[betasp]

Originally Posted by ben.mcguire

Why are people defending this thing, if it didn't have apple on it im sure it wouldnt get a second look, its just a speaker with a dock in it?? if you have a half decent hifi with aux in just buy yourself a dock , its sooo much cheaper and nicer sounding.

If it were put out by B&W, or heck even Mackie or Genelec instead of Apple why would it not get a look if that is the market that you shop in. I can't say if it is expensive or not, because I have not heard it reproduce sound. How does it compare to my Mackie 828s?

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by beverson

Second, no built-in AirTunes.

And there is the root of our problems: Hi-Fi is just a device created to move more Airport Express units.

[Parky]

Originally Posted by Miniryu

And there is the root of our problems: Hi-Fi is just a device created to move more Airport Express units.

I agree a real missed opportunity.

I would have bought the iPod HiFi if it had built in AirTunes. It does not need the full WiFi solution, no need for the full Airport Express features (Ethernet, USB Printing), just Airtunes.

How great would it be to drop these around the house and stream to multiple sets at the same time from iTunes. It is not a cheap or neat solution to have to buy and connect Airport Express units.

Come on Apple release iPod HiFi with built-in AirTunes, maybe for $399 or better still drop the original to $299 and the wireless version could be £349. They would sell !!

Ian

[atlcane]

I was at the apple store last night and they had the new iBrick in the store. It is huge, heavy, but sounds better than any of the other iPod integrated speaker system. I still like the look of the Bose system. Much smaller, lighter, and has a nicer look. I will say that the sound on the iBrick is unbelievable.

[jmgriff]

All this talk of connecting iPods to a hi fi leaves me cold. iPods are great for portable music, commuting and so on. But why on earth would you want to play 128-160kb AAC (which is what iTMS provides, and most seem to rip at) through a decent music system when you could play the much better sounding CD instead?

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by jmgriff

All this talk of connecting iPods to a hi fi leaves me cold. iPods are great for portable music, commuting and so on. But why on earth would you want to play 128-160kb AAC (which is what iTMS provides, and most seem to rip at) through a decent music system when you could play the much better sounding CD instead?

Because many of us established the majority of our music collection in college, where everything is low quality digital. Music very important to me, such as my Prince collection or Pink Floyd, I buy on CD. But if I want to listen to a bunch of random radio junk from 1993 (as I frequently do) while I draw, I use the haphazard collection of mp3s on my hardrive/iPod. It would have cost thousands of dollars (+time) to track down the vintage songs I own in CD format.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Apple should have made it look more like this:





To be fair thought it doesn't look at big in relation to a person... well at least steve's ass.



I think everyone thinks it is more beastly than it is.

[ben.mcguire]

Originally Posted by jmgriff

All this talk of connecting iPods to a hi fi leaves me cold. iPods are great for portable music, commuting and so on. But why on earth would you want to play 128-160kb AAC (which is what iTMS provides, and most seem to rip at) through a decent music system when you could play the much better sounding CD instead?

That maybe the case but I like to shuffle my 2000 songs and just leave it to play, I dont have a cd player that can do that

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by jmgriff

All this talk of connecting iPods to a hi fi leaves me cold. iPods are great for portable music, commuting and so on. But why on earth would you want to play 128-160kb AAC (which is what iTMS provides, and most seem to rip at) through a decent music system when you could play the much better sounding CD instead?

At 192 or even 160kbps VBR AAC, you really can't hear a difference even on very good Hi-Fis. And there's no problem ripping to lossless either.

[Mastrap]

In blind tests nobody, not even the most experienced audiophile, could tell the difference between a CD and a mp3 file. Mp3, not even AAC.

[jmgriff]

Fair enough. I value the iPod as a portable player ... and I do listen to my iTunes library when working at my desk (because my hi fi is in another room). But if I am sitting down just to enjoy music tend to just use CDs - I guess I'm just not in Apple's target market

[all2ofme]

Do you have any references to back that up? I did some blind tests with a friend and up to 256VBR mp3s we could tell the difference. After that, though - nope. It was on a £15k+ stereo, though - I'm not sure that the differences would be as easily discernable on low-end equipment, though we didn't test it.

FWIW, all my music is now in mp3 - for the most part it's good enough to keep me happy, and I'm really fussy

Originally Posted by Mastrap

In blind tests nobody, not even the most experienced audiophile, could tell the difference between a CD and a mp3 file. Mp3, not even AAC.

[Kiddo311]

@Mastrap

THANK YOU. finally someone with common sense amoung all self proclaimed hi-fi experts. (there might also be some real experts!!)

the very reknown german computer magazine c't had the most comprehensive test on the matter, where audio pros, music producers and ANYONE who wanted could partake in a hearing test of different auto-formats. no one, except one guy ( i'll adress him later ) could tell the cd version from a 128 kbyte mp3 file with more that 50 % precision. meaning that you could've come to the same result by guessing. they of course also tested real-, aac-, ogg- and wmv-formats at varying bitrates, but even 128 mp3s passed the test.

the quality of your stereo is not important, because the sound-quality rises or falls for compressed or uncompressed files alike.

the one guy that could identify the mp3s with about 80 percent precision had some hearing oddity in one of his ears which made it easy for him to identify the compressed files simply because the psychoacoustic model to reduce the songs is based on a normal hearing person.

[jwoods]

I don't think this speaker is ugly, but I'm not going to replace my stereo with it either.

I know people like to buy things because they look cool, or whatever, but the design isn't bad. It's simple, and perhaps a bit understated but it's no uglier than a bunch of other speakers and what not out on the market.

Speakers.....I usually like to reserve judgement until I actually HEAR them.

If it sounds good should be the more important question here. It could look like a turd for all I care. I normally don't stare at my speakers when I'm listening to music.

[chrisutley]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I predict this product will be a flop.

Something like 90% of the posters here said the same thing the day Steve introduced iPod. Who needs wants a $500 Walkman they cried ... and the rest is history.

Killer product, probably not, but a flop - nah.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by chrisutley

Something like 90% of the posters here said the same thing the day Steve introduced iPod. Who needs wants a $500 Walkman they cried ... and the rest is history.

Killer product, probably not, but a flop - nah.

Ya but the iPod LOOKED cool, this thing is horrid ugly.

Plus the iPod didn't get popular until it got cheaper.

Why in the name of Zombie Jesus does this thing not even have a video out port so you can see the pics and movies on your iPod?

Even CHEAPER 3rd party ones have it like the M7.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

This one is way cheaper and looks better:

http://www.xtrememac.com/audio/speakers/tango.php

[analogika]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

This one is way cheaper and looks better:

http://www.xtrememac.com/audio/speak...s/tango_02.jpg

a) That thing is truly hideous from the photos.

b) The last time I bought any stereo component based on how it *looked* was when I was 17 (though I do realize that sound quality is irrelevant to many - there is no other way to explain B&O).

c) Every single product Apple has made over the past five years looks a LOT better in reality than on photographs.

[deermatt]

i played with this thing today at the apple store, and it sounds amazing! very crisp, clear, nice bass.. but i wont buy one

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by all2ofme

Do you have any references to back that up?

http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves.

[all2ofme]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

http://www.geocities.com/altbinaries...l/mp3test.html

Thanks, Tetenal - that was a really interesting article. It's almost perfectly in line with what I wrote, too - that we could tell the difference up to a certain point but not beyond. I think saying that nobody can tell the difference between a CD and a mp3 file is oversimplifying, that's all. There are a lot of other links in the chain from input to your ears that need to be considered

Liked this:
"By no means do classical recordings always have an advantage in this respect, and in the case of some pieces, participants were consistently wrong in their choices. For example, the Arabic Dance of Edvard Grieg’s Peer Gynt encoded at 128 kbps was preferred over the original by more than half of our participants. The compression may have eliminated some small weaknesses of the recording, perhaps a roughness of the woodwind players. On the other hand, Chic’s ‘Jusagroove’, a very dynamic and tight funk, was correctly identified by most listeners."

[imitchellg5]

The iPod HiFi is too expensive for me.

[ecking01]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

This one is way cheaper and looks better:

http://www.xtrememac.com/audio/speakers/tango.php

Cheaper maybe, looks better? It looks exactly the same but with longer sides to raise it up.

[atlcane]

I got a Hi-Fi for my Birthday last week. I have to say this system is amazing. Simple look and excellent sound. It sits next to my bed on my bedside table and I can actually hear it throughout the house. I have to say that I am happy customer.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

"The unit's performance is mildly disappointing--and somewhat surprising for a company that usually at least matches its competition. Though it sounds decent enough, the Hi-Fi didn't match the audio quality of the best-sounding (and lower-priced) iPod boomboxes from our past tests. And it offers few unique features and capabilities--again unusual from a company known for innovation.

So-so sound quality. In our audio tests, two previously reviewed models, the Bose SoundDock, $300, and the Altec Lansing inMotion iM7, $250, both scored better in overall sound quality than the Hi-Fi. By comparison, the Hi-Fi overemphasized bass frequencies, yielding sound that was boomier and muddier than its competitors.

Also, the Bose and the Altec Lansing units had a wider "soundstage" than the Hi-Fi, with better stereo separation and a greater spaciousness to the sound. (All three units were loud enough to fill an average-sized listening room.) "


http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/e...d-hifi-306.htm

[24klogos]

i think Apple is cutting its slices a little too thin, let the other folks take care of the HiFi niche and focus back in making COMPUTERS!! i know they need that fast, cold, ipod-cash to do so, but c'mon, whats next an Apple drumset? or an i-dj turntable made out of porcelain?

Want HiFi? make sure all your music is encoded properly in the first place, otherwise hit the local walmart for a nice $49.99 logitech set of speakers.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

Also, the Bose [...] had [...] better stereo separation