Re: iPod loses again...
- From: NRen2k5 <nomore@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:25:23 -0400
George Graves wrote:
In article <fnpng.23009$zQ5.265965@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NRen2k5
<nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
George Graves wrote:In article <zHjng.19697$XT2.292765@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NRen2k5That's not the Zen. That's the Zen Nano.
<nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris Clement wrote:That's a LIE:MuahMan wrote:Creative Zen: S/N ratio: 97db"Chris Clement" <chris.clement@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1151088139.936736.91070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYou're the guy that brought up "sound quality", pal. Don't
MuahMan wrote:What part of the final rankings do you not understand??"PseuDoughIntellectual"And four times the storage space and a lithium battery.
<PseuDoughIntelectual@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1151086169.938443.59550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MuahMan wrote:This one:
That's good George. Shoot the messenger. iPod lost
in the sound quality battle... AGAIN. From the very
same article you posted a link to:
"If you like to crank up the tunes, the iPod Nano is
your best bet: In our tests it generated the loudest
signal before reaching 1 percent distortion. It also
showed the best frequency response, re-creating frequencies across the spectrum with less variance
than the other players did."
And:
"Lower signal to noise ratios are better (the iPod
Nano scored best on this test)"
So, AGAIN, what sound quality battle did it lose?
Final Score:
Zen 83 iPod 76 Dell Dj 76
at double the price it lost
But what happened to your claims that the iPod lost the
"sound quality" battle??
blame me because you got owned.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125555,00.asp
I direct your attention to page 4 where, in summary, it says:
Creative zen S/N ratio: -81 dB NOT -97.
Idiot! WE are talking about the players discussed in the PCWorld test
referenced above.
Anybody who KNOWS ANYTHING about digital audio will tell you thatI do know digital audio. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering,
its impossible for a MP3 player to have a S/N ratio of -97 dB.
Hell the source CD is only -96 dB (2 to the 16th X log 20, IIRC)
AT BEST and that's not compressed at all.
in case you forgot.
Forgot? How could I know it? I don't even know who you are. BTW, I
too have an EE and 30 years experience in audio as a classical music
and jazz recording engineer, a designer and a journalist.
And you use an Apple computer? Holy ***, what have you been smoking?
1) MP3 is not CD.
No fucking clue? Really? Its not as good as CD even under the BEST of
circumstances.
MP3 doesn't have a fixed bit depth or sampling rate, so actually you can
make MP3 audio at higher definition than CD audio, albeit lossily
compressed of course.
2) Not all music you put on your player is sourced from CD.
I'd bet 99% of it is. And if it didn't come from CD it came from some
other 16-bit PCM source or it came from an analog master.
Analog is reality. You say analog like it's necessarily a bad thing.
3) A >96db s/n ratio is still beneficial, as noise that is below
the noise floor of the original recording is still there, still
adversely affecting the sound.
The player COULD have analog circuitry that quiet, but I doubt it.
ICs used as amps in this type of equipment generally aren't that
good. At any rate, I don't see how you could test it without taking
it apart and injecting a test signal after the digital decoding
stage, with the digital stage clock disabled. All of which makes it
meaningless. Weight the test results and you could come-up with just
about anything.
Lies never "own" anybody. You've been BUSTED!Appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks don't own anybody
either.
What ad hominem attack? You were lying. The zen Nano (which is what
this thread was discussing) does NOT have a S/N of -97 dB. You said
it did
I said the Zen did
and when you were caught with your lie
No lie. Correcting PCworld's and your mistake.
you changed horses and insisted that you were talking about another
zen model (which is irrelevent to the conversation).
Try getting the model names right at the very fucking least.
--
http://pcguyelevated.ytmnd.com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: George Graves
- Re: iPod loses again...
- References:
- iPod loses again...
- From: MuahMan
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: George Graves
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: MuahMan
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: PseuDoughIntellectual
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: MuahMan
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: Chris Clement
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: MuahMan
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: Chris Clement
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: NRen2k5
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: George Graves
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: NRen2k5
- Re: iPod loses again...
- From: George Graves
- iPod loses again...
- Prev by Date: Re: Answer to all MuahMan's ridiculous Blu-ray questions
- Next by Date: Re: iPod loses again...
- Previous by thread: Re: iPod loses again...
- Next by thread: Re: iPod loses again...
- Index(es):