed studio with the artist. and sitting in a soundproofed studio is going to sound inferior to miniaturising yourself and clambering into the body of an acoustic guitar, etc etc etc.

like i said upthread: an audiophile is never going to be satisfied ... with anything. there'll always be an extra-thick piece of £200 speaker cable or a quartz stylus or *something* out there to improve the sound. and that's the great thing about the iPod: you can fill it with AIFFs if you desire, or you can pack it full to bursting with tiny MP3s. it doesn't matter a jot.

(look on ile btw, think there's another thread on ipods over there)

4 years or so ago I bought an mp3/CD player, figuring I never had the right songs on 1 CD and now I could fit 8-10 albums worth of music on one disc...well I found I never had quite the right songs, even if it was for a 9 minute walk to work.

I got a palm Tungsten E when it came out and got a 128meg card. I can fit 90mins or so of music on it, but still don't have the right songs for the walk to work, let alone those times I actually listen to it for longer.

I now have a 512meg card. Can never fit what I want on it, but now I listen to 5-30 seconds of songs for the first 4 minutes of my walk, then listen to one shortish song for the rest.

I still want an ipod for the potential--I always want that other song--but I know 4/20/40 gigs won't be enough. I don't travel as much as I used to, so I don't need to store as much music w/ me, but I still lust.

here's Dr. Peter Goldmark, inventor of the LP, on his motivation:

"In the midst of listening to the first movement of this record [a classical 78]a terrible thing happened. There was a click, silence, and strange noises and then the movement continued. This happened again and again. I counted twelve sides for the four movements and eleven interruptions, of which eight were unplanned by Brahms. So eight abominable times during the rendition I was in turn enthralled and jarred, like having the phone ring at intervals while you are making love. Gritting my teeth, I asked my friends to play the concerto again, only to relive the horror.
"My initial interest in the LP arose out of my sincere hatred of the phonograph."

I'm wondering if the latter experience was drawn from the life.

*BRRRRING*
"WHAT?"
"Well, it was just five minutes later and I wanted to see if you weren't busy anymore..."

as far as iPods go, I can't be arsed to rip all my CDS and fill up my computer w/ music. I know it's lame, but I'm all about streaming and burning from Rhapsody. Maybe this year I'll spring for one.

Actually, I think this is worth exploring. Some questions:

- What high-end distortion? Why does it endemic to digital only?
- Does this apply to digital music in general (ie. CDs)?
- Is this specific to headphones or will this fatigue you mention over stereo speakers?

er, why *is* it endemic to digital only?

Does anyone have any experience of these? Are there any showstopping reasons for getting an iPod in preference to something much cheaper with 50% more capacity?

They look nicest.

They synch perfectly with iTunes. If you're not an iTunes fan, then this probably doesn't matter, but little things like being able to mark a song with a 5 stars rating to remind you to listen to it again (or one star, to get rid of it) when out and about, are nice.

I'd like more useful input than Jessica's re: my ipod battery life issue. I'm also finding that tracks on my itunes are starting to vanish without explanation. I hate technology.

sorry, that's probably not what you wanted to hear either.

Yes, I'd also be interested if you explained this a bit more. Because if we're talking about relative levels of distortion from the upper-midrange up between vinyl and CD, CD comes out rather well. It depends on the type of distortion and how we measure, of course, but I'm curious to know what you're referring to. There are any number of euphonic mechanisms at work with vinyl replay.

I've got one and I think it's a pretty good bit of kit. Having said that I haven't used an ipod so can't really compare the two. Based on my experience and what I've gleaned from elsewhere.

Pro's; cheaper, larger hdd, better battery life, better sound quality, works with most audio formats, ease in replacing battery.

Cons; larger (about size of cigarette packet), poor navigation, lack of hipster cred.

You can download notmad explorer which is supposed to be better than the bundled software, though I haven't tried it.

My advice for anyone contemplating an iPod purchase:

1) Have a decent computer. For the first two months I had a slow, 6-year old machine, the ripping and sync took way too long, and storage was a problem. Now that I have a new machine I enjoy the iPod a lot more.

2) Buy the full iPod, not the Mini. My wife, god bless her, bought my mini out of the blue and thought the 4 GB was plenty. But I'm contantly having to rotate songs in and out because it's the hard drive is full. This adds time spent organizing music in front of a computer. When technology causes you to spend more time with a computer than you did previously, that's a problem, IMO. I guess this is why I haven't bothered with playlists, it's another time drain.

3) For me personally the ease in gathering music has devalued it to a degree. Now that everything is just a download away and I'm contstantly acquiring and deleting things, I wonder if I'll ever form the kind of deep attachment to a single record or song that I used to. I think the overall effective of digital music and iPods is definitely positive, but I do think something has been lost.

I have an aging 15gb one, and more than that on my mac, so need to shuffle things around too. But I wouldn't recommend neglecting playlists - they can actually save you time in this sitution. A combination of fixed playlists of favourite tracks and albums, combined with a smart playlist of tracks added in the last, say, 6 months, reduces my juggling about to a minimum.

As for batteries, I've just come across this interesting review on ipodlounge.com. I've know about third-party replacements for a while, but these ones actually offer significantly better life than the orginal Apple ones, so they're worth considering even if your battery life hasn't yet depleted much. Also, they're pretty cheap. I'm considering getting one.

1. "it's like a radio station that only plays what I like" - Josh in Chicago

i don't want a radio station that only plays stuff i already know. that's not what i listen to the radio for.

2. "im not sure its healthy, being able to take 3459 songs with you all the time and having that much choice" - titchy

it would drive me batty. 8:30am on the subway and i'm fiddling with my 500 albums or whatever, choosing that perfect song? yeah yeah, they say. just put it on random!! well, first of all, see #1. but second of all, i just know - this is the way i am - that i'd find whatever the ipod had chosen - in its mysterious wisdom - not quite what i want to listen to. so i'd fast-forward to the next random song, hoping that it hits the spot just a little better. what the fuck is this? what has happened to me? it's not the way i want to spend my time when i'm out.

i think the other thing is that i seldom listen to portable hoonjadoonjas anyway. i don't know why, maybe i think i'm going to get hit by a truck or something if i do.

xpost: alba why don't you "get info" on it when it shows up on your desktop? of course for that you'd have to use the dreaded finder.

- What high-end distortion? Why is it endemic to digital only?
Without getting into the math, the way that digital music is stored necessarily means that the highest frequencies cannot be captured perfectly or necessarily accurately. Thus, the high end is distorted. Vinyl has several limitations as well, but the most obvious ones in that format are actually on the other end (because it's physically impossible to cut a groove that accurately reflects the lowest frequencies). (Yeah, this is the ridiculously over simplified explanation.)

- Does this apply to digital music in general (ie. CDs)?
Yes. In fact the relative amount of high end distortion is a function of the sampling rate. The sampling rate chosen for the standard CD (44kHz) was chosen specifically because it's twice the highest frequency the average human ear can detect. The idea is that the resulting distortion should be outside of the range of human hearing (cause that function involves dividing the sampling rate by two). Unfortunately that's not exactly true given that high frequencies, even when not audible, interact with and have an effect on the other frequencies being delivered through the same medium, whether it's a speaker cone or air. But for all simplified intents and purposes, it's reasonable.

Listening fatigue is caused when the brain is just doing too much work listening. (I know that's totally subjective and kinda sounds like bullshit, but that's what it is.) You work harder to listen when imaging is bad. (i.e. The brain can't make sense of where sounds are supposed to originate... this is one of the reasons I fucking hate "joint-stereo" encoding of mp3s. The imaging blows ass.) You work harder to listen when the volume is too loud or too quiet, etc.

If you've ever gotten tired just from listening to music or had to reach over and turn the music off to clear your mind, you've probably experienced it. If you've gotten a headache from listening to [good] music, it's time to get some new speakers or at least make sure you didn't wire one channel of your stereo inverted. (The other problem with just about everyone's system isn't the system itself but the acoustics inherent when you're listening in a relatively small reflective box, which unfortunately is what 99% of the rooms in everyone's house or apartment really are.)

Imaging/sourcing suffers from boosts in certain frequencies on the high end of the spectrum (say, 1 to 4kHz). Now, if you have ever looked at a distorted waveform, you've probably seen the "artifacts" produced by clipping. In guitar distortion pedals (or distortion of other instruments), these are the same extra harmonics and false notes that can be musical. When you get way up in the high frequencies though, the extra stuff is still there, only now it's boosting and creating higher frequency artifacts, and it's fucking with a number of things including "depth" of sound and imaging. (If you ever read a book or a short tutorial on mixing sound, there are tons and tons of charts about which frequencies have which effect on which types of sounds. Most of them will tell you that values around 5kHz change the relative "distance" or "transparency" of the sound and that from 800Hz or 1kHz up to around 4kHz is the range best used to accent or bring out certain sounds. It's also the range which, if abused, can cause listening fatigue.

(Don't get me started on modern pop's obsession with compressing the fuck out of every mix in the mastering stage. It's no wonder the attention span of the average listener is shit now. They're being bombarded by music that is physically unlistenable after 30 or 40 minutes because it's just fucking exhausting. When I rip a song, I'd like to be able to look at the wave form in an editor and see something other than a fucking slightly distorted square wave. Seriously, rip a Beatles song and something off the last U2 record and compare the two visually.)

- Is this specific to headphones or will this fatigue you mention over stereo speakers?
Oh, it will absolutely happen with any kind of speakers. If you're in the pro audio business, you'll hear engineers mention listening fatigue problems with certain brands of monitors often enough that it's obviously not esoteric to them. (Certainly if your job was to listen intently while mixing for a good part of each day, it would have a large impact on you.)

There's probably some decent info around the web if you do a search on "listening fatigue."

Now back to the discussion of iPods. Pardon my tangent.

HF distortion with digital replay is more a function of the efficacy of the reconstruction filter. Listener fatigue due to analogue brickwall-filter nasties was well noted back in the day but is (or should be) mostly a thing of the past thanks to oversampling, gentler filtering techniques and noise-shaping.

I don't personally find CD the format fatiguing to listen to - some CDs, compressed to death, yes.

Although with pastel pink polo shirts w/ the collars turned up coupled with jeans with thongs being the height of fashion on men at the moment, I suppose an iPod isn't that much.

Sasha the outfit you describe has got to be the most perfect outfit for wearing white iPod earphones with, ever!!

mmmm!

mmmMMM!

First of all, I finally got a good, proper stereo, and my iPod sounds like utter shite through it. Everything is too bassy, even with the "bass reducer" setting, and lacks clarity -- I use a pretty high quality format so it's not the files.

Second, I'm very much one of those people who has no patience for shuffling -- I'm always skipping to the next song hoping to hear something better. Yet when I put a CD on, I happily listen to the whole thing.

And finally, there just seem to be too many storage issues in the long run -- I feel like I have no guarantee that I'll have these files in 5, 10, 15 years.

I have this doubt about the whole mp3 thing too. I'd love to be able to trust hard drives but it's never going to happen (everything backed up to a second hard disk unconnected to PC, and significant mp3 music burned additionally to CDR) :-(

No real reason it should. The only variables are how the files are encoded and how the ipod's connected (line-out vs. headphone jack).

And I find it hard to envision a day when I tire of having the ipod on shuffle. Why don't you try using playlists?

I'm not putting the iPod down, it's a great product and sounds decent enough through a stereo, even through the FM tuner. But it's not a replacement for a CD player.