Skip to main content

We demand HD quality from our televisions, why not from our iPods?

BitrateNow that HDTV has been around for a while, prices have dropped substantially, and we tend to take it for granted. But in HDTV’s early years, the price of admission into the ultra-clear, pixel-packed format was super expensive. Still, bulging wallets be damned, consumers were quick to embrace the technology.

HD sets were made first made available in 1998, and by 2008, 33 percent of American households owned at least one. Today, Nielsen estimates that 75 percent of homes house an HDTV. Clearly, the technology has spread like wildfire, but it did so – in part – thanks to an initial swell of demand. Consumers wanted this from the beginning, as brighter, sharper images proved seductive enough to spur mass adoption.

So, in this digital age – an age where everything is moving forwards at breakneck speed – why has the sound quality of our personal audio devices stagnated? Or worse still: Why has it been thrown into reverse?

 The iPod’s Domination

According to CNN, 75 percent of Americans aged 18-34 own an mp3 player, and 56 percent of those aged 35-46 do. That’s what you call mass adoption. The mp3 player has become a ubiquitous device and, clearly, one brand is head-and-shoulders above the rest in this arena. In fact, Apple’s iPod has such a stranglehold on the industry, its name has supplanted those of other brands’ digital music players. Of course, that makes perfect sense when you consider that – according to Forbes – Apple has retained a 70+ percent share of the MP3 player market for nine years running. Props to Apple for dominating its competition to that degree, but there is one aspect of that stat that sticks in our craw: The iPod’s sound quality is…meh.

 Wow this sounds … OK

Let’s be clear, compared to its direct competitors (those similarly priced and featured) its audio stands up fairly well. There are, however, plenty of higher-end options out there that boast a superior sound signature. iRiver’s AK100 is a prime example. Ignore the fact that its name pays homage to Apple, and consider the fact that its audio is leaps and bounds better than the iPod’s. What you can’t ignore, however, is its price tag, which weighs-in at $750. Still, Apple’s 5th generation iPod Touch retails for $400, and the AK100’s sound quality is certainly twice as good. And if you were to tack on something like Red Wine Audio’s iMod to enhance an iOS device’s capabilities, you’re right in the same ballpark.

So what makes your iProduct sound sub-par? Well, there are several answers to that question, each of them complicated. The first is that it won’t support truly high-quality headphones. Why? High-end headphones need power – lots of it – and iPods and iPhones lack a headphone amp capable of pumping out the requisite juice. Higher-quality headphones can also have higher impedance, which is basically their ability to resist electricity. iPods generally have trouble handling anything over 40 Ohms, while many pricey pairs of cans sport an impedance of 70 Ohms or more.

The second issue is that the iPod is not outfitted with what you would call a “premium” DAC (digital to analog converter), which plays a large role in how good any digital audio ends up sounding when played back. 

Finally, the iPod is incapable of playing back audio at anything better than CD quality. In fact, most files you’re hearing on the device don’t even sound that good. To be fair, however, it’s not really the iPod’s fault. Here’s where we deal with the issue of formats

Formats

The digital music revolution made life easier in myriad ways. Suddenly music was simpler to acquire, share, organize, and play, but there were drawbacks, too. When a song is digitized, a lot of information can be lost in translation. Less information = less faithful playback, and the music you love is, at best, diminished, and at worst, ruined. There are plenty of digital file types, each with their own advantages and drawbacks, but by far the most ubiquitous is the mp3 file. MP3s are created via “lossy compression,” a form of compression that deliberately discards bits of data. To make a long story short, MP3s simply don’t sound as good as CDs.

Let’s digress for a second and think about that. Imagine TV manufacturers and broadcasters had come to their customers with a proposition: ‘Instead of giving you clearer, higher-quality TV, we’re going to make TV highly portable and broadcasting content much easier to access – but we’re going to do so via a new format that will degrade picture quality.’ What do you think consumers would have said? It would have been a tough sell to say the least. So why is audio any different? Is it because we have trouble confirming what we can’t see? Or is convenience just paramount in the audio world?

In any case, MP3s are built around making sacrifices. If you’re looking for lossless audio, the easiest method is to use a program that will let you “rip” a CD. The problem is that feels like running in place. Are we supposed to be impressed that we can achieve CD-quality in 2013? Because we’re certainly not. After all, just as information is lost in the transfer from CD to MP3, information is lost in the transfer from studio mastering to CD.

There are, however, alternatives. At this point, most of them are little-known, but digital files such as FLAC files, actually reproduce the exact information stream originally recorded in studio. At 24 bits/192kHz (two channels of 192,000 samples per second, 24 bits per sample), the FLAC codec gives us what you’d think we’d all be looking for – an exact reproduction of the source material.

 Yet nobody cares.

Or at least nobody seems to. Personal music devices that employ the format are niche devices, generally ignored by all but audiophiles, while the rest of the populous bops their head to lossy, degraded, skeletons of the tracks they love. High-end personal audio offerings are expensive, sure, but they’re certainly not prohibitive. There are plenty of consumers out there snapping up $1,000 TVs, yet we scoff at a $750 digital music player. We haven’t worked out why yet, but we can’t help but feel there should be more folks out there listening to music the way it was meant to be heard

Editors' Recommendations

Adam Poltrack
Adam is an A/V News Writer for Digital Trends, and is responsible for bringing you the latest advances in A/V…
The 4 best long range TV antennas in 2024
The Antennas Direct ClearStream 2Max mounted outdoors.

You don’t need to pay a cable provider for access to your local stations. As long as you have an HD TV antenna, you’ll be able to pick up broadcasts from whatever towers are in-proximity. But what if the nearest monolith isn’t beaming PBS into your living room? It sounds like you may want to invest in a long range TV antenna.

Where traditional antennas are designed for indoor use, long range models typically do their best work when mounted outdoors, high up on a structure. You’ll also want to make sure it’s aimed toward the towers you’d like to grab stations from.

Read more
Sennheiser’s HD 620S closed-back cans have an open-back soul
Sennheiser HD 620S closed-back headphones.

Sennheiser has a new set of wired audiophile headphones, and while they may look a lot like the brand's famous open-back cans, the HD 620S are completely enclosed. They can be preordered starting May 7 for $350, with shipping beginning on June 6.

The HD 620S are something of a departure for Sennheiser, which has traditionally stuck with open-back headphone designs. The move was prompted by customer feedback, according to the company. “The hi-fi community has clamored for a headphone with the best traits from our 600 series," said Jermo Koehnke, audiophile product manager, "yet isolates them from distractions at work, home, or in-between.”

Read more
Sling TV slips below 2 million subscribers, and it seems OK with that
Sling TV logo on Apple TV.

There’s a fallacy in the term “Streaming Wars” — a phrase I’ve never liked — in that it’s all about growth at all costs. That the only way to “win” said “war” is to be the biggest streaming service. That’s the game we’ve been taught by the likes of the Googles and Facebooks of the world, and it’s undoubtedly a big part of why Google’s YouTube TV sits atop the heap of live-streaming services with more than 8 million subscribers.

Then there’s Sling TV. The legacy service has been slowly, but consistently losing subscribers over the years, while always hovering at just above 2 million. That’s changed, though, according to its first-quarter 2024 earnings, which were announced by new parent company EchoStar. Sling TV finished with 1.92 million subs, down from 2.06 million at the end of 2023, and down about 8.5% from the first quarter of 2023. It hasn't been below 2 million since I started tracking it in 2018.

Read more