CD storage in drawers

Well, I got an Ipod for Christmas and my initial enthusiasm has waned=20 condiderable. CDs I have ripped just don't sound as good on the Ipod as=20 on the portable CD player.

I don't think it is possible to compare listening via head phones to=20 listening via speakers. The experience is so different.

So for casual listening the Ipod is fine but if I want to appreciate=20 then music then its either a portable cd player or the Naim and=20 speakers

--=20 Paul Mc Cann

Reply to
Paul Mc Cann
Loading thread data ...

There are a lot of factors here, including the quality of the headphones and the file format employed. I wasn't happy with the default quality from iTunes so I upped it to 192 kbps AAC. I can't remember what the default was but I get only about two-thirds the number of tracks as the iPod is rated at. That 50% extra file size makes a big difference. I don't use headphones, I hook it up to the car stereo as a CD changer. The quality is quite good enough for car use.

I agree.

I use a PC (with a good sound card, of course), Meridian amplifiers, and Cambridge Audio R50 transmission-line speakers. I apply only lossless compression after ripping CDs

Reply to
Mike Barnes

In article , january2005 @mikebarnes.fsnet.co.uk says... snip

I have been using AAC but the highest I can set it in itunes is 128kbps. How are you getting 192kbps

snip

Reply to
Paul Mc Cann

iTunes 4.6.0.15 Edit: Preferences: Importing: Setting: Custom: Stereo Bit Rate: ...

128 kbps 160 kbps 192 kbps 224 kbps 256 kbps 320 kbps

This is worth a read:

I use AAC 192 only for the iPod. My master files, also used for home listening, are WMA Lossless. On Import, iTunes converts WMA Lossless to AAC 192 without any fuss.

Reply to
Mike Barnes

Doh !

I put it down to the Apple interface. I've been weaned on MS.

I'll give that a go as I do like the Ipod, in general.=20

I've taken to using Etymotic ER6i (

formatting link
but bought them in New York for less in $ than they quote=20 in =A3) and find them very good and not as conspicous as the Sennheiser HD= =20

497=20

I'll have a read

Oh God ! I feared this. More technology to battle with when all I want=20 to do is to listen to music ;-)

Thanks for the help.

--=20 Paul Mc Cann

Reply to
Paul Mc Cann

I know, I know. It has "This wasn't written by anybody familiar with Windows" written all over it. Either that or they're being wilfully difficult.

Are they actually noise-cancelling or just well insulated? The other thought that springs to mind is where the remote control would fit. I've only used the iPod earphones once and the remote was really handy.

To me the technology is part of the fun, and it's resulted in me listening to more music.

Reply to
Mike Barnes

The first time I picked up an Ipod I threw it down in disgust. So un- intuitive. Clever for cleverness sake and not even that good.=20

Their PC interface isn't much better. Its years since I've had to dip=20 into a help file for instructions on the basics.

Not noise cancelling though they do make good ear protectors even with=20 mo music playing. Equally they don't emit that annoying tzz tzzz that=20 drives those close to you insane.

No remote controll on my Ipod. There is on my Sony portable cd player=20 which just clips to shirt.=20

snip

--=20 Paul Mc Cann

Reply to
Paul Mc Cann

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.