hype or no hype? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : hype or no hype?



basite
03-09-2007, 10:19 AM
The fat man Itube...

a hype or not?

http://www.fat-man.co.uk/docs/product/itube_1.htm

sure it looks fancy, and it will probably sound reasonably for it's price ($450 approx)

I don't know what to think about this, It could be good, but it could be crap too...

but, why build it? IMHO If you use your Ipod as a main source, you probably won't care about tubes, and if you care about quality sound, you won't use your Ipod as a main source.


Anyways,
what do you guys think about this?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Dusty Chalk
03-09-2007, 10:21 AM
but, why build it? IMHO If you use your Ipod as a main source, you probably won't care about tubes, and if you care about quality sound, you won't use your Ipod as a main source.You're just plain wrong about this. I know quite a few people who use the iPod as...well, not as their main source, but as a frequent source. And they do care about tubes and sound quality.

That said, this thing is too shiny. I say, "hype".

basite
03-09-2007, 10:26 AM
You're just plain wrong about this. I know quite a few people who use the iPod as...well, not as their main source, but as a frequent source. And they do care about tubes and sound quality.

That said, this thing is too shiny. I say, "hype".

I can understand that you use your ipod as a frequent source, but not as your main source...

after searching some more information, this thing seems to perform quite good...

maybe a good new year's present...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Feanor
03-09-2007, 11:04 AM
The fat man Itube...

a hype or not?

http://www.fat-man.co.uk/docs/product/itube_1.htm

sure it looks fancy, and it will probably sound reasonably for it's price ($450 approx)

I don't know what to think about this, It could be good, but it could be crap too...

but, why build it? IMHO If you use your Ipod as a main source, you probably won't care about tubes, and if you care about quality sound, you won't use your Ipod as a main source.


Anyways,
what do you guys think about this?

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

These will sell to a few people no doubt; (granted not me).

Who said anything about your iPod being your main source? People will buy these to listen in their work places, for example. Tube sound is tube sound regardless of whether the source is compressed or not; (believe me, I have CDs that dont' sound any better than MP3 at 256 bps). Besides, some people do store lossless on their iPods. What? Don't they make 80 Gig models these days?

basite
03-09-2007, 11:20 AM
These will sell to a few people no doubt; (granted not me).

People will buy these to listen in their work places, for example.


In that case, it is a good buy of course.


weird, I'm starting to change my opinion...
Looking at the reviews, it can definately sell...

selling the Ipod dock on it's own too would make it attractive to more people though...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

nightflier
03-09-2007, 10:26 PM
but, why build it? IMHO If you use your Ipod as a main source, you probably won't care about tubes, and if you care about quality sound, you won't use your Ipod as a main source.

The assumption being made is that people who would buy tubes are also audiophiles with a high sense of quality over quantity. That's not always the case. There are many people (though I'm sure not the majority) who own tubes because they look cool, to impress their friends, to remind them of the old days, or even for that tubey sound, even if it isn't audiophile quality. This minority will likely buy this thing.

That said, this is still hype. In addition to the lower quality of compressed files, there are a number of other factors that will make an iPod sound average compared to a decent 2-channel setup, most of which have to do with the size of the electronics and the quality of mass-produced components in iPods. They just can't compare. I know that Von Schweikert and McIntosh like to show off their gear with iPods at shows, but I'm certain that this is more because of convenience, and perhaps the fact that most consumers don't know good sound anymore.

This is why there is such a large aftermarket for iPod add-ons - because iPods, and all MP3 players for that matter, produce very low quality sound. Most people who buy one change out the headphones before they even walk out of the store. I think this market for add-ons is driven by consumers desperately trying to improve on their initial investment.

Feanor
03-10-2007, 03:19 AM
The assumption being made is that people who would buy tubes are also audiophiles with a high sense of quality over quantity. That's not always the case. There are many people (though I'm sure not the majority) who own tubes because they look cool, to impress their friends, to remind them of the old days, or even for that tubey sound, even if it isn't audiophile quality. This minority will likely buy this thing.
...
This is why there is such a large aftermarket for iPod add-ons - because iPods, and all MP3 players for that matter, produce very low quality sound. Most people who buy one change out the headphones before they even walk out of the store. I think this market for add-ons is driven by consumers desperately trying to improve on their initial investment.

Especially about people buying equipment for the "bling" to impress their friends, neighbours, and business associates.

The first thing I did with my iPod was replace the buds with an AKG pair: huge improvement.

audio_dude
03-10-2007, 09:54 AM
the first thing to do when you get an iPod is to throw away the earbuds, don't even open 'em and go buy something better.

Second, never, EVER use the equalizers built into the iPod...

topspeed
03-10-2007, 01:39 PM
That said, this is still hype. In addition to the lower quality of compressed files, there are a number of other factors that will make an iPod sound average compared to a decent 2-channel setup, most of which have to do with the size of the electronics and the quality of mass-produced components in iPods. They just can't compare. I know that Von Schweikert and McIntosh like to show off their gear with iPods at shows, but I'm certain that this is more because of convenience, and perhaps the fact that most consumers don't know good sound anymore.Keep in mind, a few years back at CES, Wilson Audio played a trick on attendees by using an iPod. They had a competitors speaker set up next to their Sophia's, both seemingly being driving by a high end amp and cdp (can't remember what kind). According to TAS, the difference in the speakers was not subtle. However, the trick was that while the competitor's speaker was in fact being driven by the hi-end front end, the Sophia's were being driven by an iPod and a modest Parasound amplifier (not JC1's) connected by Radio Shack IC's! The demo was not to prove how bad the other speakers were, but rather to reiterate that while dealers like to push expensive cables, conditioners, and other frau-frau, the most important part in any audio chain is the speakers. An iPod burned lossless should, for all intensive purposes, sound just like a cd.

superdougiefreshness
03-10-2007, 11:36 PM
the most important part in any audio chain is the speakers. An iPod burned lossless should, for all intensive purposes, sound just like a cd.[/QUOTE]

While I am familiar with MP3 technology, I do not own anything that is designed especially for this format. I have a coworker who plays alot of music for all of us at work on his MP3 clock radio and for the most part it can sound very nice. As of late I can certainly hear the subtle compression on some music such as techno or pop style dance music and the like. But for such a small set up it sounds the same to me as many other small boom box style players. My question being, what exactly is LossLess recording on an ipod ? Remember I have never owned an MP3, so does this mean recording in full frequency cd format or does this mean something else altogether? As well I believe I would like to own this tube MP3 docking station, it seems like a decent choice for many different environments. And what a way to warm up the sound for a good set of speakers.
Later Dudes :ihih:

Dusty Chalk
03-11-2007, 02:03 AM
MP3 compression is a completely different type of compression than audio compression. It's basically "grouping frequency steps", so you shouldn't hear audio compression as a result of listening to an MP3.

Oh, and I agree with nightflier about there being alternate motives for listening to tubes -- that is absolutely the truth. True, my best amp is tubed, but my favourite entry level amp is also tube.

superdougiefreshness
03-11-2007, 03:54 PM
MP3 compression is a completely different type of compression than audio compression. It's basically "grouping frequency steps", so you shouldn't hear audio compression as a result of listening to an MP3.

Oh, and I agree with nightflier about there being alternate motives for listening to tubes -- that is absolutely the truth. True, my best amp is tubed, but my favourite entry level amp is also tube.

What might they be ? I have the understanding that tubes add a warmth and dynamics to the sound stage an openess you could say,air. I have only heard them twice, once on a hi end stand alone and the other time was on an old wwll Grundig radio console with a turntable in the cabinet. Both of the times were just lovely with a warm glowing sound. Especially on smokey jazz voice's. I would be happy to hear the other reason or alternate motives for tube amp's. I am new to the forum but certainly not new to the audio love affair.

Thanks :ihih:

superdougiefreshness
03-11-2007, 04:05 PM
Does anyone have the link to the article detailing all the different tube amp classes and what they mean? I have not understood the loudness factor information with tubes. I did read on the Jolida site something about tube amps playing 2 to 3 times louder per rated watts. Now that sounds very interesting to me.

Aswell, if someone also has the link to the same info on all classes of amps in general, I would love to read up and learn this stuff for my future buying and trying.

Thanks

:cornut:

noddin0ff
03-11-2007, 06:42 PM
This is why there is such a large aftermarket for iPod add-ons - because iPods, and all MP3 players for that matter, produce very low quality sound. Most people who buy one change out the headphones before they even walk out of the store. I think this market for add-ons is driven by consumers desperately trying to improve on their initial investment.

If iPods produced such low quality sound, then people wouldn't be spending more on nice headphones. The fact is they produce pretty decent sound (assuming high res to lossless files). The sound is so decent that good headphones can actually take advantage of it. I wouldn't spend money to more accurately hear crap. That just doesn't make sense. I also thought that as far as generic earbuds go, the ones that come with the iPod are a cut above. I've purchase maybe a half dozen pairs of earbuds from $15 Koss, $25 Sony's, $30 Aiwa... to $100 Shure E2C. I like the Shures' because they don't fall out. If it weren't for noise isolation I don't think they sound all that much better than the stock Apple earbuds. And i'd put Apples above the rest.

But remember we're talking earbuds here. My nano gets a little anemic with my Senn's 570's but still sounds nice. But, jeez, who in theirright mind would expect powerful amps from something that small.

Dusty Chalk
03-11-2007, 11:39 PM
What might they be ?To put it simply, my cheap tube headphone amp adds a lushness to the music that makes pretty much any CD enjoyable. It's like looking at the world through rose-tinted sunglasses.

nightflier
03-12-2007, 02:42 PM
Keep in mind, a few years back at CES, Wilson Audio played a trick on attendees by using an iPod. They had a competitors speaker set up next to their Sophia's, both seemingly being driving by a high end amp and cdp (can't remember what kind). According to TAS, the difference in the speakers was not subtle. However, the trick was that while the competitor's speaker was in fact being driven by the hi-end front end, the Sophia's were being driven by an iPod and a modest Parasound amplifier (not JC1's) connected by Radio Shack IC's! The demo was not to prove how bad the other speakers were, but rather to reiterate that while dealers like to push expensive cables, conditioners, and other frau-frau, the most important part in any audio chain is the speakers. An iPod burned lossless should, for all intensive purposes, sound just like a cd.

That was the reference I was referring to. But my point still holds - most MP3 players, including iPods have marginal amps. You can noticeably improve the sound of an iPod by adding an outboard amp; even the Bithead will help. Wilson was also using a Parasound amp, and while Parasound has gone down in reputation over the years, it still makes a decent amp. If for example, they were using the A23 amp, that's still a very decent sounding amp and would mask many of the iPods shortcomings.

In addition, even a 320Kbs MP3 is not the same thing as CD-quality file. There is still compression occurring in the file. I must believe that we can hear or sense this with a quality outboard solid amp and full-range speakers. I don't know what format Wilson was using, but the bottom line is that there are many less-quantifyable factors such as dynamics, depth, soundstage, air, etc. that a small device like the iPod by itself will not be able to reproduce well, even if the source file on its hard drive is very good. It just can't compare to a well configured high end cd-player / amp / preamp combo - the physics just don't support that. In the Wilson demo, there were too many other factors at play.