elfyx said:
Thanks for the insult. I was hoping to add snobbish to my list. And, unless you are willing to cite the actual studies themselves, I would tend to disagree. In fact, like most "studies" today there are usually an equal number of conflicting ones out there. So, besides your statement being a non-sequitor, there actually is growing evidence of adverse affects to lossy digital audio.
Can you cite one reputable study (or even a disreputable one) that talks about the "harmful" effects of lossy digital audio? Sounds like total bunk to me. At any rate, Apple has its own lossless format, so you don't have to worry about the dangers of lossy audio, fluoridation, or brain-eating nanobots in your cereal.
Here is a link to a study demonstrating how good AAC is compared to Ogg:
vvv.ff123.net/128tests.html
(replace "vvv" with "www")
By the way, you called iPods "overpriced" and then gave us a link to a page that showed that comparable iRivers were $30 more expensive! So, iRivers would be "obscenely" overpriced?
Finally, can your describe your "serious audiophile" iRiver setup? I use the following setup with my iPod and it sounds spectacular. Friends who claimed the iPod doesn't sound great are wowed by just how good the iPod can sound given the proper cables, amp, and headphones to take advantage of the excellent output from the iPod.
40gig 4G iPod -> Sik imp -> Zu Pivot -> Gilmore Lite -> Zu Mobius -> Senn HD650
You're not doing the iRiver a service with your misinformation. The iRiver is a fine product that can stand on its own merits. You don't need to trash the competition with nonsensical arguments.
Last edited: