Talk:IPod Hi-Fi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Audiophile complaints

That whole paragraph was terrible. While it's true that a low-bitrate MP3 will sound less obviously poor on pack-in earbuds than on a device like this, many have trouble hearing the compression artifacts of standard preset VBR MP3s even on their ludicrously expensive home theatre setups. Go poke around hydrogenaudio.org for a bit. Peoples' real problem with it, as I've come to understand it at least, is the sound quality itself regardless of what's being pumped through it. Very misleading paragraph.

[edit] Criticism

Shouldn't there be comments on how it lacks features common to most boomboxes, like a radio, CD/tape deck? --Madchester 19:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Got that covered. Thanks. -zappa 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this device not only does not resemble a boombox, but the purpose is not even that of competing with boomboxes. It is a replacement for a home speaker setup. It looks much more like a speaker for the home than a boombox. Like a Klipsh/Energy/Paradigm/Parasound/Dynaudio speaker. Not a boombox. Please get it right. This makes wikipedia look bad. Comparing it to a boombox is a mistake - even the company markets it differently.

-Well considering that it runs off of DC batteries, and has carrying handles I could easly see how you could compare it to a boombox. And according to Apple the Hi-Fi was not intended to take the place of existing home stereo systems, I don't think calling it a powered speaker is really truthful.

It seems biased to call it a boombox. Do boom boxes have speaker grilles? This iPod Hi-Fi looks basically like a center speaker in a 5.1 system. Its a horizontal, powered speaker. Boombox? Nope. I made the change.

One more thing: Most powered speakers (serious ones, anyway) have an internal power supply. It is completely unnecessary to say "therefore eliminating the power brick" (which is an Apple term anyway to denigrate the external power supply). So I removed it.

Well, since the latest changes the article looks much better. Congratulations. Good job.

The caption is wrong. There is no iPod in the Hi-Fi pictured.

[edit] Section removal

Many Apple users were expecting to see other new products, such as the anticipated Macintosh Tablet, on the day of the release. Some Apple users were disappointed with iPod Hi-Fi. In fact, Apple's stock price fell by almost $3 per share in the two hours following the product's announcement. [1]
Early criticisms included:
* High price, more expensive than other similar items, such as Bose's SoundDock
* Heavy weight and large size
* Placement of the iPod itself in a vulnerable location
* Lack of an AM/FM radio
* Lack of a CD player or tape deck

I have removed this section because:

  • it doesn't cite references, so it is original research.
  • "many Apple users", "some Apple users" are weasel words.
  • the disappointment is not related to the iPod Hi-Fi, but to the lack of another product.
  • the stock price fall may be unrelated.
  • "high price" is disputable, there are home stereos that cost $1000.
  • "heavy weight" is disputable: how can you know this?
  • "vulnerable location": this is disputable too.
  • "lack of CD, tape deck": I would say this is a feature :)

If you have references for these criticisms, feel free to add the section back. Mushroom (Talk) 15:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing the references immediately, you should have done a simple Google search to uncover some early reviews of the device:
The articles sum up the main points:
  • heavy weight (actual boomboxes are easily transportable)
  • high cost (similar iPod speakers/boomboxes are much cheaper... Bose SoundDock is $299, Altec Landing's iMotion7 is $249, etc.)
  • over simplicity (lack of basic functionality such as an FM tuner, and even a video screen)
  • Product disappointment, as shown in public blogging response and also by market analysts (see Forbes article).
--Madchester 16:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I have added some of these references. Mushroom (Talk) 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright cool. Cuz when Apple comes out with a good product, I always read up on how people make impulse purchases to get the item immediately after its available at Apple's webiste or store. I just don't see the same buzz with yesterday's new offerings. I heard that Apple is delaying their "cooler" products for an April 1st launch to coincide with their 30th anniversary. --Madchester 18:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I heard this too, and I hope it's true :) Mushroom (Talk) 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article seems very POV. The first section explains what the iPod Hi-Fi is, and then the only other section explains its criticism. I don't believe that the criticism section belongs here because it seems that people are upset because certain things weren't released on Tuesday (e.g. Intel iBook, Widescreen iPod, Video Airport Express, etc.). If everyone really insists that this section remain, however, there should be another section offering a counter-perspective. MrC 20:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it seems rather fair to me. The fact is the product doesn't have much buzz as other Apple product releases. Even the most fanyboy Apple sites (like iLounge) have release disappointing reviews of the product... [2]

--Madchester 04:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Any editor that uses the word "Fanboy" is clearly biased.

It certainly reads to me to be full of audiophile snobbery. The screed about how (I paraphrase) "oh, any real audiophile wouldn't want one of these" is a particularly low point. Wikipedia isn't a product review site, right? --Mike 08:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is relevant due to the fact that Apple is referring to the Hi-Fi as being of "Audiophile" quality. Wikipedia may not be a review site, but I think it is the point of Wikipedia to collect and archive opinions and controversy surrounding a person, event, object, place ect. However, I do believe that the average listener's viewpoint was lacking, so I added in some of my experiences with the device. --Matt 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is still chock full of weasel words, though. Whole chunks of it just need throwing away if it's to be at least slightly NPOV. Right now it reads like one long diss from a bunch of audiophiles, who are well known for judging products based entirely on price. I get the feeling that if it had cost $10,000 the audiophiles would be rushing out in droves to buy one. Okay - maybe that's a little harsh, but there's a tone of sneering superiority in there which just rubs me up the wrong way. --Mike 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the audiophile community's opinions of an item are not based on price whatsoever. Look at the popularity of gain clone amplifiers. Look how harshly criticized Boston Acoustics is within the audiophile community as being overpriced. Regardless, I believe the reason those comments are there, is to balance out the claim that Apple has made. I think it is clearly stated in the "Audiophiles viewpoint" is of opinion. It should remain there as it is not so much of a review, as it is controversy. I did remove some of the marketing issues from the sound quality section into it's own section. Matt 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


This looks fairly balanced now, with viewpoints from the two main tarrget markets for the product. --Madchester 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Excerpt from the manual of style

   Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia:
   * ==Notes== section: Used for footnotes which are not full citations of sources.
   * ==Notes and references== section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes.
   * ==Footnotes== section: Used for all other cases.

[edit] Reviews.

There are too many reviews in the "External Links" section - there's no need for so many. Some of them (all but the top three) have been deleted - Wikipedia is not a link farm, and a few reviews will suffice. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not objective?

I can't understand why there are subjective comments about this product. I think they should be removed.

If the reason for them is to make some kind of historical record, other than purely technical, I think there should be some positive comments as well. That would at least give this article some credibility, now it sounds like Bose wrote it.

The piece "The audiophile's viewpoint" does not include any references to any actual audiophile comments, why not?

I found some examples:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/406Astph.html

http://www.hometheatermag.com/ipodaccessories/606apple/index.html


The article even uses some news analysts as references. People making claims about the product, without even using it first.


This article is subjective. It's like writing:

Manchester united sucks, says every Arsenal supporter we asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.231.10 (talk • contribs)

[edit] 3hz +- 3dB????

There's no way that the iPod hi-fi's requency range is 3hz-16khz +- 3dB. Even 30 dB would be quite remarkable for a speaker that small - 30dB is well into subwoofer territory. Does anyone know the real response? --mcpusc (not logged in)

[edit] This thing isn't remotely hi-fi, so let's at very least remove illogical noze-stretchers.

However, much of the criticism is due to the fact that the higher quality sound coming from the iPod Hi-Fi makes the lossy quality of the sound files (such as MP3), normally listened to through the ear-sets of iPods, much more noticeable.

This statement is without basis. I've removed it. It's wrong on two fronts: 1) I can't think of how it could possibly be corroborated that the iPod Hi-Fi is revealing more lossiness than iPod headphones are. This would imply that the machine is so hi-fi that it sounds low-fi due to the source material. Whoever wrote that needs to demonstrate how they aren't pulling that statement out of the air. 2) Unless Hi-Fi means nothing at all, this machine produces nothing remotely Hi-Fi. That's more difficult to demonstrate in this post than point number 1, but it would be difficult to find anyone at any range of audio expertise – from moderate audio enthusiasts, to sales-reps at high-end audio stores, to obsessive audiophiles and sound professionals who wouldn't burst out laughing at the idea of calling the iPod Hi-Fi a real hi-fi piece of equipment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.43.127 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed from tthe Sound quality section: "It is a convenient way for some to share the music on their iPod with friends, family, and other people while on the go, or at home." This was a rather odd sentence. What does "share" mean? Does it mean "play"? And how do you play it while "on the go"? This isn't a portable unit. In any case, the sentence isn't about Sound quality.

[edit] Likeliness of Product continuation

Does this page need market data, say if it can be found data according to the sales per year. For example if there is a general decrease it could result in a discontinuation - rumours also appearing on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 21:04, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adaptors for.. what model?

In the article, it states that the only form of connection was the dock connector, and that it included an adaptor for 3rd gens, and "3rd gen U2 Special Edition" models. 3rd gens have a dock, and the U2 special edition never came out until the 4th gen if I'm not mistaken. Can anyone verify or fix this? Thanks. AquaStreak 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)