Tube amps and iPods

Tvad,

I, for one, believe the iPod is a source that would benefit from tube amplification. While I don't run my iPod through my main rig, I do have a laptop hooked up, and I stream various Internet radio stations at bit rates from 64k to 224k, very similar to typical iPod output. These streams were made far more listenable when I added a tube preamp. I'm not exactly sure why that's the case, but I'm guessing the tubes take the edge off the compression artifacts, while possibly adding some beneficial harmonics of their own.

The biggest difference between my setup and using an iPod would be the DAC. While I have a pretty inexpensive Firestone Audio FUBAR DAC, it may be better than the Wolfson in the iPod, and regardless it doesn't have to run through the amp as in the iPod. I'm sure the iPod, though, would receive the same benefit running through the tubes as my laptop/DAC does.

Does it sound as good as my vinyl or CDs? Of course not, because no compressed medium does. But there's great stuff on the Internet, and anything being streamed at 128k or above is definitely worth a listen.

David

Tvad, I'm just saying there are plenty of good reasons to hate this idea besides the iPod itself, which is obviously in and of itself and its thusness and thingliness, to quote Heidegger, a piece of crap. But onto "lossless" compression - lossless only after you remove all of those pesky over and undertones from the bandwidth and do compression algorythms which again remove "extra" data which might be in a record groove. Which by the way, you still own the record even when your computer or iPod goes belly up. And right now according to the law, you never own, but only rent music on MP3 - that's what the rights agreement really means. It's yours as long as you don't mind retaining it a certain way, losing it if something goes wrong, and then paying to rent it again. This is why no backups. Sounds like records companies, doesn't it? How many indy records could you get for $9.99? Alot. 10 hours of music for $100. doesn't seem so bad to me, especially when it sounds fantastic. And that's assuming iPod people buy albums. Remember when you would listen to an 80 minute CD or three pack vinyl and it was a journey that was a story and had a point, and maybe said something about life? Sometimes you just can't say the same thing in a three minute hit. Do we really need to contribute more to throw away, artless, cultureless shlock that's gone in five minutes? Have you caught any of the Steve Jobs whining about how the record companies won't go along with letting people back up their stuff, and albums don't sell, singles do? The way the iPod is marketed, and with how crappy it sounds, what were they expecting? Doesn't it sound more like trying to win people like us over and the naysayers in the press, rather than actually change things? My point was more about disposable culture, gadgets, and badly made products. But some people don't have space or time or any (of the very low amount required for a decent system) technical skill. So be it.

You will never meet a more arrogant guy than Leonard Bellezza of LYRIC HIFI.

Wow, Biomimetic, great rage against the machine. If your "point was more about disposable culture, gadgets, and badly made products", I'm not sure you made your point. If you just don't like the iPod, that's cool. If you just don't like today's music, that's cool too. But the battle you purport to be fighting was lost long before you or I were even born.

As for me, I've never "rented" an MP3 in my life, but I have about 200 hours of music ripped from my own CD collection. My wife, on the other hand, loves buying both individual tracks and whole albums from iTunes, and has discovered lots of great music while only risking $.99. I think both of our paradigms are valid.

And by the way, I have plenty of "technical skill", and yet still choose to listen to music on my iPod. Amazing, huh?

:-)

David