Printer-friendly version

What does classical music sound like on an iPod ?

From Brian Kelly
Posted May 4, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Also, for a serious musician, the use of ear buds worries me. Seems like it would be awfully easy to damage the inner ear.

Just kidding. ;)

As long as your MP3s are at a high enough bitrate, greater than say 192 kilobits give or take (that's debatable), the loss in sound quality while still measurable by the most sensitive of recording equipment, will be so subtle as to be totally unnoticeable by the human ear. Many audiophile snobs will swear up and down and every other way on their very lives that they can still hear the sound loss, but in blind listening tests, they simply cannot.

When I listen to Sibelius or Ralph Vaughan Williams on my iPhone through my neodymium headphones, the sound quality is so stunningly clear that any bad talk about MP3s becomes utterly laughable. The only time I do detect any degraded sound quality is with my car's crappy speakers which always distort at any volume over moderate levels, and that distortion has nothing to do with MP3s anyway.

And Lisa, don't kid yourself. If you dock your iPod into a system like this (http://i618.photobucket.com/albums/tt266/NY1PR2009/DSC01853.jpg) loaded with really high quality MP3s, trust me, you could hear a gnat fart in a Mahler symphony. Not that one NEEDS a home audio system like that to hear such detail, since I can hear that third horn line just fine through my $120 headphones.

some people without very trained ears cant hear the difference between anything, like the strad vs modern debate, however cds were designed as a musical compromise, the inventors wanted sound as good as blue ray cds, but at the time the cds would have to be as big as lps so they didnt think that was marketable and agreed on a compromised system, cd format, mp3s are a whole level of more compromises based on the premise, the average person just doesnt care about sound quality, like ron, however a person used to live music is going to be very dissapointed with compromised systems like the mp3, as they by no means deliver anything close to audiophile sound quality, mp3s also have an inbuilt cut off of the highs that cds dont have...

I'm stepping out of this thread now because it's just going to go downhill from here. Some posters don't seem to know any better anyway, and there's no use in arguing with them since in their little worlds they can never be wrong about their factually baseless claims.

I've got a system based on an iPod where you can, literally, hear the musicians move their feet, the page turns, and feel the sub-audible rumble of trucks passing outside. Close your eyes, and if someone in the hall makes an unexpected noise, you'll think you're sitting right there in the hall. I'll give you a hint: it's not based on a pair of $200 designer-crap headphones from the Apple store.

If I were going to suggest one single thing you could do to maximize what comes out of your iPod, it would be to attack the real shortcomings of the system, worst first, which isn't the MP3 standard, it's the headphones. Spend some real money on headphones, then next, some real money on an amp. When you have those, you'll realize that good MP3s aren't that bad, and you'll also discover that often the problem isn't MP3s, it's a crummy original recording.

If you really wanted to get into this, you'd have to really get into it, or get some help from someone who already has been through it. For instance, you can spend $300 on phones that sound great straight from the iPod, and better through an accessory amp, but you can also buy really great $300 phones that the iPod can't possibly drive and the result will sound worse than the buds that came with the iPod.

A lot of people will tell you to start by buying a set of Grado SR80i headphones (an easy $100 investment that you won't regret--they sound great right out of the iPod directly--they're one of the few quality headphones that don't need an accessory amp, though a good amp will make them sound that much better), and if you like that, keep right on going until you run out of money. :-) Then, when you're sitting there with your $1500 phones, listening through your $1000 amp, take comfort that while it may not be perfect, it's going to sound better than the average $10,000 sound system built on CDs and speakers.

Geek central for headphone-based systems: http://www.head-fi.org/ First, I spent about a year there reading everything everyone said about everything, then I spent a whole lot of moola and built a system that I don't regret having.

People who haven't heard a good system shouldn't talk about what they don't know about.

That said, from time to time, I do find certain pieces/instruments sound more pleasant on my phone than on my CD player. With CDs, the sound always has better clarity, but sometimes it can sound harsher. I think it's a little like the difference between sitting in the back and sitting in the front of a concert hall. At a distance, the sound is normally sweeter but "muddier"; if you are close to the performer, you hear more nuances, but it can also sound dry sometimes.

If you don't mind losing some clarity, than I think it's worth a try. But I would say don't expect too much.

for the audiophiles perspective on mp3 sound vs cd heres an excellent article in stereophile magazine that gets a little technical but you can skip over that, basically theres no way to get cd quality sound without taking the same number of samples as a cd, and on a 4gb ipod that limits you to 130songs

michael your 320kbps mp3 samples roughly 1/4 as many times as a cd, so its hardly audiophile quality

No one here is going to put $50,000+ into a system to tap out the audiophilability of CDs, so why are you even talking about audiophile quality level?

You haven't heard my system, have you? Best not to speak, then.

So there's been great talk about the quality of mp3 vs uncompressed format as far as I see.
It's like comparing a .jpeg image to an uncompressed .tif 100 time bigger, you lose things yes. Will you notice? Compare the .tif to the real world, you lose thing too.
Now audio quality depend on 2 things (I haven't seen a poorly encoded mp3 since more than 10years):
- the quality of you're mp3 device
- the quality of you're headset(i think it's the English name) or audio system.

The same thing doesn't sound the same everywhere, you must aim for a system that can render low and high frequency. Most bundled handset can't. If you want to listen music on the move, aim for a good handset that'll soundproof you of the outside world. If you want to list music at home. A computer with good speaker is more than enough.

But don't get me wrong, you'll still be far from a live performance. You could spend millions of $ on a sound set up and play uncompressed format, you'll still be far from a live performance.

The implied but unmentioned thing through this thread has been, by the way, headphones, not speakers, give the most sound for the dollar by a huge margin, and pair well with the iPod in flexiblily, and get the most out of it's inherent quality. These days, any good headphone amp, even portable ones, will take output from a CD player or computer USB (with MP3s, FLACs, or CDs as source), should you choose to take one of those paths.

If you want to see how that works in action, download VLC Media Player (freeware), create a VBR MP3 then look in the Media Information -> Statistics window while the mp3 is playing. I use LAME codec from a DAW to create VBR MP3, but I think it's possible using iTunes fiddling around with the preferences.

I prefer the CD format itself too (for reasons other than sound quality)...but I have a new iPod Nano with mostly classical on it...one little iPod holds a LOT of music. I also opted for larger headphones...less background noise, less irritating than the ear buds...

I'd say the sound quality...for my needs...is better than what I got with my portable CD player...

At home I still use my old 'boom box' style CD player (not the computer) and no headphones...but I won't go back to a CD player for when I'm out and about...

BTW...wondering when CDs and CD players are going to be totally obsolete...went to buy some blanks...and there was no selection...

The point is noted that whatever system is used, the speaker or headphones will have a major influence on the final result.

If I was going to spend $10,000 on something musical then it would be a good violin with a bow to match !

Just get a good quality mp3 player and invest a little extra money on some nice headphones.

As storage space increases (and the cost of it decreases), and the processing power to decode the audio increases over time, the portability of devices that allow us to listen to music continue to improve. At some point, there won't be any significant distinction between the audio generated by portable vs. wired devices.

As others have mentioned, it will be the quality of the speakers (or headphones) used that make the biggest difference.

I currently use a set of Ultimate Ears Reference Monitors, and they are absolutely fantastic!

There's the added bonus sometimes that I really don't want to hear what my favorite coffee place puts on their system, or the noise in an airplane. My portable phones happen to make great earplugs, too, with or without music. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aI7sKlZM20

or spring water or tap water

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc&feature=related

From CD ripped to MP3 and played through the same sound system I find some deterioration of quality in the MP3. But to listen to anything through cheap little speakers the sound is terrible.

Just as the quality of the violin influences what you hear, the quality of the interfaces from air to electronics and back have the greatest effect. Within the electronic production and recording there are compressions and decompressions, Fletcher Munson curves (loudness compensation) rebalancing, psychoacoustics, digitizing and many other choices that the recording engineer introduces.

The item that you can control, in my opinion, it is the quality of the device that changes the electronic signal back to sound. That is the speaker systems or earphones as many above have stated. Manufacturing of the speakers or earphones are the most skilled and labor intensive processes, therefore they are the most costly of all of the components at any quality level. Electronic assembly is highly automated therefore reasonably priced for mass market amplifiers and other components. They are very good to process your music.

When, where and why you are listening will determine what you want to spend on the system and input source. The speakers will have the greatest effect on the quality of sound therefore not the place to save money.

ABL

I record at 24 bits and 44.1 Khz although occasionally at 96 Khz. Twenty four bits gives noticeably better sound than even 16 bits and wonderful headroom when recording. I edit on computer and then produce 16 bit CD's which sound very fine on good Hi-Fi equipment. This is the method whch I use to make the odd commercial CD, but most CD's are for private consumption.

With huge hard drives of 500 GB to several T-bytes who has a space problem these days? Faster computers mean that editing programs such as Pro - Tools and the wonderful new Reaper just produce the goods with the minimum of hard work and trouble.

Why use an inferior format such as MP3 just to save a bit of hard drive space. (OK, on the move you may have to put up with inferior sound, but I listen in comfort these days).

Seems to be a lot of position taking here, which really boils down to personal preferences. Maybe this can help explain some of the abbreviation-mania and reasons behind people's choices.

Let's face it: there is no such thing as a "perfect" recording. Any recording format or equipment involves complex trade-offs. The end consumer picks a favorite, based on other trade-offs -- like availability, cost, convenience, sound, etc.

Michael did a pretty good job of summing up his trade-off selection, when he mentioned his constraints of portability and non-interference with others in public. He also touched on a very important point: minimizing the downside of your selected delivery selection. For his choice of listening location(s), a high-end turntable with direct-to-vinyl pressings would be a very bad choice. :-)

Analog

Yes, analog still has adherents! I myself love the sound of a fresh vinyl pressing played through a good tube amp, with excellent, high-efficiency speakers. However, analog (whether vinyl or mag tape) has some very real problems. One of the biggest is that analog storage media are susceptible to degradation.

Every time you make a copy of a recording in the analog realm, you will lose at least 3 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Period. You will also introduce a change in the frequency spectrum peculiar to the equipment used in the copy. That's how EQs started out -- to compensate for equipment-based changes in frequency response.

Then there is "longevity." If you have a killer-quality mag tape master, there will eventually be Print-Through, where the magnetic domains from one layer magnetize the neighboring layers (and vice-versa). Every time you play a vinyl, there is a small amount of wear on the grooves (and the stylus -- you have to replace even diamond styli occasionally).

So in the analog realm, the 2nd law of thermodynamics lurks at every step, introducing random degradation. It may not be enough to bother you. And some actually embrace that degradation, thinking it adds character (pop! click!). :-)

Digital

With the introduction of CDs, music (and video) became 1's and 0's. For this to happen required using DSP (Digital Signal Processing), which introduced its own set of problems -- mainly artifacts in the Analog-to-Digital conversion (ADC), Digital-to-Analog (DAC), or in the DSP algorithms themselves.

This thread has mainly focused on the DSP storage algorithms themselves: specifically, mp3 vs. CD format.

The big difference between the file formats is that MP3 is a lossy format, while CDs are stored in a lossless format. You see the same thing in jpeg vs. RAW formats in high-end cameras.

Each kind of format introduces digital artifacts on initial digitization. However, as long you stay with a lossless algorithm, you can convert and edit the files without introducing additional artifacts.

CDs use still use the original 44.1 kHz CD-DA (Compact Disc - Digital Audio) developed by Phillips and Sony in the 80s. The most popular computer-based lossless format is WAV or WMA.

Rip a CD to WMA on Windows at 44.1 kHz, and you have (essentially) an exact copy of the CD. However, Apple -- iPods included -- doesn't play window's tune (pun intended). FLAC provides a free lossless codec (coder-decoder). Apple provides AIFF or ALAC.

Although lossless algorithms are snifty-doodle in terms of sound, the files are huge. Enter MP3.

MP3 is a format that stores music in a compressed format, which allows you to put TONS more music on your device. However, it's a lossy format. Which means there is an inherent loss in quality every time you mess with it -- from the initial rip from CD to each time you edit in (say) Audacity.

Now comes the big question: what is the tradeoff point? Here's where Michael hit the nail on the head -- he can live with MP3's lossy format, by minimizing the lossy artifacts. Use the highest sample rate you can afford. If doing live recordings, save the mp3 conversion until the very last step.

I've heard a lot of mp3 that have been ripped, converted, edited, and reconverted until the sound is absolute garbage. Some people don't mind (with heavy metal, you probably could not notice the difference: GIGO).

When I record a rehearsal on my Zoom H2, I use 44.1 khz WMA. I do all the editing in WMA, keeping the Audacity project. Only when I'm done, do I export to MP3, to move to my IPod. It's not studio quality, but I can live with it, for a rehearsal recording -- and it's affordable.

So with all the position-taking on this thread, it all boils down to what you and your ears can live with. So the iPod is really popular, because when handled well, it produces reasonable quality audio for listening. So what if it's not digital-master quality? You are going to listen to it, not produce commercial CDs.

And it fits in your pocket. Try that with a turntable and a tube amp!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/28/apple-audio-file-adaptive-streaming

I think this is a step in the right direction, maybe in 4-5 years we will be listening to 24/96 audio on everything, everywhere. Converting files is silly with today's speeds and space.

The iPods and the iPhone 4 are one of the best mp3-players in terms of sound quality. This quality is not the only one that is relevant. Why is that? Simple: Your headphones decide how it will sound.

If you have 10$ earphones, the quality of your mp3-player does not matter as the earphones are really really bad. Because they make the sound you need to get good headphones. I use In-Ear-headphones, because they reduce noise when I am outside and they sound as great as big ones. Those are Westone UM2 for about 320 dollars (or 250 Euros because I live in Europe). They fit to the sound quality of my Sansa Fuze player that costs about 50$, it sounds the same. Westone is also the best manufacturer in terms of comfort. You do not even notice the in-ears in your ear (you forget about them). Of course there are a lot of other manufacturers making great in-ears as well.

You want to listen to it at home? Then I recommend open earphones, the big ones. AKG701 for example are not expensive and sound great, I believe they will be just fine for classical music. Now you have to be careful: On mp3-players those big earphones won't sound good or at least you won't be able to turn up the volume at all. You should have a hi-fi system for that.

I guess you want to use that outside. A mobile player at home would not make sense anyway. Therefore I suggest you look into In-Ears. I bought my Westone UM2 about five years ago and they still are in the best condition possible - I might use them for the rest of my life. Look at it this way and the price does not look that high anymore.

You can copy ("rip") your CDs onto your computer by using Exact Audio Copy (EAC). There are tutorials on how to configure it correctly. If you do that, it checks that the copy is a 1:1 copy without any errors. You can use a lossless format such as FLAC, but unless you have very expensive headphones you won't notice a difference to MP3.

I suggest using MP3, lame encoder, with variable bitrate settings, setting V0 (the best MP3 quality). This does not say much, but if you read a tutorial on how to configure EAC, you will figure it out.

TL;DR:
1) Make sure your audio CD has a good quality in the first place.
2) Copy this CD onto your computer by using EAC. Save it as MP3 V0 (lame encoder), EAC does this for you (follow a tutorial).
3) Copy this on a mp3-player. Any iPod will do fine, but you can use another player as well, there is not too much difference.
4) Use medium-to-high-quality headphones (300 dollars upwards). If you want to listen to it outside I recommend In-Ears.

If you need any help or recommendations just ask.

However: If you do not follow my recommendations and just rip it to some format with an old encoder and a bad ripping program you really might end up with bad quality. That is why I wrote exactly what programs and settings to use.

I just read your answers here and you certainly do not understand MP3. MP3 is not MP3, there are different algorithms to create a MP3 and simply saying that reduced size makes quality worse is wrong. It is also wrong to say that the cutoff cuts out music. As you can see in the following link, it only cuts off everything above 19kHz at V0: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=LAME#Technical_information

Open this link to check how high this is: http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/

Can you hear anything above 19kHz? Can you even hear 19kHz?

I didn't see anybody say that. What I said was that using a lossy filter introduces artifacts, which is an actual fact. If you can produce an MP3 with a lossless filter, that would be good.

Please read carefully, before throwing out accusations. You are taking a position for your personal preference, and that's OK. But saying that someone is wrong, when they are not, is bad form. Not to mention rude.

You are correct that current iPods are among the best MP3 players. That's why I have one.

My point was NOT that mp3 is bad, but that it's important to know the format's limitations and minimize artifacts. Any good tool, carelessly used, can degrade quality (put a Strad in the hands of a beginner and see how things turn out). :-)

So I was actually making the case for using MP3s on an iPod, not challenging anyone's strongly-held belief system. If you go back and carefully read, you will find I was making your case for you.

Getting back to the original poster's question:

In its range, an iPod is probably close to the best buy you can find. Just be careful with mucking too much with MP3 edits and/or low sample rates, and you will probably find it a good buy.

Not as good as on CD, but infinitely better than on the radio. Leave all the Hz and bits to the techies. Import your CD's at high quality and you will be wondering where this ipod has been all your life.

BTW: All this talk about mp3's-that's just a figure of speach right? We're using that the way we Xerox something on a Cannon copier? I've been using AAC for years. My understanding was that it was supposed to give better quality at the same bitrate.

What bothers me is that a lot of people here simply state that MP3 does not sound as great as a CD does. There is no explaination at all. There have been (and there still are) tests to check whether anybody really hears a difference - done with very expensive equipment. Maybe somebody really hears a minimal difference, even though I do not believe it - even then, the difference is very, very minimal. To state that mp3 sounds worse than CD quality is plainly wrong.

Here is an example of what really happens:

>all my cds are ripped at 192 kbps, variable bit rate, and the audiio quality is better than fm radio in the car, but worse than cds, even in the car.

You state that the quality is worse than with CDs in the car, and you state that you use mp3 (once again, encoder-settings are relevant). This does not automatically mean that mp3 is the cause of the bad quality. You are probably using the headphones output of your iPod - try the line-output with the dock-connector (FiiO L3 adapter for example) which is better suited.

You can't just compare your cd-player to your iPod. When you compare different audio sources it is necessary to have them on the same volume levels. That needs to be adjusted beforehand.

See what I mean? In this case Arnie comes to the conclusion that mp3 sounds worse than CD quality even though this is probably not related to mp3 at all.

Basically I was pointing out that every recording method has many trade-offs. What is not good enough for one person, is just fine for another. And cost is a big part of that. Convenience is another.

Even though I went into EE to become a recording engineer, I'm just not interested in the big-buck stuff any more. I'd rather spend that money (if I had it) on a new instrument or some such.

Most people in this forum aren't techies. Come to think of it, I value their knowledge on violin, so people's stance on audio equipment don't even figure into it for me. If somebody chooses something that I would not pick, it works for them, and we're all good here.

But hey -- if someone has an opinion, just say that's what it is, rather than saying something like "you have to have the WhizMaster 2000 or you're no good." For crying out loud, it's just a piece of electronics that will be obsolete in 5 years. There are fine people and musicians in this discussion group. I want to publicly acknowledge the high quality of the camaraderie here.

And now, I beg indulgence -- I need to practice for this weekend's concert...

Lyndon, I have participated in them an in others. A friend of mine is a speaker-manufacturer and until 2010 or so he made a few tests every year. This did only prove what we expected: Besides from MP3/CD, there also isn't any difference between cables, between amplifiers etc.

There are few 'official' tests also, done for example by the magazine c't in the year 2000, link here (german): http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html

A mp3-player isn't necessarely obsolete after few years. I now have the same player and earphones for a few years and will keep them as long as they work. New devices won't do the task of playing music better, that is already fully developed. It is necessary to change the battery though.

I won't discuss the quality of mp3 anymore, there is no point in that, I have said what I wanted to. The recording itself and the actual speaker (then including the acoustics of the room!) or headphones is where the big difference is at. Unless this is well-chosen discussing about such little differences when it comes to file formats leads nowhere. I wonder why I didn't just write that in the first place.

I can (still) tell the difference between a CD and an MP3, but I still MP3s on my iPod. Now my cheesy old brand X MP3 player still works, but the iPod sounds SO much better, even with the exact same files.

When you boil it down, it's all about the music.

@Arnie I remember being in an audiophile shop many years ago when a decent CD player was $300 and those made by Kyocera and ReVox were closer to $3000. I had good ears in those days and there was absolutely no difference in their sound. The salesman tried all of his tricks, playing one of them through better speakers (speakers actually have moving parts and still actually matter) and playing one of them the slightest bit louder, etc. All the while smoking his pipe right in the store next to all that high-end gear. Their best "amplifier" that they had on sale was some kind of thing that looked like a glowing miniature ziggurat that sat on the floor in the middle of the room. During those days there was also a renaissance of tube amplifiers, which people insisted sounded "warmer" (simply because "warm" is what they associated with the orange glow of the vacuum tubes -- the only reason why a vacuum tube amplifier would sound "warmer" is by having a higher level of harmonic distortion).

Funny that the argument over phonograph styli has become an argument over digital sound storage. But everyone has to have a hobby.

I guess we are deviating from the original post.....
from your description you were certainly in an audiophile store. Appropriate comment on the power amps. The "class A" amps make wonderful space heaters also. they should do alot for 10K.

I don't doubt your opinion and perspective, however when I was in my late 20's, single, and doing quite a bit of audio gear shopping, I always heard differences in CD players, given "decent" equipment (ie B and W/ Thiel/martin logan/magna planer speakers, and appropriate amps)and decent room acoustics. The differences were subtle, and I did have to go back and forth quite a bit to be certain. even 2 years ago (with 50+ year old ears) I could hear a difference between a 600.00 Rotel Cd player, and a 1200.00 arcam CD player. Again, not dramatic. Generally the differences are in some amount of clarity and "imaging"...how the soundstage presents itself to your ears. The more obvious differences (bass, treble) are generally non-existent.

Now the thing is: This distortion factor is so very very low, it does not even matter. Every speaker has a 100-1000 times higher dist.factor (!). In the end those class A amps use more power, get hotter, therefore they stress the components more. So much about those amps. But written on the paper it looks better, that is all.

Arnie, some years ago there were differences between cd-players and other devices, simply because their D/A-converter (it changes the digital signal into analog signals for the speakers) were not equally good. Nowadays all the players (besides the very cheap ones) use converters where there simply isn't any difference. The difference is however found when looking at the build quality and looks of the device.

You could however really have heard differences, but you cannot be certain. It might have been real, but it could have been an illusion too. It does not matter anyway, because you know that the difference you heard is never worth the money. Instead of buying a more expensive cd-player, simply put the money to new speakers and there will be an undeniable difference.

Please do not take my posts here as if I am a know-it-all (is that how you say that in english?). I simply want to clarify what this fuss is all about when it comes to hifi equipment and related stuff. I see a lot of people wasting money on hifi, buying unnecessary equipment and believing stuff they get told in stores or even online. There is a lot of misinformation (on purpose) out there.

Which software do people recommend for ripping CDs and then converting to MP3 or WAV files ? Are any of the free programs worth downloading ?

It is not so easy to set up but you only need to do this once - the program will be configured to make a copy that has no errors whatsoever (given that the disc itself is alright and not too badly scratched).

You can use FLAC for CD quality, this ensures that you could burn the files onto a CD and get the same exact quality that was on the original disc (if you happen to loose it).

If you just want to use this on your mobile player, use MP3 only, it is supported with every player. You can combine FLAC and MP3, if you want both.

In case you want an iPod you could use Apple Lossless instead of FLAC. It has the same CD quality (lossless), but iTunes can read this format and even the iPod can.

I would not use iTunes for converting, if you do not own an iPod. But if you do, it would be a valid alternative to EAC (even though EAC still is more convinient because you really know if your CDs were ripped without errors). iTunes is nice to sort your library, I do not have an iPod but I use iTunes because it works really well.

Regarding the choice of the player: Do not forget that for audio quality the headphones are very important. Tell me what player you are looking for, what headphones you are looking for and how much money you want to spend altogether. Based on this I can suggest some good players to you, if you want me to.

Lyndon: I am sorry, but hifi-magazines are really really bad. At least where I live, there is not one single magazine that isn't "bought" by certain manufacturers. Their tests and suggestions are misleading and are one more reason why we can't have nice things. Even though I am tired of answering, I will do it nevertheless here:

>you dont seem to have a clue about the difference between class a and class ab amps(class a have measurably lower distortion)

Ahm, well, that is exactly what I wrote, the thing with the lower distortion. English might not be my first language but I think what I wrote was pretty easy to understand.

>your idea that all the cd players, cheap or expensive, use the same exact components, is not based in reality

No, I never wrote that they use the same components. I wrote that they use D/A-converters that produce the same high quality results and I specifically wrote that the very cheap players are not recommended. If you want to correct what I said, please do so - but at least read what I write first.

ps the "switching" that occurs in a class ab amplifier is when you go from a negative to a positive signal, or vice versa, not from a quiet to a loud signal, switching (or crossover) distortion effects loud and soft music.

of course class a amps dont have that distortion, but youve already labeled them useless wasters of power......

Switching occurs when going from a positive to a negative signal? What does this even mean? (The ouput is alternating current by the way.) The switching occurs when turning up the volume, as I said before, I was not incorrect. I did however simplify it: To be exact, the switching with normal amps occurs between 1 and (maximum) 3 watts of output power. With Class A amps this switching occurs later (at higher output power). However this point can be set with a control on the PCB of the amp and there are so-called Pure-A-amps which stay in the lower distortion mode at all times.

Nevertheless this is not relevant at all, and I already wrote why, because every speaker has a distortion factor that is 100 to 1000 times higher. Now I end this discussion here, because you clearly just want to "launch counter-attacks" without even reading what I write.

I will help Brian with selecting a good audio equipment and I really like to explain electronic-related stuff to interested people. I am however not interested in tiring conversations.

i just checked with an electrical engineer who worked for the bbc, bollocks was his assesment of your idea of switching in amplifiers from low levels with low distortion, then switching to high levels with high distortion, not true at all

basically high quality amps work very cleanly at low levels with hardly any appreciable distortion, but distortion rises linearly, not switching, proportional to signal output, the higher the signal level the higher the distortion, till at the amps peak, the signal becomes totally distorted, though much less objectionably so with tube amps compared to transistors

somehow youve confused switching, which occurs when the two halves of the push pull circuit are blended, with switching based on signal level, which in normal designs doesnt exist

i suggest you use your computer training to research a bit before you speak, your ideas of 100% perfect copies of cds being made in other formats is ludicrous as well, even a cd copy of a cd is never 100%, maybe 99.9% but not 100%, any of these formats youre talking about loose 75-90% of the signal from a cd, completely gone, no way to recover it.

And I suggest you read more carefully. You seem to be desperately trying to prove that I am wrong, but I developed amps myself and I know what I am talking about. Once again you prove that you do not know what you are writing about. Do you know that a CD is a digital medium? It stores information as ones and zeros. You can read this information error-free. It does not matter if it is your hard disk drive in your computer, your USB-stick, your favorite movie on DVD, and so on. If this was unreliable as you claim, we would not be able to use computers at all. This is one big advantage of digital systems compared to analogue systems, there is no corruption occuring (and endless algorithms to guarantee that!).

Questioning this fact shows your ignorance outstandingly.

>jumping to inane conclusions about amplifiers, im not even an engineer and even i understand the basics of how amplifiers work, they use a push pull setup, in class b one side handles the positive signals one the negative, google it or something

You are mixing things up - not all amps use a push-pull-setup. We were talking about Class A vs. Class AB, not about Class B. Class B uses this push-pull-method all the time, but Class A and Class AB do not. Class B is rarely used, but for example the McIntosh Unity tube-amps use that.

I'll explain the three classes, maybe you will understand now:

Switching in this push-pull-mode as you call it is only necessary above standby current (this is important!). Class B has no standby current and therefore uses this mode all the time.

Class A uses a high standby current (that is why it gets hot), this means that it does not need to use this push-pull-mode for a long time (but as I wrote: at some point the output power gets high enough to force the amp to switch to this push-pull-mode) but the components are always stressed because of this high standby current.

Class AB uses a low standby current, which means that it stays in Class A until the output power gets above 1-3 watts and then it switches to the push-pull mode.

push pull operation can be a biased as class a, push pull and class b operation are not necessarily the same thing.
Digital signals do get errors, it isnt perfect, that is why there are various error correction algorithms used. and Kristian, i have not imagined audible differences in cd players. As I stated, they are minor, much less dramatic than sonic differences in loudspeakers, and power amps. However when you reach a certain quality and price point with speakers and amps, a high quality cd player and the audible improvements it brings make alot of sense.

the comparison isn't exactly fair, beside using a medium that has several times the data of the MP3 equivelent, the D/A converter and electronics on the CD player I used are certainly of better quality that what is on the IPOD. Regardless, I listened to two disks - Regina Carter's "reverse thread", and Harnoncourts Beethoven #7. In both disks what I heard was that the CD had better dynamics. You could hear the attack of the typmanis, and the plucking of the standup bass (reverse thread) quite clearly on the CD, where as on the IPOD it wasn't nearly as dramatic. Also the high frequency response was not as good. The IPOD sounded a bit "muffled" in comparison. Also the "soundstage" was not as formed. on the CDs you can localize the location of the instruments, both across the width of the soundstage but also the depth (ie some instruments sound closer or farther). The soundstage on the IPOD wasn't nearly as defined. In the "audiophile" world this is called "imaging". In many respects this is an apples to oranges comparison. The fact that I can put 700 cds on a device, carry it in my pocket, listen to it in the gym, airplane, etc, and it sounds quite good is amazing. I can't do that with my cd player, preamp, power amp, speakers, and 700 CDs.

Oh, and it's not a real sound test unless your connectors are all solid gold and your speaker wires are made from 60-ampere industrial cable. Because everyone knows that "sounds better."

You'd get similar results if you went to a cyclists forum and asked, "Would a Schwinn be a good bike ride around my neighborhood?" The floodgates would open with recommendations for $500-$1500 bicycles.

That's it for me. I've said my piece and I'll leave it to the "experts" to argue with each other about who is correct.

Tobias, My listening test was fine for its intent. I simply subjectively assessed two different sources, and formed my own opinion. The differences I heard are not bound by the need that the average amplitude of the two different sources be within 0.2db of each other.

Feel free to do your own subjective comparison.

In many respects this is similar to the people on this forum that compare violins, bows, strings for audible differences. Yes, some are louder than others, however we do the best we can to compensate for the differences such that an opinion can be formed on other aspects of the sound.

>Tobias, My listening test was fine for its intent

You intended to find out if there is any noticeable difference - without measuring you cannot do this test. There is no need to do the test properly for you, am I right? Because your way of doing it got the results you wanted to hear...

> I'm amazed at the assertions that you MUST use FLAC or EAC or WAV or whatever

It is not necessary to use EAC with FLAC as I suggested. It is simply a convenient way to make sure you get the exact same quality that's on the audio disc. Nobody implied that one must use a specific format or program.

>In many respects this is similar to the people on this forum that compare violins, bows, strings for audible differences

No. There are violins that sound "squeaking", there are cheaper ones which will be hard to use for advanced techniques (flageolet etc) and so on. Those are definately differences which cannot be denied. You are mixing up hearing the "character" of the sound with hearing very small details on a recording, that is a whole different story.

heres wikipedias take on the mp3, as you get near the bottom of the page it goes to at length the defects in mp3 sound, and actually states that mp3 sound quality is becoming more popular as people get used to the distortions introduced by the mp3 format......

Time resolution can be too low for highly transient signals and may cause smearing of percussive sounds

may explain why I noticed the pluck of a standup bass string and whack of the typmani drum wasn't as dramatic on the ipod, as that of the CD.

still trying to figure out this "joint stereo" comment though...

I'll just never forget the pipe-smoking guy in the store. I asked him how Macintosh (I think that was the brand) justified the prices on its astronomically expensive vacuum-tube power amplifiers and he took a long puff on his pipe and said, "Quality."