Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Michael T. Doyle · Dec 6, 2001, 11:54 PM

I finally got my iPod today and I agree with all of the foregoing posts about the headphones. They're easily the worst I've ever used. Ignoring the fact that they're not very ergonomic, the sound is so lacking in upper range and vibrancy. They really make your mp3s sound like you ripped them at a low bit rate. All mine are ripped at 320, but with the headphones they sound more like 128.

I replaced them with a pair of standard, $20 Senheiser earbuds, and instantly my music sounded like it was coming out of my stereo system, very much 320 and very much like Apple's own headphones should have sounded in the first place.

My theory is that Apple knew anyone who would spend $400 on an iPod would already have their own favorite, high-quality headphones, so why bother including anything costly (or, frankly, useful) out of the box.

Anyone remember when Steve Jobs introduced iPod? He touted everything, but he mentioned the headphones in all of about 5 seconds. I don't wonder why now, but I did then.

It's not as if it's a dealbreaker. Everyone DOES have their own headphones, and white earbuds are not exactly a fashion statement.

Oh, if you were wondering, burning at 320 (variable bit rate) gave me 587 songs and about 180 megs left over.

And, yes, iPod is smaller and sexier than you imagine :-)

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael T. Doyle ]

hardcat1970 · Dec 7, 2001, 12:51 AM

I agree that the headphone sucks. It's a shame that it fits pefectly on my ear. I have never been fan of earbud, but this one is really fit. But the sound sucks.

I find the only thing to get this headphone works better is let itunes's equalizer to fix all of your mp3, but it will be pain in the ass though.

scaught · Dec 7, 2001, 09:48 AM

why do i keep hearing that the headphones suck when steve strongly pointed out how they were these fancy high range earbud things?? ohwell. i guess the RDF had me by the nuts again.

G4 Mac User · Dec 7, 2001, 04:14 PM

Just loaded my iPod up today. Arrived late yesterday.

Honestly I did not like the ear buds either until I put that little sponge cover over them. Now they feel very comfortable.

All the years of high end rock-n-roll have done their damage on my ears so the iPods sound great to me. Most of my music was done at 192 kbps. iPod has 636 songs (mostly old rock - when will I ever learn) with 1.6 gigs unused.

Your (Rip, Mix, and Burn Master) Pal

G4 Mac User

Todd Madson · Dec 7, 2001, 04:46 PM

The Sony "nude" earbuds available from Minidisco.com will quickly make
you forget all about the Apple earbuds. In fact, I'm considering selling
my Apple buds via e-bay - I simply don't use them anymore since I got the
Sony ones.

G4 Mac User · Dec 7, 2001, 05:38 PM

Todd,

What make the Sony nude buds better? Like I said if it's sound I'll stay with the iPod ones. If they fit into the ear better or something like that then I am all ears - hehehe

Your Pal

G4 Mac User

hardcat1970 · Dec 7, 2001, 06:14 PM

I think everybody has different standard. But overall people tend to agree that the ipod doesn't have the crispy sound. maybe "suck" is a strong word.

Michael T. Doyle · Dec 7, 2001, 08:23 PM

Suck is a strong word. But it about hits the nail on the head.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael T. Doyle ]

tonton · Dec 8, 2001, 03:14 PM

Strange... I did seem to remember Steve touting the "phenomenal"* headphones during his keynote, with their "Neodymium transducer magnets for high-fidelity sound"* but I checked the video to find out exactly what he said and it definitely wasn't in the keynote. He did completely breeze past mentioning them. Maybe because he knew then what we all know now: Neodymium or not, the sound does suck. Not to mention I always wear black and the too-long white wire is butt ugly. Back to my beloved black and chrome Sony in-the-earbuds...

*Apple site description

Michael T. Doyle · Dec 8, 2001, 05:50 PM

Actually I was thinking. People who like the lower and mid ranges and usually have the higher ranges (read: treble for the unwashed masses) turned down will probably like the iPod 'phones. I guess I don't like them because I like sharp, crisp highs which the iPod phones don't provide.

Todd Madson · Dec 9, 2001, 04:31 PM

The nude buds not only fit into the ear better (there are three sets of
different sized "gaskets" that you can swap out until you find the fit
that you like best) but the sound actually gives you real low end, real
midrange and real high-end. The iPod buds I had high hopes for and was
rather disappointed with their sort of "grandmothers car radio" sound
quality.

I think the comfort factor is the best though - the fact that if the
current set is too large simply use the smaller set. Or if the other
two are so small just use the huge ones.

More manufacturers should consider that not everyone has gigantic
earholes.

nonhuman · Dec 10, 2001, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Todd Madson:
<STRONG>More manufacturers should consider that not everyone has gigantic
earholes.</STRONG>

Sure they do ...after you cram some too-big earbuds in them.

I think I may have to try out these Sony nude buds. Maybe I'll finally be able to stand listening to "classical" on my iPod. (anything with horns and/or piano/harpsichord doesn not sound good on the Apple buds. organs sound pretty good though, much to my delight)

mrtaber · Dec 13, 2001, 04:28 PM

Since I don't use my iPod to jog or workout, I bought some Grado 80's--the iPod's amp has plenty of juice to drive them. The Grado's are very, very clean; good, crisp highs, well-defined midrange, and punchy, well-controlled bass.

I can listen to all types of music using these.

If you're having a hard time finding them and want to see 'em, check out http://www.goodcans.com. I bought mine there--$95, but worth every penny (and they sound great on my home stereo system, too).

Thanks,
Mark