3 High-End iPod Speaker Systems Reviewed 67
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has put together a round up of three high-end iPod speaker systems, including the new Apple iPod Hi-Fi. From the article: 'With the seemingly unending success of the iPod, accessories for the popular digital music player have become a more and more popular option for companies looking to hop on the bandwagon and make a quick buck. Companies that once had no business selling product accessories for consumer electronics are now jumping into the game because of the success of the iPod. With the growing number of stores carrying the personal audio device and a growing crop of users desiring to hear their music in more places, speaker systems have become an increasingly popular accessory.'"
Re:oh great, hear/here come the audiophile geeks (Score:1)
Headphone Jack to Composite Audio (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Headphone Jack to Composite Audio (Score:2)
That's all I have. The speakers in my stereo are already in place, and way better than the ones in these systems. And I'm not worried about controlling the iPod since I've got a shuffle and just want random anyway.
However, if you don't already have the stereo, or need a sys
Re:Headphone Jack to Composite Audio (Score:2)
Re:Headphone Jack to Composite Audio (Score:2)
I personally use an EchoAudio Indigo DJ CardBus audio interface [echoaudio.com] in my laptop connected to my upper-midrange receiver connected to my midrange speakers. Even though I paid $30 for the speakers (used) and the interface and amp were given to me I'd guarantee the setup sounds way better than any of these "desktop" speakers.
But I agree it's subjective. I went from one $400 pair of speakers (which I liked a lot) to another $400 pair of speakers and found it hard to go back. The new ones are so much better in re
Re:Headphone Jack to Composite Audio (Score:1)
Re:Dear Apple (Score:2, Funny)
Saw this earlier today... (Score:5, Informative)
It's important to do blind testing in audio. People just don't hear as well as they think they do.
Also note that everyone appears to hear differently. Vision is highly specialized, and differentiation between people is fairly low. That's why it's easy to pick out 'best' monitors, for instance. But audio isn't like that; each brain appears to figure out hearing a little differently. The brain uses, relatively speaking, very few neurons on auditory signals, which leads to (relatively) wide variations.
All sound reproduction is an illusion, and all speakers make tradeoffs, especially in the low end. It's important to listen to speakers for yourself, in blind testing, to find a set that fits your particular hearing strategy well.
Because of this, speaker reviews are much less useful than other kinds. Being geeks, we're used to being able to categorize and rank things by technical merit. Speakers just don't work like that.
Unfortunately, there's also a vast number of people in the audio business selling snake oil to take advantage of the poor hearing of most humans. So you DO have to listen for yourself.... but with BLIND testing. That's the only way to find out if a given effect is real, or just psychological.
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:2)
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:2)
And they also sounded the best. This is not a surprise. Blind testing is important. They may actually sound better to the reviewer, but blind testing is required to be certain.
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there's also a vast number of people in the audio business selling snake oil to take advantage of the poor hearing of most humans.[/quote]
Unfortunately, it's too easy to find reviews of non-quantifiable items (such as speakers) but it's near impossible (I've been unable to find) reviews of quantifiable components such as interconnection cables. Cables have power loss, impedence, bandwidths, etc. which would make it easy to determine if the $50 cable is any better than the $10 one. But I digress. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Oh yeah, and being somebody who does spend modest amounts of money on components and speakers, everybody's hearing is subjective, and to all my friends who can't tell the difference between a pair of B&Ws and a sony all-in-one from circuit city, well, they get through life spending less money than I do.
-dave
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh, finally a justification for the hearing damage I suffered from standing too close to the speakers at concerts when I was young: in fact, I was actually looking ahead to my middle age. Now I'm saving money!
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:2)
I'll save you some time: It's not.
Unless you are talking about shielded cable (where the shielding matters) or twisted-pair cable like CAT-5, there's no difference.
This is particularilly true of speaker wire. 14-guage copper is 14-guage copper. There's only 5 machine designs in the world for pulling copper wire, and a small group of factories using those machines. Mon
Cables: the issue is not black and white. (Score:1)
Re:Cables: the issue is not black and white. (Score:2)
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:2)
it's near impossible (I've been unable to find) reviews of quantifiable components such as interconnection cables.
Well, my friend, you just haven't been looking hard enough. [pipex.com] Scroll down for cable reviews.
Re:Saw this earlier today... (Score:1)
No, but not for biological reasons. It's been often reported that people like to crank up the saturation on their TV and like to have flat screens that "over-enhance" the sharpness, not to say crank up the high frequency components in the image.
My point is, we might see the same thing, but -in a way- not see it the same way, and that because of this, some people will like some fucked up badly setup low-end flat screen TV over one that according
What?!? (Score:2)
Re:What?!? (Score:2)
Sounds can be described in (at least) two ways: in the frequency domain, and in the time domain. Flat-frequency-response speakers with poor abilities in the time domain will sound like crap. If it takes longer, for instance, for treble to get through the crossover than bass, thi
It would have been helpful... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm partial to logitech models, especially the Z-680, but I'm sure ars could have found something to give us a better indicator of sound quality. Having no baseline to compare your systems to is not a very good benchmarking schema.
Re:It would have been helpful... (Score:5, Insightful)
To save the rest of you said hassle:
There's the Apple "Lo-Fi" (as I like to call it), a boom box from Altec Lansing, and Yet Another Puny Satelite System With A Subwoofer made by Klipsh. All junk. All overpriced.
What would be nice is if somebody made a rugged $50 lo-fi plastic boom box with an iPod dock. Something you could carelessly throw into an open pick-up truck bed and head to the beach with. What's the point of building a small, portable, speaker system if it's as delicate as gossimer wings, more expensive than a monthly car payment, and still sounds like ass anyway?
Bose (Score:3, Insightful)
iZilla? (Score:1)
LOL I was going to say . . . (Score:1)
Bose SoundDock? (Score:2, Informative)
Between crappy sound, non-portability, and lack of an auxiliary in, it is a terrible product. I would like to have an article I point people to and say "See, it is a crappy product and if you are so hyped up about buying a speaker system specifically for your iPod, there are better ones out there."
Re:Bose SoundDock? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bose SoundDock? (Score:1)
Theirs a great saying in the Pro-audio Industry.
"No highs? No Lows? Must be Bose"
so true. My pet peve is I go to the bose store to look at their headsets, only to find they don't have any frequency response graphs out or any other technical info.... just price and that its "Sound Canceling!"
ARG!! I'll take my sennheisers anyday.
"expensive" != "high end" (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's the comparison to a $150 stereo amplifier and a $250 pair of bookshelf speakers to see how much you lose by going "IPod enabled" ?
Re:"expensive" != "high end" (Score:2)
Re:"expensive" != "high end" (Score:3, Insightful)
Two outstanding "bookshelf" sp
Re:"expensive" != "high end" (Score:2)
they sound better than hifi speakers
Re:"expensive" != "high end" (Score:2)
Re:"expensive" != "high end" (Score:2)
Re:"expensive" != "high end" (Score:2)
My point was that article adressed almost nothing audio quality wise, and that it was odd to call those speakers "high end."
Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2)
There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of using an iPod for any kind of 'true' high-end audio application, and that flaw is the iPod's output.
The iPod has a small power amplifier at its output, which is how it drives the headphones - and this is not a good thing if you are planning on connecting it to another preamp and power amp, or to an integrated amp / receiver. The power amp section is a major source of sonic artifact, and no matter how wonderful the backend electronics and speakers are, you are
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2)
e.g. stuff that isn't on CD, performances that are not or badly digitized, and indeed stuff that for some reason still sounds better on vinyl. Admittedly, the last reason meaning that your ear is more attuned to the typical vinyl sound, so in that case it doesn't mean the vinyl is "better".
But the first two reasons still count. Especially if you're not solely into "popular" music. Which doesn't necessarily mean you'
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:1)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:1)
I'm not yet sensitive enough that low sound quality, but I am getting to be more picky. Pink Floyd, for example, I simply can't tolerate as an mp3 or played on crappy speakers.
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:4, Informative)
None of the speaker systems reviewed here connect through the headphone jack. They all use the dock connector.
Dock connector, eh? (Score:2)
Thank you for tidying up my uninformed original post, wherein I had made a dumbass of myself.
While I appreciate the information on the iPod's docking port, I will still stubbornly refuse to listen to it, for several reasons which I shall make-up as required.
Re:Dock connector, eh? (Score:2)
And that, smartass, is how people get on my friends list.
Re:Dock connector, eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:2)
Re:Fundamental flaw in all of this (Score:1)
B.
A440 is the A ABOVE middle C. (Score:3, Informative)
No such thing as iPod Hi-Fi (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:No such thing as iPod Hi-Fi (Score:2)
iPod supports lossless formats (Score:2)
...such as AIFF and Apple Lossless [wikipedia.org].
Also, these systems don't use the headphone jack to get the music. They use the dock connector, which allows for much higher quality.
Re:No such thing as iPod Hi-Fi (Score:1)
Maybe he *should* have read the manual... (Score:2)
If you have an iPod connected to the dock connector port and a different audio device connected to the audio input port you can select between the playback of these two devices by press and holding the Menu button on the remote.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 333#faq11 [apple.com]
i don't get it (Score:1)
Here's a good Mid-Fi and a real Hi-Fi system (Score:1)