Tell me why I should buy an iPod over an MP3/MP4 player

AirCooledHeaven

totalsolutions wrote: »

it just works out of the nice box, no brainer, I have three or four and given several as gifts, never had a complaint yet.

Mmmm, I took my mp3 player out of its box and turned it on and it worked, I guess I'm one of the lucky ones

moneymouth77

An ipod is an Mp3 player. And offers MP4 too (video).

I'd get an Iphone if i were you. Like an Ipod it is compatible with your computer, offers loads of nice things all in the palm of your hand, and makes calls. (the itouch doesn't) - Plus you can buy tunes when you are sitting in the pub direct to your phone.

It is the best piece of technology i have ever had, that actually makes my life better - promise. - I'm a convert - not an apple employee

AirCooledHeaven

Marty_J wrote: »

I deal with $10,000 pre-amps that sound a little bit better than $50 ones.

I'm impressed than mp3 manufacturers have outpaced the pro-audio industry when it comes to sound quality.

And your point is ? Weren't we comparing mp3 players? Or are you just looking for kudos :rolleyes:

Marty_J

AirCooledHeaven wrote: »

And your point is ? Weren't we comparing mp3 players? Or are you just looking for kudos :rolleyes:

My point was that a $10,000 pre-amp does not "blow away" a $50 one, so it's pretty unlikely that one dirt-cheap mass-produced headphone amp or sound chip could blow away another.

According to measured figures, the iPod actually has more accurate audio reproduction than a Sansa (and pretty much everything else, including the Cowon D2).

I don't point this out in order out illustrate the iPod is better, but to show that (a) any differences that exist are absolutely infinitesimal and (b) that even if a perceptible difference existed, whether it's better or not is entirely personal preference.

Trying to pretend that there exists a massive difference in sound between the iPod and everything else on the market (whereby the iPod is rubbish and everything else is good) might make the "aren't I so cool I don't have an iPod?" crowd feel better about themselves, but it's just spreading FUD.

There are things one can do to improve the sound of any mp3 player, such as getting good earphones. Earphones have much more of an effect on the sound quality than the electronic bits inside, and the ones that come with the iPod are absolutely awful.

[Deleted User]

Raksha wrote: »

Having discussed it with the lads at work, it seems there's nothing an iPod can do that my Sony Ericsson K800i can't do, so I'll stick with that.

My K800i struggles to store 80gb of music
It also doesn't have a 3.5mm audio socket
It has horrendous video playback

Why anyone would compare the two is crazy.

Essentially - the iPod Touch and Classic do beat the competition because they are the best on the market at their price point. I would say that the nano is easily outclassed by alternatives by Sony et. al.

These days, my iPod touch stays at home providing a 'home jukebox' (Plugged into a dock, feeding the un-amped sound to my Denon micro-system) whilst i use my Nokia E71 for music and video on my commute. At the office I now listen to Spotify

cogito

Marty_J wrote: »

There are things one can do to improve the sound of any mp3 player, such as getting good earphones. Earphones have much more of an effect on the sound quality than the electronic bits inside, and the ones that come with the iPod are absolutely awful.

Exactly my point. Hook an iPod up to a decent DAC and good quality hifi equipment and I defy anyone to distinguish it from a CD.

Marty_J

ringo_24601 wrote: »

My K800i struggles to store 80gb of music
It also doesn't have a 3.5mm audio socket
It has horrendous video playback

Why anyone would compare the two is crazy

Sony Ericsson phones apparently now also have a library of 65,000 applications.

Who knew? :rolleyes:

AirCooledHeaven

Marty_J wrote: »

I don't point this out in order out illustrate the iPod is better, but to show that (a) any differences that exist are absolutely infinitesimal and (b) that even if a perceptible difference existed, whether it's better or not is entirely personal preference.

Trying to pretend that there exists a massive difference in sound between the iPod and everything else on the market (whereby the iPod is rubbish and everything else is good) might make the "aren't I so cool I don't have an iPod?" crowd feel better about themselves, but it's just spreading FUD.

There are things one can do to improve the sound of any mp3 player, such as getting good earphones. Earphones have much more of an effect on the sound quality than the electronic bits inside, and the ones that come with the iPod are absolutely awful.

Point taken, but as you know the most accurate reproduction doesn't necessarily produce the most pleasing sound, its the subjective colourations that lead to all the arguments about 'what's the best hi-fi'. Having listened to a lot of esoteric hi-fi I've found that many, to my ears, sound sterile and lifeless. But getting back on topic I think the ipod touch does have inferior sound quality. Maybe 'blows it away' wasn't the right choice of words but I thought it would get the OPs attention. My son agrees his music sounds better on my mp3 player but he wouldn't be seen dead with it. So it comes back to what the OP wants.

Marty_J

AirCooledHeaven wrote: »

Point taken, but as you know the most accurate reproduction doesn't necessarily produce the most pleasing sound, its the subjective colourations that lead to all the arguments about 'what's the best hi-fi'. Having listened to a lot of esoteric hi-fi I've found that many, to my ears, sound sterile and lifeless.

Absolutely, but it's just personal preference as to which is better. I don't really like thundering bass, so I might describe someone's hyper EQ'd Zen as muddy or boomy, whereas they might describe my totally un-EQ'd iPod Touch (and the EQ on iPods sucks, I'll give you that) as flat, boring, or lifeless. Each point of view would only be correct from our own respective positions.

But getting back on topic I think the ipod touch does have inferior sound quality. Maybe 'blows it away' wasn't the right choice of words but I thought it would get the OPs attention. My son agrees his music sounds better on my mp3 player but he wouldn't be seen dead with it. So it comes back to what the OP wants.

Well, if you and your son think it sounds better, I'm not going to argue with you. You might consider performing an ABX test some time to see if you can reliably tell the difference between the two; it's a lot harder than you think.

Our senses are easily fooled, and when we have a positive association (or a negative one) towards something, it can alter our perceptions of it.

Leopard

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Has Leopards account been hacked? He's not sticking up for some Apple creation!

In fairness, I think - well, I know - that if you look at my other postings objectively you will find that I have never owned nor wanted (lest it be a Touch) an iPod, nor an iPhone, and have no interest whatsoever in buying an Apple TV device. So, I have never championed those.

You would also discover that I have been robust, to say the least, in my criticism of Apple's decision to put glossy screens on its laptops, remove their Firewire 400 ports and now strip the 15" of its ExpressCard slot.

I do, however, like its OS X operating system and I hate Windows in comparison to it. I hold in equally high regard the software that Apple writes; much of which it supplies free to those who purchase Macs.

I have tremendous admiration for Steve Jobs, for Apple as a company (in which I hold stock), for their pursuit of excellence, for the quality of the goods Apple manufactures and for Apple's customer service, which is outstandingly good.

All of which, on the middle ground which exists between the poles of Marty J and anewhope, puts me a great deal closer to the former in my expressed views but far from being entirely in his camp. For guidance and impartial counsel I look to isofa - as others would be wise to. We are extremely fortunate that all three are kind enough to share their knowledge so generously with the rest of us.

ANYwaaaaaay. To return to the topic of the thread, if I may be so indulged, I think the OP was only making a comparison between the simple iPod and other MP3/MP4 players.

The iPod Touch is a completely different type of device (and price). It's a brilliant piece of kit.

The iPod Touch is a data device that can use the Internet and runs on Mac OS X (with all the advantages that brings).

The iPhone is, effectively, an iPod Touch with a 'phone and a fairly measly camera.

The only interest for many (including me) in an iPhone is that it makes an iPod Touch usable for data where there's a cellphone signal but no wi-fi.

If I want to speak to somebody on the telephone, I don't want to have to put my data device to my ear. If I do that, I can't look at the data and discuss it with the person I'm speaking to at the same time. I want to be able to look at my data device, held in one hand, and discuss it by means of a telephone held in my other hand, without having to rummage around for a headset, broadcast it to everyone within earshot or walk about with a piece of hardware attached to one ear.

Nor do I want a mobile telephone (such as an iPhone) into which I cannot insert a spare, fully-charged battery when it runs out of juice somewhere devoid of mains power. A spare battery is also less cumbersome to carry around than a charger.

I don't criticise those who are happy with an iPhone but an iPhone is inadequate for me. My own preferred solution is a decent camera 'phone (5 MP camera with Xenon flash, swappable battery, contacts book, access to incoming email, Bluetooth, radio, music player, GPS, etc.) plus a netbook (10" screen, proper keyboard, wi-fi, Bluetooth linkable to the 'phone's modem and Mac-hacked).

Everyone has different requirements when out and about: they need to find what works best for themselves; we shouldn't proselytise in ignorance of other people's.

But one thing is for certain; there is no point whatsoever in having any MP3/MP4 player the sophistication of which exceeds the owner's aural and visual acuity.