What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
67 Comments
- TimmyGUNZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If I'm buying $4,000 speakers, I'm certainly not playing MP3's thru them!
- Nerfaholic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow....they cost more per ounce than cocaine!
- Wasuregachi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
IPOD -- $250.00
Superfancy Speakers -- $4000.00
Using the above to play a 128 kbps mp3 and pretending the speakers make it sound better -- priceless. - Detour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only an idiot would purchase these.
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1garbage in, garbage out
- weirdal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what makes it an ipod accessory? is it because they are white?
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I ordered 2.
- charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Anyone who says MP3/AAC sounds fine either:
1. Has had hearing damage from his iPod
2. Listens to crap (like Hip-Hop, or almost anything coming out these days) where it doesn't matter."
Not true, 360kpbs files sound damn good. I'm a recording engineer and I have yet to find a person that can distinguish the difference in a blind test, consistently. 128kpbs yes, that's an obvious difference, but 360kpbs sounds indistinguishable from 16bit.
Also, as other people have pointed out, the iPod plays .wav and .aiff files which are NOT compressed file formats. I have a new iPod video, and it sounds at least as good as my Harmon Kardon does when the files are compressed at 360kbps. It sounds significantly better than the sound of my old Sony disk-man that I had in my car, played back through the same tape adapter and stereo. - davdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Audiophiles are silly
- rebug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nah, the BMW M3 is the most expensive iPod accessory around.
http://www.bmwusa.com/ipod/ - zelig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mp3-encoded 20 cent crap into $4000.00 speakers?
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You had better be hiring your butler to rip your cds at a much higer bitrate than crappy itunes, otherwise these are a waste of money or you'll think they're crappy 4000 pair of speakers, when its actually the quality of the aac you got from itunes for 99c.
- tussery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0$4000 could get me a nice 50 Watt Orange amp and a nice guitar.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sure the technology is great, but in my opinion they look like crap
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Omfg totally buying these.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone who says MP3/AAC sounds fine either:
1. Has had hearing damage from his iPod
2. Listens to crap (like Hip-Hop, or almost anything coming out these days) where it doesn't matter. - abhibeckert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"unless you are listening to lossless (do ipods support this? i thinkt they do...not sure) audio, these speakers are a waste of money for ipods. your lossy mp3s or other (aac or whatever) sound like *****."
They support uncompressed formats like AIFF, and they support "Apple Lossless", which is a "user friendly name for LAAC. LAAC is AAC (MPEG-4 Layer 3) using a variable bit rate, it will compress the song as much as possible without making any changes to the sound output.
The compression varies drastically, but it's averages at around 700KB/sec when the input audio is 1.4MB/sec AIFF (which is what audio CD's use). - chiptinder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not the most expensive iPod accessory by a long shot.. try $12,495..
http://www.intergem.net/ipod.html - krk3561, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you lost me after the first sentence TimmyK
- tennisballg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Might as well drop $200k on a pair of Wison Audios and listen to the radio through them, while you're at it.
- LanGamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Those cost more than my first car.
- toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0damn good point timmyGunz.
- stenspect, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2MP3s can sound as good a CDs as long as you import at a high bit rate. Or at least i know i would be hardpressed to distinguish the difference between 2 different encoding methods at a similar bit rate.
- Zeush8su, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1but still cool
- Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WHY? You can get a pair super high quality studio monitors for that price.
- xelloss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm, New TV, or Speakers for Ipod, hmm.
- stenspect, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You gottta wonder what kind of sound quality these bad boys can produce. I know many muscians by tube amps for their guitars b/c they sware the sound to be that much better....but $4k gets you a home theater. Cool idea, i would like to see a built in dock.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is simply dumb. Why use expensive speakers to listen to compressed audio?
- lostngone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People, People remember ipods play other formats then just MP3.
Ipods can play lossless WAV and AIFF formats
Just not ogg - robotnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1holy crap.
- kucing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Paying tax for this "iPod accessory" alone is $280, almost the price of a new video iPod.
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jeeze, and I though Bose were expensive accessories lol
- legomaniac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Retarded, why disgrase a good set of speakers by labling them an "iPod Accesory"? The only thing that relates these loads with an iPod is their color scheme. Retailers are just using the name as a ploy, maybe I would half assed care about them if they weren't labled the way they are.
- Warptera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Overpriced if it's sold as an "iPod accessory." I doubt that an iPod would take advantage of it fully.
- neoglyphix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Jesus christ, thats wild.
- infernoclan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thats not right.
- bat-21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Get a ZIP-AUDIO-IP2 and hook up the iPod to any damn stereo you want.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What, exactly, can these do that my $50 speakers can't do just as effectively?
This is pointless. - charlescheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It's not only a problem of playing compressed audio, but the audio out connections as well. You're still using the stereo phone output which sucks compared to RCA's, 1/4", optical & all other types of audio outputs."
Again, not true. If you use the headphone outs, then it's going through some crap. However if you use the outputs off of the weird connector on the bottom, it is no different that having built in RCA jacks. - BilldaCat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0how many CDs do I need to trade in to get these?
- kucing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you can't pronounce the name, you probably can't afford it.
- CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm sure someone will fall for this. Your sound quality is only as good as the weakest link in the chain.
- chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0thay look cheep
- johnmcd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My goodness.. Why spend four thousand on speakers and listen to low bit rate music, seriously how dumb can you get!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This product is hilarious, basically a decent pair of speakers with added compensation for the ***** quality audio that most tracks people store of their ipod produce (in other words its a serious pair of speakers crippled so that it wouldn't even be useful if you use lossless audio)
If I knew someone who bought this I think I'd ask them if they were within the return period very seriously.
Of course, nobody will buy this *****, will they? (haha, who am I kidding..) - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"A fool and his money are soon parted."
- thewordwasgod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0unless you are listening to lossless (do ipods support this? i thinkt they do...not sure) audio, these speakers are a waste of money for ipods. your lossy mp3s or other (aac or whatever) sound like *****.
hopefully anyone who would buy these are not listening to lossy audio, although knowing how apple fans are - im sure some will be listening to 96kbps mp3s on these. (and dancing while pretending they are in an ipod ad) - TimmyGUNZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd much rather take that $4,000 and buy a kick ass 5.1 (or 7.1) audio system.
- Obsession88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What they don't come in black, sorry pass.
To the iPod haters, ~80%
That's the market share of the iPod, BLOW ME!!
To the "this sounds better than that" people, everyone is different. Different ears, different likes, and dislikes. Not everyone listens to the same type of music, or in the same place (home, car, working out).
So what does sound best than? Your own voice in your own f'n head. - Goatman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You guys don't understand, it's not that the tubes sound better technically, it's that people like the sound of the tubes better.... there's a difference, MOSFETTs will give you a more accurate sound, and more true to what your putting through them, but the character, and tonal quality you get out of a tube is much better, same reason guitarist still use tube amps.
And comparing a record to it's CD counterpart is not very accurate.... First off, if they didn't remaster the record before they put it on CD it won't sound good at all.... but they often do terrible jobs at doing the remasters too... so you can't really compare, they were mastered to be on vinyl, so that's where they sound best. Not to mention with stuff like a record the pre-amp your running the turn table through can wreck the music.
I'm not saying the $4000 is worth it, but just mentioning that people like tubes for their tonal qualities, not because they are accurate. -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is