Honest Question - Sound quality

[sink]

OK, first let me say this is an honest question, and not bait for a flame war.

I'm currently staring at both an iRiver iHP-120 and an iPod 40GB. I bought both this weekend, since I couldn't decide, and one will be going back soon.

The iPod was problematic (PC) to setup, but it's running now. I LOVE the physical form factor, and the access to accessories.

The iRiver though has several BIG advantages, including battery life, ease of use on a PC, and clearly better sound quality.

Now, my question (and don't laugh if it's a dumb question):

If Apple wanted to improve the iPod sound quality, would it be possible to do so via a firmware upgrade, or is that a hardware issue only?

Thanks in advance!

[netrack]

sound quality is based largely on the mp3 and at the quality it was recoreded...i try to keep all my mp3's at 192k cd quality is 128k, you should get the same quality on both, its the mp3 that makes the difference

[sink]

While I agree with you, I still content that there is differences in the devices. Sure, the media quality is certainly a question mark, but it's not just the media. Otherwise, why would anyone ever buy Bose speakers? Why not just go with Daewoo or something?

FYI, I'm comparing apples and apples. I copied the exact same set of files off my computer onto both devices. The files (songs) range from rock to classical to rap to jazz.

Simply put, one playback was higher quality than the other.

[dcx693]

Interesting observation. May I ask what headphones you were using to do this comparison? The cans that came with the respective devices? Did you use the iPod EQ? Or did you compare the flat sound from each?

Based on what I've read on this forum, the line out from the dock produce magnificent sound, but the headphone jack does not. Do a search and you'll find tons of threads.

Also, lots of users reported that the sound quality improved with the recent firmware upgrade from 2.0.1 to 2.1, so there is some hope in terms of firmware, but I believe the hardware plays a large part. When, then, would the dock line out be of higher quality than the headphone jack?

[MOCKBA]

To improve sound quality Apple needs hardware change. So stay with iRiver. Since I listen iPod mostly in a car so it doesn't bother me too much, however it isn't ready to be hooked up in a fancy home stereo. iRiver has 10 times less distortion (0.04% against 0.43%) and flat 20-20K frequency response.

[sink]

I'm not using the included headphones from either player. Same phones on each device: Sony MDR-Q33, nothing spectacular.

I didn't use the Flat setting on either. I fine tuned the iRiver (it has many more options to do this than the iPod). I selected several different EQ settings on the iPod, but didn't have much luck getting anywhere near the iRiver quality. Same MP3s, same headphones, different players.

I figured the sound quality was highly dependent on software. Personally, the line out quality on the dock means nearly nothing to me. If I wanted a great stationary stereo, I'd listen to my home system. I want a portable, and that means headphones.

[sink]

Thanks MOCKBA, I figured as much, but I was hoping. I WANT to keep the iPod, it's so #### beautiful, and the scroll wheel is one of the coolest things I have ever seen. And loving accessories, the iPod certainly holds my interest. (If not for that, it would be back in the store already) But man, the iRiver is a fierce competitor!

[Rankinfile]

Try doing a flat comparison on both. I've noticed that the ipod EQ settings will sometimes add distortion especially if the original mp3 files had too high of a db level. Set your mp3's to 89db using mp3gain, turn off all eq settings and then do a side by side. If both now sound about the same then it's probably a software issue, not hardware. If the iRiver is still better quality to your ear then the choice will be obvious. You have to satisfy your own ear or you won't be happy with your choice.

[monkedsel]

To throw in my two cents, and not that I was being addressed of course, but, I personally am not really concerned with flat sound, as... it's flat. I like using the EQ, it really adds dimension to the music... on the other hand, it can easily distort the bass (which I have been commenting on in the NY Times article thread). Some people say, well, it's the EQ's fault, and sort of try to make it seem like the EQ is somehow separate from the iPod. It's not separate, though, it's a built-in, preprogrammed feature and it should work correctly... and unless I am listening to the one in a million song with just outrageous bass that would challenge any system, I expect to be able to set the EQ any way I please without distortion. Does anyone NOT feel this way? And ironically enough, there are a lot of songs that I am intimately familiar with that aren't being played back with nearly as much bass as they should be, despite the EQ setting, and again, I would surmise that the bass in these songs are of a certain range of frequencies that are somehow being underrepresented. It's just crazy. For instance, suddenly there are rap songs with huge amounts of bass that sound as if there is hardly any at all, and rock songs with moderate bass that sound horribly distorted. It's all just really frustrating... and if you ask me, iPod's true dirty little secret is the poor bass. I mean, you can open any recent issue of Rolling Stone, and find an interview with any given musician, and they will tell you they have an iPod and love it, and it's just shocking that even the people who MAKE the music do not acknowledge this short coming, that they, musicians, are making music that goes on to be played and at some point distorted by this thing that they say they love.

Is there anyone out there who feels the same way? I know the iPod is very... intoxicating somehow, but I can't be the only one who feels frustrated. If you dropped the 3-5 hundred bones on a receiver for your stereo system, this distortion, etc. would be unacceptable, but it seems like in the case of the iPod everyone likes to pretend it doesn't exist.

[sink]

"Intoxicating" is a good word. It's so #### sexy it's hard not to like. It's like that crazy girlfriend who was simply mean, but was great in bed. You defended her to your friends for the obvious reason.

EDIT: By the way, I'm as intoxicated as anyone by it. If I was comparing home stereos, I wouldn't have even given the unit with lesser quality sound a second glance.

[aswimmer94563]

if the dock output is better than the headphone jack, i wonder if the dock connector could be the key. maybe we could plug an adapter( just speculating...) into the dock plug and then into our headphones.

[dcx693]

monkedsel, I agree with you, but have become as intoxicated with the iPod as anyone else, so I've learned to live with it. I come from the minidisc world and the Sony minidiscs put out bass like you would not believe - with NO distortion. I've had to use mp3gain to set the dB level on all my tracks so they won't distort with EQ - even though those very same tracks play back just fine on my other mp3 devices.

I hate the iPod's lack of real bass - I don't care what the so-called audiophiles say.

[monkedsel]

Yes, I too once used MD... but my unit (MZ-700) tended to skip while recording and freeze during playback (all within a year of purchase), and this combined with agonizing real-time recording pushed me, slowly, into getting an iPod. I do miss the bass on that... and on the three Discmans I had... and on my PocketPC (which had more bass than all of them!). Sigh.

[lechonlubber]

The question of the iPod's sound quality has been bothering me lately. To begin with, there is no way an MP3 can sound as good as the original CD, but that's a whole other arguement. I think the real issue here is that people have gotten used to the sound of their previous devices. Most of the MP3 and CD players I have heard sound overly fatiguing to me. They design these players to the mass market who think that booming bass and piercing highs is what it's supposed to sound like. Sony devices with MegaBass is an example, it just sounds horrendous. Furthermore, the use of the "EQ" further destroys the sound. In the audio world, an EQ is used to compensate for problems in the room or environment. If you find the need to use the EQ, it's probably because the recording has issues, your headphones are lacking, or you just don't know what good sound is. I decided on the iPod not just on the great features and design, but because it presented the cleanest sound. I also accept the fact that it will not replace the source equipment in my reference system. It does sound pretty decent using the dock line out to a simple integrated amp and a pair of bookshelfs. Musicians who have iPods know what their music is supposed to sound like, that is why they like it so much. As a portable device, the iPod is the benchmark for all others.

[Mediahound]

i'm running my iPod with AAC 192kps files. and i frequently use Sony MDR-7506 headphones, which are studio monitors used in recording studios (great headphones!).

the audio quality out of the iPod is impressive. i can't tell a difference between playing the CD and playing the iPod. i'm sure there is a difference, but it's not a level that is perceptible to me. i'm a happy iPod camper!

PS-the headphones you are using make a big difference.