Steve Jobs - Vinyl better than iPod

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by CloneRanger, Feb 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,833
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094590/Steve-Jobs-listened-vinyl-home-iPod.html

    Ain't that the truth :D
     
  2. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Vinyl is analogue while mp3's are a compressed digital format. The differences between the two, especially with regards to audio quality, are immense. Not only that, I'm sure he played it back on some mighty impressive hi-fidelity equipment, maybe even vaccuum tube amplifiers. The tiny surface mount semiconducters in the iPod and its earbuds are no match against a high-end home audio system.
     
  3. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    But good luck carrying one around with you.
     
  4. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    iPods and such are cheap and convenient. That's all. When you've got $$$ to blow like it's chump change, and you're at home, why would you sit in your easy chair listening to inferior quality music, which mp3's are, on your iPod and earbuds when you can listen to it through a high end audio system and truly enjoy the experience. The difference between the two are like night and day.
     
  5. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    If only people would quit carrying them around so much. Let me tell you, I get sick to death of head-bobbing people walking out in front of my car, or even worse, nutballs yapping away on cell phones in cars (even though it's illegal where I am and they still do it). I want to strangle them with the damn headphone cord. More on topic, Vinyl is far and away better than digital audio ever could be, but, as has been mentioned, audio equipment is even more important than the medium played on it.
     
  6. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    What are we actually comparing here?

    Vinyl vs MP3 as a format specifically?
    Yes, vinyl is better in terms of quality but differences are quite small and one needs really good equipment and the proper music to hear them.

    Vinyl vs compressed (lossy) audio?
    What I said above applies here as well.

    Vinyl vs digital audio in general?
    Now we're entering the "voodoo zone" - vinyl is better than CD. Wrong! CD as a format is completely capable of reproducing sound flawlessly. And it has the additional benefits of not degrading over time, not having skips, crackles, noise, and being much more portable than a record. Now, how the audio is mastered for vinyl and CD, what equipment is being used, and to what kind of music one is listening to are a whole different matter. The point is that CD as a medium/format is not inferior to vinyl. If anything, it's actually superior.

    Vinyl vs portable audio players?
    Well of course it vinyl is better. Any home mid- or high-end audio equipment is most definitely better than a mediocre portable audio player. It's not a fair comparison at all.

    As far as this new format that would allow the music to "stay truer to its original form", well, we have that and it's called "lossless audio". We've had it before the year 2000. Granted, it's popularity didn't increase until a few years ago but it's nothing really that new. Formats like Shorten, FLAC, TAK, Monkey's Audio, The True Audio, WavPack, OptimFROG, and even Apple's ALAC are all lossless formats that retain 100% of the data on the CD.
     
  7. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr

    Ermm ... (a) this is a story from the Daily Mail 'Arts' section which is loosely analogous to the sorts of arts endorsed by the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. And (b) maybe he was just a nostalgia buff who loved the warm crackle of classic vinyl LPs. There is still something magical about putting that big round disc with a hole in the centre onto a turntable & manually dropping the stylus into the groove. Excuse me while I go & dig out my old Echo & the Bunnymen & Kate Bush albums ...
     
  8. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Disagree. Convert Flac to AAC or even 320kbps MP3. The human ear cant detect any differences in sound quality going 224kbps and up. Above that every thing sounds the same to the human ear. All depends on the format and if proper encoding was done. Tube amps are no cleaner than your iPod ear buds. The tubes color the music. They are colored. There is a difference between pleasant distortion and unpleasant distortion. The tube amps are pleasant distortion. The listener generally agrees that a tube amp is more warm sounding.
     
  9. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    This is why most rock guitarists prefer valve (tube) amplifiers. I once owned an old valve radio that was older than I was, it had an amazing tone for a radio. I also had an old VOX valve amplifier for my Fender Stratocaster guitar & I regularly used Marshall valve amplifiers. The sound from a valve (tube) is still almost impossible to replicate. I believe that electronic valves/tubes are still being manufactured for this purpose.
     
  10. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Assuming all the components making up a home hi fidelity system are even average quality, let alone above average, including the interconnects, there is no way in the world the sound quality of the iPod and earbuds, including its dynamic range, distortion levels and depth perception afforded to the listener, can come remotely close to matching that of the home hi-fi system, including one using vacuum tubes in the amplifier stages.
     
  11. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Im not talking about any of that. Im referring to the quality of the music itself. Doesnt matter where it is played. Anything over 224kbps MP3 and the human ear will not detect a difference in sound quality on a good set of headphones, a car audio system, or in a home setup.
     
  12. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    I really hate what things like the iPod have done to music. Growing up in the 70's and 80's anyone with any taste had a good quality audio system. It is hard to even buy audio components anymore. When you can find them you have to buy them online and can't preview the quality. :(
     
  13. CogitoTesting

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Posts:
    901
    Location:
    Sea of Tranquility, Luna
    Wait a minute

    If the story is true then I want money back since i have bought several of Steve's Ipods thus far for my family. You heard me, I want my money back Steve... ;)


    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  14. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    We'll agree to disagree then. The barometer I used to use (before I lost hearing in my left ear due to Menieres disease, not loud music ;) ) for comparing even the so called "lossless" mp3 recordings to that of full dynamic range music found on a quality recorded cd is as follows:

    1. listen to 256 - 320 kb mp3 recordings through any system for approx 30 minutes at a moderate volume level. Turn off the music and how did I feel at that moment. The answer is RELIEF!

    2. Play similar type music off of a quality recorded cd for the same amount of time. Turn off the music and how did I feel at that moment. Typically like I wanted to hear more.

    The mp3's tended to make my ears and head hurt after a while. I couldn't say the same about the cd recordings, especially a good recording done as A-A-D.
     
  15. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Well congratulations. Your body defies science.
     
  16. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    Sounds like the old "eyes don't see over 30fps" argument.
     
  17. whitedragon551

    whitedragon551 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Posts:
    3,189
    Location:
    USA
    Not even close. Ignorance is bliss.
     
  18. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    It is almost always the case that it is the device (headphones, speakers, etc) that degrades quality and not the format - if you're using FLAC on same quality speakers as a Vinyl, negating the fact that some things were recorded for Vinyl etc, the FLAC will sound be same if not better quality.

    A lot of Vinyl records sound so good though imo because
    1) My Vinyl player has great speakers hooked up
    2) The music on it was recorded for Vinyl and probably when they were in the recording studio trying to get it right they were trying to get it right for Vinyl
     
  19. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest


    My experience while not scientific speaks volumes of the reality I perceived. There's a very good reason why music lovers don't play mp3's through their $20,000+ systems; they simply do not match the quality of the recording typically found on a cd, especially if the original analog recording put to digital media is of exemplary quality, such as, one that comes immediately to mind, Sir Thomas Beecham's late 50's recording of Scheherazade :) Even for that era, the recording quality is simply outstanding. I converted it to high bit-rate mp3 (320kbs), and as expected it did not match the quality of the cd recording. And sure, those mp3 recordings will sound far better than if played on an iPod with a set of earbuds, but the full cd recording sounds better.
     
  20. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Whether or not human can perceive the differences after a given value (if that's even a proven fact), the simple reality is that, the original audio format is made of the sound it self (to put it lightly) and information (bits). MP3 is only the sound itself. FLAC is both (sound+bits), just compresses the bits without quality loss.
     
  21. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    I don't know about FLAC, only mp3, but I'll take your word for it. My original response was simply that for Jobs or anyone who owns a quality home audio system is going to enjoy the music listening experience far more on that system off of vinyl or even a well recorded cd than through an iPod or similar device playing back digital compressed audio. It kind of turned into a vinyl vs digital compressed audio thread :) Sorry if I influenced it toward that direction.

    The electronics make an enormous difference as well. If you drive those high-end speakers with a $200 Yamaha then try it on a $5000 Mark Levinson setup you will not want to go back to the Yamaha.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2012
  22. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Yeah I'm not really sure where the argument came up. I somehow agree with pretty much every post in this topic...
     
  23. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    There have been lots of opinions over the years where people argue that mp3or similar audio is just as good as the original. All I can say is from my experience, it's not something I can formulate scientifically through the use of oscilloscopes or spectrum alayzers and such, but rather just from perception. When I listen to compressed digital audio, over time I feel annoyed and irritated by it, for lack of a better description, and feel better after it's turned off. I feel a lot more relaxed and drawn into the music when it's played off the original cd media. In a nutshell that's the best I can explain it.
     
  24. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    To any of you claiming/thinking MP3 (or any other lossy format for that matter) can't sound as good as an audio CD and that difference is obvious, there is one sure way to prove it: ABX.
    Your claims mean nothing unless such a test is performed.

    Also, knowing that you're listening to a certain source can trick the mind. It's called a placebo effect.
    ABX/double-blind listening tests are also the way to go here.

    P.S.:

    No such things exist.
    There are lossless formats that compress without losing any quality: Shorten (SHN), Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC), Monkey's Audio (APE), OptimFROG (OFR), Tom's lossless Audio Kompressor (TAK), Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC), The True Audio (TTA), WavPack (WV) and others.
    And there are lossy formats that compress a lot better but information is thrown away (hence the term "lossy"): MPEG-2 Audio Layer III (MP3), Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), MusePack (MPC), Vorbis (OGG) and others.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  25. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    It's just use of general terminology to describe higher bit-rate mp3's, without getting technical about things.

    As for claiming placebo effect, you're full of it and sadly mistaken in thinking you get something for nothing in life, including the misconception that mp3's are equal in audio quality to the full, unaltered recording.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.