iPod Confessional


I've had an iPod (40 GB version) for four days now, and I must confess that it has been a huge kick. Despite my audiophile reservations (how could anything this small hold hundreds of my CDs and still sound good??), I've fallen in love with this thing.

Part of my rationale (and spousal justification process) was that my wife has wanted for a long time to have all-day Christmas music during the holidays. I used to provide this with 10.5" reel to reel tapes, but that's long gone. I'd thought about a mega-changer, but could never get enthusiastic about a big black box in my very inconspicuous living room system (Linn Classik and B&W 303s). But the iPod with the docking station and line out serves this purpose perfectly. The other night, I just selected "Vocal" as a genre, and enjoyed a great selection of music all throughout a long dinner. And needless to say, my commute just got a whole lot more enjoyable (especially with Eyptomic ER-6s to shut out the noise.)

As much as I like the satisfaction of holding a CD in my hand, and popping it in the player, I really think the iPod and other such players will eventually increase demand for server-type audio systems in the home. (I know, Linn makes one, but I'm thinking of something mortals can afford.)

I'm sure the MP3 files (even at the 320 kbps bite rate I'm using) are no match for the original for critical listening, I just don't find nearly as much time for critical listening as I would like. Now I'm getting to spend more time enjoying my music collection, and that's what it's all about, right?
rsuminsby

Showing 3 responses by rsuminsby

Ultraviolet - what bit rate are you using to rip your MP3s? I've ripped most of my disks at 320 kbps, and have been pretty happy with the results for background listening.
Leftistelf - I use the noise isolation 'phones riding the Metro here in DC, not driving...makes for a sweet ride!
Ultraviolet - my MP3s at 320 kbps run a little over 2 MB/min in file size, so they are considerably smaller than an uncompressed file.

I'd suggest looking at Wes Phillips review of the iPod in last month's Stereophile. In his listening tests, he regarded 192 kbps as the "breakpoint" where the quality improved significantly (he felt the difference between 128 and 160 wasn't as significant.) He felt that 320 was much more in line with audiophile sensibilties, and I respect his opinion a great deal. I haven't compared carefully between 320 and 192, but since I've been able to load 3000 songs on my 40G iPod, mostly at 320, and it's only about 2/3 full, I figure I'll stick with the high bitrate.