Re: iPod loses again...

George Graves wrote:
In article <xh5og.33036$8i2.278477@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
NRen2k5 <nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote:
In article <t%Sng.21988$8i2.120007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
NRen2k5 <nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote:
In article <fnpng.23009$zQ5.265965@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NRen2k5
<nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

George Graves wrote:
In article <zHjng.19697$XT2.292765@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NRen2k5
<nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Chris Clement wrote:
MuahMan wrote:
"Chris Clement" <chris.clement@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1151088139.936736.91070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MuahMan wrote:
"PseuDoughIntellectual"
<PseuDoughIntelectual@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1151086169.938443.59550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MuahMan wrote:

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?

This one:

Final Score:

Zen 83 iPod 76 Dell Dj 76

at double the price it lost
And four times the storage space and a lithium battery.
But what happened to your claims that the iPod lost the
"sound quality" battle??

What part of the final rankings do you not understand??
You're the guy that brought up "sound quality", pal. Don't
blame me because you got owned.
Creative Zen: S/N ratio: 97db
That's a LIE:

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.
That's not the Zen. That's the Zen Nano.
Idiot! WE are talking about the players discussed in the PCWorld test
referenced above.
Anybody who KNOWS ANYTHING about digital audio will tell you that
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.
I do know digital audio. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering,
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.
So, in other words, its not as good as CD.
It depends on your criteria. Based on your criteria, Dolby Digital isn't as good as CD.

Well, it isn't. PCM is not compressed using a lossy compression scheme. Of course it better than Dolby digital That's like saying that RAW format difital pictures are better than the best JPEG compressed pictures/ Well, Duh!

Your analogy is incorrect. The best JPEG compressed pictures *are* better than 8-bit RAW pictures, depending on your criteria.

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.
I didn't say it was. But the best analog recorders have S/N ratios of around -65dB without some kind of adaptive round-trip pre-emphesis/de-emphesis such as Dolby-A or DBX. So called noise reduction can add about 10dB to that figure.
Back that statement up.

I don't have to "back that statement up" I was using Dolby A and professional analog tape recorders to record symphony orchestras and jazz ensembles back in the mid 1970's (I was the recording engineer for NPR's "Jazz Alive" series in those days, for instance) I know what 15 ips/half-track tape can do and I certainly know the specs.

So then you assume that all analog recording media and equipment behaves the same as your 15ips magnetic tape and 30-year-old equipment?

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
The Zen what? There are a half-dozen Zen models of which the Zen Nano is but one.
The Zen. Just Zen.

and when you were caught with your lie
No lie. Correcting PCworld's and your mistake.
Right!
Glad you finally agree. I shudder to think how long it must take you to to understand any more complicated concept.

I was being sarcastic. You lied, get over it.

I did not lie. I nitpicked. Get over it.

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.
I don't care about the model names. The discussion was about the Creative Zen Nano and the iPod nano, and you bring some ringer to the table in order to obfuscate the issue and lie and that's the end of it.
And you expect to be taken seriously when you can't even properly name the player you're talking about.

This thread was discussing the Creative Zen Nano, I have no idea WHAT you're talkling about. I doubt if you do.

That's your problem, not mine.

--
http://pcguyelevated.ytmnd.com/
.

Loading