I suppose it depends on what's important to the end user. For me (and I believe a lot of people), utility trumps quality. I'd much rather a cassette sized machine in my pocket that holds my entire collection as opposed to say a suitcase full of CD's I'd need to haul to get the superior quality.

it's gotta suck for the people in music business that we aren't all audiophiles with $10K systems setting at home but....
(kinda like getting a great filet mignon and slapping it on a bun with ketchup.)
Greg | 09.12.07 - 3:43 pm | #

leo, are you still offering to dump your ipod video?
Rob | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 3:46 pm | #

Rob- If you take me on a cook's tour of Homicide/The Wire Balto you can have my iPod video. Oh, and throw in a shark dinner too. That will only set you back three bucks.
Leonardo | 09.12.07 - 4:22 pm | #

throw in some free lesbian porn on the ipod and we have a deal
Rob | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 4:45 pm | #

This is stupid. I worked in recording studios in the 80s, and the reference then was a small boombox or a couple of crappy bookshelf speakers. You took the mix to as low a volume as you could and made sure the vocal (or whatever the lead was, but this was six sigma probability a vocal), bass drum, and snare drum could be heard.

Why? Because music prior to the iPod was primarily listened to over crappy cassettes with crappy dynamics, worse frequency response, and little stereo separation. Unless it was over an FM radio, which compressed the sound far more than the highest compression setting on iTunes.

There was a brief period where music was listened to on CDs in addition to FM radio (that hasn't changed), and the systems it goes through aren't much better than the ones in the 80s. The crap speakers you buy at Circuit City are not appreciably better than a pair of earbuds.

For everybody but people who spend $5000 on a pair of speakers, the sound experience between an iPod and what they used to listen to is just not appreciable. I only spend $2500 on a set of speakers, so while I can hear a slight difference, it's irrelevant.

Does anybody really think the Walkman was fundamentally better in any way than the iPod, aside from affordability?
Sandy | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 11:07 pm | #

Sandy's right, and it even goes further than that. In the early and mid 60's, the reference was AM radio sound. The only period where music was sound engineered for "good sound" was the late 60's to late 70's when the reference was a typical home stereo. Jazz and classical were usually referfenced for home stereo listening, but by the late 80's even jazz was getting the "how does it sound in the car" treatment.
Russ | 09.13.07 - 9:31 am | #

First of all, you don't have to compress music for the iPod. Personally I use 320kbps MP3 - that's good enough that I can't tell any difference between the original source. And those earbuds? Yeurch. Get some nice canalphones and be done with it.
Eion | 09.13.07 - 10:50 am | #